11 research outputs found

    (The) survey of preceptor's performance in the orientation for new graduate nurses

    No full text
    ๊ฐ„ํ˜ธํ•™๊ณผ/์„์‚ฌ[ํ•œ๊ธ€] ์ตœ๊ทผ ๋ณ‘์›์กฐ์ง์—์„œ๋Š” ์˜๋ฃŒ์ˆ˜์š”์˜ ์–‘์ ์ธ ์ฆ๊ฐ€ ๋ฟ ์•„๋‹ˆ๋ผ ๊ณ ๊ธ‰ํ™” ๋‹ค์–‘ํ™”๊ฐ€ ์š”๊ตฌ๋˜๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์™ธ๋ถ€ ๋ณ€ํ™”์— ๋”ฐ๋ฅธ ์ƒ์กด์„ ์œ„ํ•ด ๊ฒฝ์Ÿ๋ ฅ์„ ํ™•๋ณดํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์ด ๊ฐ€์žฅ ํฐ ์ด์Šˆ ์ค‘ ํ•˜๋‚˜๋กœ, ํšจ๊ณผ์ ์ธ ์ธ์ ์ž์›๊ด€๋ฆฌ๋Š” ๊ฒฝ์Ÿ๋ ฅ์„ ํ™•๋ณดํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•œ ๊ฐ€์žฅ ์ค‘์š”ํ•œ ์ž‘์—…์ด๋‹ค. ํŠนํžˆ ์ฒ˜์Œ ๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ ์กฐ์ง๋‚ด๋กœ ํˆฌ์ž…๋˜๋Š” ์‹ ๊ทœ๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์‚ฌ๋ฅผ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ ํ•œ ์˜ค๋ฆฌ์—”ํ…Œ์ด์…˜์€ ํ•™์ƒ์—์„œ ์ „๋ฌธ๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์‚ฌ๋กœ์„œ์˜ ์—ญํ• ๋กœ ์ด๋™์‹œํ‚ค๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋งค์šฐ ์ค‘์š”ํ•˜๋‹ค ํ•  ๊ฒƒ์ด๋‹ค. ๊ทธ๋Ÿฌ๋‚˜ ๊ฐ•์˜์‹์œ„์ฃผ์ธ ์˜ค๋ฆฌ์—”ํ…Œ์ด์…˜์˜ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ ์‹ ๊ทœ๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์‚ฌ์˜ ๋งŒ์กฑ๋„๊ฐ€ ๋‚ฎ์œผ๋ฉฐ ๊ทธ๋“ค์˜ ์—ญํ• ๋ณ€ํ™”์— ํšจ๊ณผ์ ์ด์ง€ ๋ชปํ•ด, ์ƒˆ๋กœ์šด ํ”„๋กœ๊ทธ๋žจ์„ ์š”๊ตฌํ•˜๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์ด์—, ์ตœ๊ทผ ๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ๋‹จ์œ„์—์„œ Preceptor๋ฅผ ์ด์šฉํ•œ ์‹ค๋ฌด์œ„์ฃผ์˜ 1:1 ๊ต์œก๋ฐฉ๋ฒ•์„ ํ†ตํ•ด ๋ณด๋‹ค ์นœ๋ฐ€ํ•œ ๊ด€๊ณ„ ์†์—์„œ ์˜ค๋ฆฌ์—”ํ…Œ์ด์…˜์„ ์‹œํ–‰ํ•˜๋Š” ์ƒˆ๋กœ์šด ๋ฐฉ๋ฒ•์ด ๊ตญ๋‚ด์— ๋„์ž…๋˜๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. ๋”ฐ๋ผ์„œ, ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” Preceptor์˜ ์—…๋ฌด์ˆ˜ํ–‰ ๋ฐ ๊ธฐ๋Œ€๋˜๋Š” ์—…๋ฌด์˜ ์ค‘์š”๋„๋ฅผ ํŒŒ์•…ํ•จ์œผ๋กœ์„œ ์ฐจํ›„ ๋ณด๋‹ค ํšจ๊ณผ์ ์ธ ์˜ค๋ฆฌ์—”ํ…Œ์ด์…˜์„ ์œ„ํ•ด ํ˜„ํ–‰ ํ”„๋กœ๊ทธ๋žจ์„ ์ˆ˜์ •ํ•˜๊ณ  Preceptor์˜ ์—…๋ฌด๊ฐœ์„ ๋ฐฉํ–ฅ์„ ์„ค์ •ํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•œ ๊ธฐ์ดˆ๋ฅผ ๋งˆ๋ จํ•˜๊ณ ์ž ์‹œํ–‰๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” Preceptor๋ฅผ ์ด์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ์˜ค๋ฆฌ์—”ํ…Œ์ด์…˜์„ ์‹œํ–‰ํ•˜๋Š” ์„œ์šธ์‹œ ์†Œ์žฌ ์ผ๊ฐœ ๋Œ€ํ•™๋ถ€์†์ข…ํ•ฉ๋ณ‘์›์—์„œ 1994๋…„๋ถ€ํ„ฐ 1998๋…„ 10์›”๊นŒ์ง€ Preceptor๋กœ์„œ ํ™œ๋™ํ•œ 60๋ช…์„ ์ž„์˜ ํ‘œ์ถœํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ž๋ฃŒ์ˆ˜์ง‘๊ธฐ๊ฐ„์€ 1998๋…„ 10์›” 26์ผ๋ถ€ํ„ฐ 11์›” 7์ผ๊นŒ์ง€์˜€๋‹ค. ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋„๊ตฌ๋กœ๋Š” Schiwirian(1978)์˜ ์—…๋ฌด์ˆ˜ํ–‰์ •๋„ ํ‰๊ฐ€๋„๊ตฌ์™€ Preceptor์˜ ์—…๋ฌด์— ๊ด€ํ•œ ๋ฌธํ—Œ๊ณ ์ฐฐ์„ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜์œผ๋กœ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์ž์— ์˜ํ•ด ์ž‘์„ฑํ•œ ์„ค๋ฌธ์ง€๋ฅผ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋„๊ตฌ๋Š” ๋ฆฌ๋”์‰ฝ, ์‹ ๊ทœ๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์‚ฌ ๊ต์œก์ˆ˜ํ–‰ ๋ฐ ํ‰๊ฐ€, ๋Œ€์ธ๊ด€๊ณ„์˜์‚ฌ์†Œํ†ต, ์ผ๋ฐ˜๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์ˆ˜ํ–‰์˜ 5๊ฐœ์˜์—ญ 49๊ฐœ ํ•ญ๋ชฉ์œผ๋กœ 1์ ์—์„œ 5์ ์œผ๋กœ ์ธก์ •ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ž๋ฃŒ๋ถ„์„์€ Preceptor์˜ ์—…๋ฌด์ˆ˜ํ–‰๊ณผ ๊ธฐ๋Œ€๋˜๋Š” ์ค‘์š”๋„๋Š” ๊ฐ๊ฐ ํ‰๊ท ๊ณผ ํ‘œ์ค€ํŽธ์ฐจ๋กœ ์‚ฐ์ถœํ•˜๊ณ , ์ฐจ์ด๋Š” t-test๋กœ, ๊ฐ ์˜์—ญ๋ณ„ ๊ด€๊ณ„๋Š” ANOVA๋กœ ๋ถ„์„ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋ฅผ ์š”์•ฝํ•˜๋ฉด ๋‹ค์Œ๊ณผ ๊ฐ™๋‹ค. 1. Preceptor์˜ ์—…๋ฌด์ˆ˜ํ–‰์ •๋„๋Š” ํ‰๊ท  3.72์ ์œผ๋กœ ๋ณดํ†ต์ด์ƒ์ด์—ˆ๋‹ค. ๊ฐ ์˜์—ญ๋ณ„๋กœ๋Š” ์ผ๋ฐ˜๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์ˆ˜ํ–‰์˜์—ญ์ด ๊ฐ€์žฅ ๋†’์•˜๊ณ , ์ „๋ฌธ์ง๋ฐœ๋‹ฌ, ๋ฆฌ๋”์‰ฝ, ๋Œ€์ธ๊ด€๊ณ„ ์˜์‚ฌ์†Œํ†ต์ˆœ์œผ๋กœ, ์‹ ๊ทœ๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์‚ฌ ๊ต์œก์ˆ˜ํ–‰ ๋ฐ ํ‰๊ฐ€์˜์—ญ ๊ฐ€์žฅ ๋‚ฎ๊ฒŒ ์ธก์ •๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ๊ธฐ๋Œ€๋˜๋Š” ์—…๋ฌด์˜ ์ค‘์š”๋„๋ฅผ ํ‰๊ท  4.40์ ์œผ๋กœ Preceptor์˜ ์—…๋ฌด๋ฅผ ์ค‘์š”ํ•˜๊ฒŒ ์ƒ๊ฐํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ฌ๋‹ค. ๊ฐ ์˜์—ญ๋ณ„๋กœ๋Š” ์ผ๋ฐ˜๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์ˆ˜ํ–‰์˜์—ญ์ด ํ‰๊ท  4.47๋กœ ๊ฐ€์žฅ ์ค‘์š”ํ•œ ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ฌ๊ณ , ๋ฆฌ๋”์‰ฝ, ์ „๋ฌธ์ง๋ฐœ๋‹ฌ, ๋Œ€์ธ๊ด€๊ณ„ ์˜์‚ฌ์†Œํ†ต์ˆœ์œผ๋กœ ์‹ ๊ทœ๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์‚ฌ ๊ต์œก์ˆ˜ํ–‰ ๋ฐ ํ‰๊ฐ€์˜์—ญ์˜ ์ค‘์š”๋„๊ฐ€ ๊ฐ€์žฅ ๋‚ฎ์€ ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ฌ๋‹ค. 2. Preceptor์˜ ์—…๋ฌด์ˆ˜ํ–‰๋Šฅ๋ ฅ์— ๋น„ํ•ด ๊ธฐ๋Œ€๋˜๋Š” ์ค‘์š”๋„๊ฐ€ ๋” ๋†’์•˜๊ณ , ๊ฐ ์˜์—ญ๋ณ„์—์„œ ์—…๋ฌด์ˆ˜ํ–‰์ •๋„์™€ ๊ธฐ๋Œ€๋˜๋Š” ์ค‘์š”๋„ ์ฐจ์ด๋Š” ํŠนํžˆ ๋Œ€์ธ๊ด€๊ณ„์˜์‚ฌ์†Œํ†ต์˜์—ญ์—์„œ ๊ฐ€์žฅ ํฐ ์ฐจ์ด๋ฅผ ๋ณด์˜€๊ณ  ์ผ๋ฐ˜๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์ˆ˜ํ–‰ ์˜์—ญ์˜ ์ฐจ์ด๊ฐ€ ๊ฐ€์žฅ ์ž‘์•˜๋‹ค. 3. ์ผ๋ฐ˜์ ์ธ ํŠน์„ฑ์— ๋”ฐ๋ฅธ ์—…๋ฌด์ˆ˜ํ–‰์ •๋„๋Š” ์—ฐ๋ น, ์ตœ์ข… ํ•™๋ ฅ, ๊ทผ๋ฌด๋ถ€์„œ, ํ˜„ ๋ถ€์„œ ๊ทผ๋ฌด๊ธฐ๊ฐ„, Preceptor๋กœ ํ™œ๋™ํ•œ ์‹œ์ž‘์‹œ๊ธฐ, ๊ต์œกํ•œ ์‹ ๊ทœ๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์‚ฌ ์ˆ˜์— ๋”ฐ๋ผ ์œ ์˜ํ•˜์ง€ ์•Š์•˜๋‹ค. ๊ทธ๋Ÿฌ๋‚˜ ๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์‚ฌ๋กœ์„œ ์ด ๊ทผ๋ฌด๊ธฐ๊ฐ„๊ณผ ํ˜„ ๋ณ‘์› ๊ทผ๋ฌด๊ธฐ๊ฐ„์— ๋”ฐ๋ฅธ ์—…๋ฌด์ˆ˜ํ–‰์ •๋„๋Š” Tukey ๊ฒ€์ •๊ฒฐ๊ณผ ๋ชจ๋‘ ๊ทผ๋ฌด๊ธฐ๊ฐ„์ด 4๋…„์—์„œ 6๋…„๋œ Preceptor๋“ค์ด 2๋…„์ดํ•˜์˜ ๊ทธ๋ฃน์— ๋น„ํ•ด ์œ ์˜ํ•˜๊ฒŒ ์—…๋ฌด์ˆ˜ํ–‰์ •๋„๊ฐ€ ๋†’์•˜๋‹ค. ์ผ๋ฐ˜์ ์ธ ํŠน์„ฑ์— ๋”ฐ๋ฅธ ๊ธฐ๋Œ€๋˜๋Š” ์—…๋ฌด์˜ ์ค‘์š”๋„๋Š” ์ตœ์ข…ํ•™๋ ฅ์„ ์ œ์™ธํ•œ ์—ฐ๋ น, ๊ทผ๋ฌด๋ถ€์„œ, ํ˜„ ๋ถ€์„œ ๊ทผ๋ฌด๊ธฐ๊ฐ„, Preceptor๋กœ ํ™œ๋™ํ•œ ์‹œ์ž‘์‹œ๊ธฐ, ๊ต์œกํ•œ ์‹ ๊ทœ๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์‚ฌ ์ˆ˜์— ๋”ฐ๋ผ ํฐ ์ฐจ์ด๊ฐ€ ์—†์—ˆ๋‹ค. ์ด์ƒ์˜ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ์—์„œ Preceptor์˜ ์—…๋ฌด์ˆ˜ํ–‰์ •๋„ ๋ฐ ๊ธฐ๋Œ€๋˜๋Š” ์ค‘์š”๋„๋Š” ์ผ๋ฐ˜๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์ˆ˜ํ–‰์— ์น˜์šฐ์ณ ์žˆ์–ด ๊ทธ๋“ค์ด ๊ต์œก์—…๋ฌด์ˆ˜ํ–‰๊ณผ ์‹ ๊ทœ๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์‚ฌ์˜ ์ ์‘ ๋ฐ ์‚ฌํšŒํ™”๋ฅผ ์ด‰์ง„์‹œํ‚ค๋Š” ์—…๋ฌด๋ฅผ ์ˆ˜ํ–‰ํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์ธ์‹๊ณผ ์—ญ๋Ÿ‰๊ฐ•ํ™”๋ฅผ ํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์ด ํ•„์š”ํ•˜๋‹ค. ๋”ฐ๋ผ์„œ, Preceptor ๊ต์œก ๊ด€๊ณ„์ž๋‚˜ ์ˆ˜๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์‚ฌ๋Š” Preceptor๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•œ ๊ต์œกํ”„๋กœ๊ทธ๋žจ์—์„œ ์„ฑ์ธ ํ•™์Šต์ด๋ก  ๋ฐ ๊ต์œก ์š”๊ตฌ ์‚ฌ์ •, ๊ณ„ํš, ์ˆ˜ํ–‰, ํ‰๊ฐ€ ๋ฐ ํ”ผ๋“œ๋ฐฑ์— ๊ด€ํ•œ ๊ฒƒ๊ณผ ๋Œ€์ธ๊ด€๊ณ„๋‚˜ ์˜์‚ฌ์†Œํ†ต๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์— ๊ด€ํ•œ ๊ต์œกํ”„๋กœ๊ทธ๋žจ์„ ๊ฐ•ํ™”ํ•˜๊ณ , Preceptor๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•œ ๊ตฌ์ฒด์ ์ธ ๊ฐ€์ด๋“œ๋ผ์ธ์„ ์ œ์‹œํ•˜๋ฉฐ, ์ž๊ฒฉ์ฆ ์ˆ˜์—ฌ๋“ฑ์˜ ์—…๋ฌด์ˆ˜ํ–‰์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๋ณด์ƒ๊ณผ ๋™๊ธฐ๋ถ€์—ฌ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๋’ท๋ฐ›์นจ์„ ๋งˆ๋ จํ•ด์•ผํ•  ๊ฒƒ์ด๋‹ค. [์˜๋ฌธ] The purpose of this study was to survey Preceptor's Performance in New Graduate Nurses Orientation, their expectation of performance. Their performance arid expectation were evaluated using a modified Schiwirian' tool(1978), done by the investigator. Five nursing performance domains including 49 content areas were identified. The domains were: โ‘  leadership, โ‘ก teaching/evaluation for the new graduate nurse, โ‘ข interpersonal relationships /communication, โ‘ฃ professional development and โ‘ค general nursing activities. The data were collected from 60 subjects between October 26 and November 7, 1998 at one of university hospital in Seoul. Descriptive statistics, t-test and ANOVA were used to analyse the data. The results of the study are as follows 1. The mean score for preceptor performance was 3.72 points of a possible five points. As for domain, general nursing activities(M=3.98) had the highest score, followed by professional development (M=3.80), leadership(M=3.70), interpersonal relationships /communication(M=3.55), and teaching/evaluation of the new graduate nurse(M=3.54) 2. The mean score of preceptor performance expectation was 4.40 points of a possible five points. As for domain, general nursing activities and leadership (M=4.47) had the highest score, followed by professional development (M=4.44), interpersonal relationships /communication (M=4.35), and teaching / evaluation of the new graduate nurse(M=4.29) 3. Statistically, there was a significant difference between performance and expectation (p=.000). The mean score for performance was higher than that of expectations in all five domains. 4. Statistically, there was no significant difference between performance and expectation according to the general characteristics, but the number years in nursing correlated with performance(p<.05). Especially, the mean score for performance of nurses with four to six years of nursing was higher than that of those with less than two year of nursing. The results of this study indicate that preceptor educators and head nurses must be empowered in their abilities in interpersonal relationships/ communication and in teaching/evaluation of preceptors. The study result provide basic information to define the performance preceptors in Korea and guidelines for their training programs.restrictio

    ๋ฌด๊ท ์‹ค ์ž…์‹ค ๋™์•ˆ ์‹œํ–‰ํ•œ `๋Š˜ํ‘ธ๋ฅธ์ฒด์กฐ`๊ฐ€ ์กฐํ˜ˆ๋ชจ์„ธํฌ์ด์‹ ํ™˜์•„์˜ ์‚ฌ์ง€ ๊ทผ์œก๋ฉด์ , ๊ทผ๋ ฅ ๋ฐ ์œ ์—ฐ์„ฑ์— ๋ฏธ์น˜๋Š” ํšจ๊ณผ

    No full text
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ(์„์‚ฌ)--์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ๋Œ€ํ•™์› :๊ฐ„ํ˜ธํ•™๊ณผ ๊ฐ„ํ˜ธํ•™ ์ „๊ณต,2006.Maste

    Mediating and Moderating Roles of Trust in Government in Effective Risk Rumor Management: A Test Case of Radiation-Contaminated Seafood in South Korea

    No full text
    This study has two aims: to identify effective strategies for managing false rumors about risks and to investigate the roles that basic and situational trust in government play in that process. Online experiment data were collected nationwide from 915 adults in South Korea. They were exposed to a false rumor about radiation-contaminated seafood and were randomly assigned to one of three rumor response conditions (refutation, denial, attack the attacker). One-way ANOVA indicated that the refutation response yielded the highest level of situational trust in government response (TGR). Results of moderated mediation models using the PROCESS Macro indicated the following. (1) The refutation response had a positive effect on TGR, and the attack response had a negative effect. (2) There were significant interaction effects between the attack response and preexisting basic trust in government (BTG) in that the attack response had a negative effect on TGR only when BTG was low. (3) TGR significantly mediated the relationship between each of the three rumor responses and two dependent variables (intentions for rumor dissemination and for unwarranted actions), but in dramatically different ways across the responses. This study provides evidence for the superior effectiveness of the refutation rumor response and identifies specific roles of trust in government in the risk rumor management process.This article was supported by research funds given to the first author by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A5A2A01026338)

    Effective strategies for responding to rumors about risks: The case of radiation-contaminated food in South Korea

    No full text
    This experimental study explores how governments should respond to rumors about national-level risk issues. Informed by research in rumor psychology and risk/crisis communication, it investigates whether type of rumor and rumor response strategy have main and interaction effects on reducing rumor beliefs and intention to disseminate rumor. The two featured rumor types are the bogie rumor, which highlights feared outcomes, and the wedge rumor, which aims to reinforce differences between rival groups. Derived from Situational Crisis Communication Theory, the three response strategies examined are refuting the rumor, denying it, and attacking its source. Data were drawn from part of a large-scale online experiment, and the sample of the analysis was 942 South Korean adults. The experiment had a between-subjects design of 2 rumor type (wedge vs. bogie) x 3 government response strategies (refutation, denial, attack the attacker). Results show that all three rumor response strategies significantly reduced rumor beliefs, but only the refutation strategy significantly reduced intention to disseminate the rumor. Rumor type (bogie) and response strategies (refutation) had main, but not interaction, effects on reduction of intention to disseminate the rumor.This article was supported by research funds given to the first author by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A5A2A01026338)
    corecore