A Pearson’s correlation and a Spearman’s rho test were conducted to investigate the direction and magnitude of the relationship between the ages of the respondents and their perceptions of clinical instructor caring for all the subscales (Grove, Burns and Gray, 2013:561). This analysis was conducted in order to test the following hypothesis:
Ho3: There is no relationship between a student nurse’s perceptions of clinical instructor
caring and the age of the student nurse.
Ha3: The older a student nurse is, the more positively clinical instructor caring is perceived.
As is evident from table 4.13, there were not significant relationships between the ages of the respondents and their perceptions of clinical instructor caring, except in subscale 4, “Control vs flexibility, without item 30”, where there was a negative correlation between age and student nurses’ perceptions of clinical instructor caring. In a study conducted by Hall (2010:149), the means scores of beginning associate student nurses in the age group 26-36 years were the highest in all the subscales of the NSPIC, except for subscale 5 “ Appreciation of life’s meaning” where beginning student nurses in the age group 33 and older had the highest mean score. The mean scores of beginning baccalaureate student nurses in the age group 26-36 years were the highest in all the subscales of the NSPIC (Hall, 2010, 157).
Table 4.13: Pearson's and Spearman's rho-correlation of the relationship between the ages of the respondents and their perceptions of clinical instructor caring
PEARSON’S CORRELATION SPEARMAN’S RHO
SUBSCALE
What age are you? (Your age in complete years) What age are you? (Your age in complete years) 1. Instills confidence through caring Pearson Correlation -.023 Correlation Coefficient -.051
Sig. (2-tailed) .693 Sig. (2-tailed) .393
N 287 N 287
2.
Supportive learning climate Pearson Correlation -.018 Correlation Coefficient -.066Sig. (2-tailed) .767 Sig. (2-tailed) .266
N 287 N 287
Pearson
Correlation .000
Correlation
PEARSON’S CORRELATION SPEARMAN’S RHO
3.
Appreciation of life's meaningSig. (2-tailed) .997 Sig. (2-tailed) .540
N 286 N 286
4.
Control vs flexibility, without item 30 Pearson Correlation -.130* Correlation Coefficient -.155 **Sig. (2-tailed) .028 Sig. (2-tailed) .008
N 286 N 286
5.
Respectful sharing, without item 12 Pearson Correlation -.007 Correlation Coefficient -.032Sig. (2-tailed) .902 Sig. (2-tailed) .592
N 287 N 287
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Conclusion
a) The junior student nurses were significantly younger than the senior student nurses. b) The null hypothesis could not be rejected. The researcher thus concluded that there
was no relationship between student nurses’ perceptions of clinical instructor caring and their age.
4.2.7 Reliability analysis
Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient) were computed to estimate the internal consistency of each subscale. An instrument is internally consistent or homogeneous to the extent that its items measure the same trait (Polit & Beck, 2012:333). All factors with a reliability coefficient above 0.7 were considered as acceptable for this study (Grove, Burns & Gray, 2013:392). The mean inter-item correlations were also computed as another measure of reliability. All mean inter-item correlations above 0.2 were considered as acceptable (Pallant, 2010: 95).
As each subscale consisted of multiple items, deleting one item changed the reliability coefficient for the particular subscale. The impact on Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of deleting items in each NSPIC subscale can be found in annexure 13.
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the total NSPIC was 0.94. Similar results were reported by other researchers who found the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the total NSPIC to range
from 0.93 to 0.97 (Letzkus, 2005:46; Nelson, 2011:106; Roe, 2009:105; Wade & Kasper, 2006:167). The mean inter-item correlation was 0.365. Table 4.14 explains the results of the reliability tests for the subscales. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the first three subscales was well above the required 0.7. The mean inter-item correlations for the first three subscales were also above the required 0.2. The Cronbach’s alpha for the subscale “Control vs flexibility” was low (0.613). The mean inter-item correlation was at the required level (0.293). This subscale consists of four items only. According to Pallant (2010:95) it is common to find low Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values in short scales, and that it is more appropriate to evaluate the mean inter-item correlations. When item 30 “Is inflexible when faced with unexpected
situations (happenings)” was omitted from this subscale, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
increased slightly to 0.622 and the mean inter-item correlation increased to 0.367. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the subscale “Respectful sharing” was low (0.266), and so was the mean inter-item correlation (0.155). This subscale consists of three items only. When item 12 “Does not reveal any of his or her personal side” was omitted, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient increased to 0.826, and the mean inter-item correlation increased to 0.704. Based on the findings of the reliability testing, it was concluded that the subscales of the NSPIC (excluding items 12 and 30) were internally consistent.
Letzkus (2005:47), Roe (2009:105-106) and Hall (2011:106) reported similar findings on testing the reliability of the NSPIC. Letzkus reported that if item 12 in the subscale “Respectful sharing” was deleted, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient increased to .78. She recommended that, instead of deleting item 12, adding additional appropriate items to the subscale may increase the reliability of the subscale. She further recommended that the wording of item 12 should be modified as currently, it is stated in negative terms, making its meaning somewhat ambiguous (Letzkus, 2005:94). Roe (2009:106-107) found the weakest correlation between the total scale and subscales to be for subscale 4 “Control vs flexibility” and recommended that additional testing should be performed to determine which items in this subscale were affecting the relationship.
Table 4.14: Reliability analysis of the NSPIC