Quality of nursing doctoral education in seven countries

Survey of faculty and students/graduates

Mi Ja Kim, Chang Gi Park, Hugh Mckenna, Shake Ketefian, So Hyun Park, Hester Klopper, Hyeonkyeong Lee, Wipada Kunaviktikul, Misuzu F. Gregg, John Daly, Siedine Coetzee, Phanida Juntasopeepun, Sachiyo Murashima, Sinead Keeney, Shaheen Khan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to compare the findings of the quality of nursing doctoral education survey across seven countries and discuss the strategic directions for improving quality. Background: No comparative evaluation of global quality of nursing doctoral education has been reported to date despite the rapid increase in the number of nursing doctoral programmes. Design: A descriptive, cross-country, comparative design was employed. Methods: Data were collected from 2007-2010 from nursing schools in seven countries: Australia, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Thailand, UK and USA. An online questionnaire was used to evaluate quality of nursing doctoral education except for Japan, where a paper version was used. Korea and South Africa used e-mails quality of nursing doctoral education was evaluated using four domains: Programme, Faculty (referring to academic staff), Resource and Evaluation. Descriptive statistics, correlational and ordinal logistic regression were employed. Results: A total of 105 deans/schools, 414 faculty and 1149 students/graduates participated. The perceptions of faculty and students/graduates about the quality of nursing doctoral education across the seven countries were mostly favourable on all four domains. The faculty domain score had the largest estimated coefficient for relative importance. As the overall quality level of doctoral education rose from fair to good, the resource domain showed an increased effect. Conclusions: Both faculty and students/graduates groups rated the overall quality of nursing doctoral education favourably. The faculty domain had the greatest importance for quality, followed by the programme domain. However, the importance of the resource domain gained significance as the overall quality of nursing doctoral education increased, indicating the needs for more attention to resources if the quality of nursing doctoral education is to improve.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1098-1109
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Advanced Nursing
Volume71
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 May 1

Fingerprint

Nursing Education
Students
Korea
South Africa
Japan
Nursing Schools
Surveys and Questionnaires
Postal Service
Thailand
Nursing
Logistic Models
Education

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Kim, M. J., Park, C. G., Mckenna, H., Ketefian, S., Park, S. H., Klopper, H., ... Khan, S. (2015). Quality of nursing doctoral education in seven countries: Survey of faculty and students/graduates. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(5), 1098-1109. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12606
Kim, Mi Ja ; Park, Chang Gi ; Mckenna, Hugh ; Ketefian, Shake ; Park, So Hyun ; Klopper, Hester ; Lee, Hyeonkyeong ; Kunaviktikul, Wipada ; Gregg, Misuzu F. ; Daly, John ; Coetzee, Siedine ; Juntasopeepun, Phanida ; Murashima, Sachiyo ; Keeney, Sinead ; Khan, Shaheen. / Quality of nursing doctoral education in seven countries : Survey of faculty and students/graduates. In: Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2015 ; Vol. 71, No. 5. pp. 1098-1109.
@article{6cf5ecb5779544518f47df161b56d3af,
title = "Quality of nursing doctoral education in seven countries: Survey of faculty and students/graduates",
abstract = "Aims: This study aimed to compare the findings of the quality of nursing doctoral education survey across seven countries and discuss the strategic directions for improving quality. Background: No comparative evaluation of global quality of nursing doctoral education has been reported to date despite the rapid increase in the number of nursing doctoral programmes. Design: A descriptive, cross-country, comparative design was employed. Methods: Data were collected from 2007-2010 from nursing schools in seven countries: Australia, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Thailand, UK and USA. An online questionnaire was used to evaluate quality of nursing doctoral education except for Japan, where a paper version was used. Korea and South Africa used e-mails quality of nursing doctoral education was evaluated using four domains: Programme, Faculty (referring to academic staff), Resource and Evaluation. Descriptive statistics, correlational and ordinal logistic regression were employed. Results: A total of 105 deans/schools, 414 faculty and 1149 students/graduates participated. The perceptions of faculty and students/graduates about the quality of nursing doctoral education across the seven countries were mostly favourable on all four domains. The faculty domain score had the largest estimated coefficient for relative importance. As the overall quality level of doctoral education rose from fair to good, the resource domain showed an increased effect. Conclusions: Both faculty and students/graduates groups rated the overall quality of nursing doctoral education favourably. The faculty domain had the greatest importance for quality, followed by the programme domain. However, the importance of the resource domain gained significance as the overall quality of nursing doctoral education increased, indicating the needs for more attention to resources if the quality of nursing doctoral education is to improve.",
author = "Kim, {Mi Ja} and Park, {Chang Gi} and Hugh Mckenna and Shake Ketefian and Park, {So Hyun} and Hester Klopper and Hyeonkyeong Lee and Wipada Kunaviktikul and Gregg, {Misuzu F.} and John Daly and Siedine Coetzee and Phanida Juntasopeepun and Sachiyo Murashima and Sinead Keeney and Shaheen Khan",
year = "2015",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/jan.12606",
language = "English",
volume = "71",
pages = "1098--1109",
journal = "Journal of Advanced Nursing",
issn = "0309-2402",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

Kim, MJ, Park, CG, Mckenna, H, Ketefian, S, Park, SH, Klopper, H, Lee, H, Kunaviktikul, W, Gregg, MF, Daly, J, Coetzee, S, Juntasopeepun, P, Murashima, S, Keeney, S & Khan, S 2015, 'Quality of nursing doctoral education in seven countries: Survey of faculty and students/graduates', Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 1098-1109. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12606

Quality of nursing doctoral education in seven countries : Survey of faculty and students/graduates. / Kim, Mi Ja; Park, Chang Gi; Mckenna, Hugh; Ketefian, Shake; Park, So Hyun; Klopper, Hester; Lee, Hyeonkyeong; Kunaviktikul, Wipada; Gregg, Misuzu F.; Daly, John; Coetzee, Siedine; Juntasopeepun, Phanida; Murashima, Sachiyo; Keeney, Sinead; Khan, Shaheen.

In: Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 71, No. 5, 01.05.2015, p. 1098-1109.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality of nursing doctoral education in seven countries

T2 - Survey of faculty and students/graduates

AU - Kim, Mi Ja

AU - Park, Chang Gi

AU - Mckenna, Hugh

AU - Ketefian, Shake

AU - Park, So Hyun

AU - Klopper, Hester

AU - Lee, Hyeonkyeong

AU - Kunaviktikul, Wipada

AU - Gregg, Misuzu F.

AU - Daly, John

AU - Coetzee, Siedine

AU - Juntasopeepun, Phanida

AU - Murashima, Sachiyo

AU - Keeney, Sinead

AU - Khan, Shaheen

PY - 2015/5/1

Y1 - 2015/5/1

N2 - Aims: This study aimed to compare the findings of the quality of nursing doctoral education survey across seven countries and discuss the strategic directions for improving quality. Background: No comparative evaluation of global quality of nursing doctoral education has been reported to date despite the rapid increase in the number of nursing doctoral programmes. Design: A descriptive, cross-country, comparative design was employed. Methods: Data were collected from 2007-2010 from nursing schools in seven countries: Australia, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Thailand, UK and USA. An online questionnaire was used to evaluate quality of nursing doctoral education except for Japan, where a paper version was used. Korea and South Africa used e-mails quality of nursing doctoral education was evaluated using four domains: Programme, Faculty (referring to academic staff), Resource and Evaluation. Descriptive statistics, correlational and ordinal logistic regression were employed. Results: A total of 105 deans/schools, 414 faculty and 1149 students/graduates participated. The perceptions of faculty and students/graduates about the quality of nursing doctoral education across the seven countries were mostly favourable on all four domains. The faculty domain score had the largest estimated coefficient for relative importance. As the overall quality level of doctoral education rose from fair to good, the resource domain showed an increased effect. Conclusions: Both faculty and students/graduates groups rated the overall quality of nursing doctoral education favourably. The faculty domain had the greatest importance for quality, followed by the programme domain. However, the importance of the resource domain gained significance as the overall quality of nursing doctoral education increased, indicating the needs for more attention to resources if the quality of nursing doctoral education is to improve.

AB - Aims: This study aimed to compare the findings of the quality of nursing doctoral education survey across seven countries and discuss the strategic directions for improving quality. Background: No comparative evaluation of global quality of nursing doctoral education has been reported to date despite the rapid increase in the number of nursing doctoral programmes. Design: A descriptive, cross-country, comparative design was employed. Methods: Data were collected from 2007-2010 from nursing schools in seven countries: Australia, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Thailand, UK and USA. An online questionnaire was used to evaluate quality of nursing doctoral education except for Japan, where a paper version was used. Korea and South Africa used e-mails quality of nursing doctoral education was evaluated using four domains: Programme, Faculty (referring to academic staff), Resource and Evaluation. Descriptive statistics, correlational and ordinal logistic regression were employed. Results: A total of 105 deans/schools, 414 faculty and 1149 students/graduates participated. The perceptions of faculty and students/graduates about the quality of nursing doctoral education across the seven countries were mostly favourable on all four domains. The faculty domain score had the largest estimated coefficient for relative importance. As the overall quality level of doctoral education rose from fair to good, the resource domain showed an increased effect. Conclusions: Both faculty and students/graduates groups rated the overall quality of nursing doctoral education favourably. The faculty domain had the greatest importance for quality, followed by the programme domain. However, the importance of the resource domain gained significance as the overall quality of nursing doctoral education increased, indicating the needs for more attention to resources if the quality of nursing doctoral education is to improve.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84927176671&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84927176671&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jan.12606

DO - 10.1111/jan.12606

M3 - Article

VL - 71

SP - 1098

EP - 1109

JO - Journal of Advanced Nursing

JF - Journal of Advanced Nursing

SN - 0309-2402

IS - 5

ER -