Results for exploratory factor analysis of the Barriers Scale

Initially, using the eigenvalue > 1 and the scree plot criteria, six factors were extracted (Table 6.1). On examining the rotated factor loadings, it was observed that the items: ‘research is not relevant to the nurse’s practice’, ‘nurse is unaware of the research’, ‘nurse does not have time to read research’, ‘research has not been replicated’, and ‘research has methodological inadequacies had very poor loadings on the extracted factors’. This is not surprising as most of the survey respondents were clinical nurses involved in hands-on nursing. Consequently, these items were removed and the factor analysis was repeated with the results as reported in Table 6.2. This produced five factors with corresponding scale items under each listed in Table 6.2 where loadings greater than 0.3 were retained.

Table 6.1. Total Variance Explained by the five-factor solution n=1824

Factor

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadingsa Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total 1 7.607 31.697 31.697 7.017 29.239 29.239 5.980 2 1.402 5.843 37.541 .822 3.427 32.666 5.501 3 1.304 5.434 42.975 .763 3.178 35.844 3.616

4 1.077 4.488 47.463 .554 2.309 38.153 4.486

5 1.005 4.189 51.652 .474 1.974 40.127 4.399

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

Table 6.2. Promax Rotated Pattern Matrix with PAF extraction 5-factor solution for the 24-item Barriers Scale

ITEM (**

Funk et al. factor classification)

Factor

1 2 3 4 5

The nurse does not feel she/he has enough authority(S)

.683 The nurse feels results are not generalisable

to own setting(S)

.642 The nurse sees little benefit for self(N) .544 Research reports/articles are not published

fast enough(R)

.534 Physicians will not cooperate with

implementation(S)

.528 The nurse is uncertain whether to believe

the results of the research(R)

.509 The nurse feels the benefits of changing

practice will be minimal(N)

.505 The nurse is isolated from knowledgeable

colleagues with whom to discuss research(N)

.472

The relevant literature is not compiled in one place(P)

.425 The facilities are inadequate for

implementation(S)

.341 The amount of research information is

overwhelming #

.640 The nurse is unwilling to change/try new

ideas(N)

.639 Other staff are not supportive of

implementation(S)

.598 The nurse does not feel capable of .579

ITEM (**

Funk et al. factor classification)

Factor

1 2 3 4 5

implement new ideas(S)

Implications for practice are not made clear(P)

.749 Research reports/articles are not readily

available(R)

.667 Statistical analyses are not

understandable(P)

.329

The literature reports conflicting results(R) .876

The conclusions drawn from the research are not justified(R)

.557 The research is not reported clearly and

readably(P)

.449 The nurse does not see the value of research

for practice(N)

.727 There is not a documented need to change

practice(N)

.670 Administration will not allow

implementation(S)

.382

** Factor as identified by Funk et al. (1991a): N = nursing, P = presentation, R = research, S = setting. # Was not included in four-factor model by Funk et al. (1991a. Rotation Method: Promax

with Kaiser Normalization.a_{a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations}

6.4.1. Factor One (Lack of incentives in applying Research)

From the exploratory factor analysis of the sample of 1824 nurses for this study, a factor was derived and referred to as factor four which is referred to as ‘inadequacies of current research’. This factor included the following items from the original model by Funk et al. (1991a):

- The nurse does not feel she/he has enough authority

- The nurse feels results are not generalizable to own setting - The nurse sees little benefit for self

- The nurse is isolated from knowledgeable colleagues with whom to discuss

research

- The relevant literature is not compiled in one place - The facilities are inadequate for implementation

6.4.2. Factor Two (Drawbacks in applying Research)

Similarly, this factor included the following items from the original model by Funk et al. (1991a):

- The amount of research information is overwhelming - The nurse is unwilling to change/try new ideas - Other staff are not supportive of implementation

- The nurse does not feel capable of evaluating the quality of the research - There is insufficient time on the job to implement new ideas

6.4.3. Factor Three (Drawbacks in consuming Research)

Likewise, this factor included the following items from the original model by Funk et al. (1991a):

- Implications for practice are not made clear - Research reports/articles are not readily available - Statistical analyses are not understandable

6.4.4. Factor Four (Inadequacies of current Research)

This factor included the following items from the original model by Funk et al. (1991a):

- The literature reports conflicting results

- The conclusions drawn from the research are not justified - The research is not reported clearly and readably

6.4.5. Factor Five (Implementing Research)

The final factor included the following items from the original model by Funk et al. (1991a):

- The nurse does not see the value of research for practice - There is not a documented need to change practice - Administration will not allow implementation

From these results it can be seen that the first factor consisted of a mixture of nurse-centred barriers and setting-based items from the original Barrier Scale questionnaire. Likewise, factor two incorporated a mixture of nurse-based and setting- based barriers. Factors three and four were a mixture of research and place-centred barrier items whilst factor five had two of the three items as nurse-centred barrier items. In conclusion, the factors extracted for this study did not support the four-factor model by Funk et al. (1991a).

6.5. Summary of the chapter

This chapter discussed the factor analysis of the responses to the items on the Barriers Scale. Included in this discussion were the implications of the factor analysis for the results of this study. The next chapter will discuss the research results from Chapter five and this chapter as a catalyst to explore the study insights in terms of the literature.