연구목적: 임상간호사의 공감능력과 비판적 사고성향 및 간호업무성과 간의 관계를 파악하고 공감능력과 비판적 사고성향 이 간호업무성과에 미치는 요인을 확인하기 위함이다. 연구방법: 연구대상자는 G도 소재 G시, I시, H시의 100병상 이상 300병상 미만의 종합병원에서 직접간호를 수행하는 임 상경 력 6개월 이상 간호사 144명이었다. 자료수집은 2021년 9월 15일부터 10월 4일까지 구조화된 설문지를 이용하여 일반적 특성, 공감능력, 비판적 사고성향, 간호업무성과를 측정하였다. 자료분석은 SPSS 28.0 프로그 램을 이용하여 기술통계, t-test, ANOVA, Scheffe test, Pearson’s correlation coefficients, multiple linear regression analysis로 실시하였다. 연구결과: 연구의 결과는 다음과 같다. 1. 대상자의 공감능력의 정도는 5점 만점에 평균 3.31±0.36점, 비판적 사고성향의 정도는 5점 만점에 평균 3.32±0.41점, 간호업무성과의 정도는 5점 만점에 평균 3.85±0.52점이었다. 2. 대상자의 일반적 특성에 따른 공감능력은 모든 변인에서 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 없었다(p≥.05). 3. 대상자의 일반적 특성에 따른 비판적 사고성향은 연령(F=6.49, p=.002), 성별(t=-2.61, p=.010), 최종학력(t=-3.32, p=.001), 총 임상경력(F=5.48, p=.001), 근무부서(F=7.34, p<.001), 근무형태(t=2.81, p=.006), 직위(t=4.28, p=.016)에서 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보였다. 4. 대상자의 일반적 특성에 따른 간호업무성과는 연령(F=13.24, p<.001), 결혼상태(t=-2.18, p=.031), 최종학(t=-3.01, p=.003), 총 임상경력(F=9.32, p<.001), 근무부서(F=6.78, p=.002), 근무형태(t=3.16, p=.002), 직위(t=8.33, p<.001)에서 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보였다. 5. 대상자의 간호업무성과는 비판적 사고성향과 통계적으로 유의한 양의 상관관계(r=.48, p<.001)를 보였고, 공감능력과 는 상관관계가 없었다. 6. 대상자의 간호업무성과는 공감능력의 하위영역 중 관점취하기(r=.36, p<.001)와 공감적 관심(r=.25, p=.002)과는 양 의 상관관계를, 개인적 고통(r=-.23, p=.005)과는 음의 상관관계를 보였다. 대상자의 간호업무 성과는 비판적 사고성향 의 하위영역 중 지적통합(r=.53, p<.001), 객관성(r=.39, p<.001), 탐구성(r=.38, p<.001), 도전성(r=.34, p<.001), 신중성(r=.32, p<.001), 진실추구(r=.31, p<.001), 개방성(r=.29, p<.001) 순으로 양의 상관관계를 나타내었다. 7. 대상자의 간호업무성과에 영향을 미치는 요인을 확인하기 위한 다중선형회귀분석결과, 총 임상경력이 5-10년 미만 (β=.29, p=.017)인 경우, 비판적 사고성향이 높은 경우(β=.28, p<.001), 근무부서는 응급실과 중환자실(β=.18, p=.020)인 경우, 최종학력이 대학교 졸 이상인 경우(β=.18, p=.017) 순으로 나타났으며, 이들 변수의 간호업무성과에 대한 총 설명력은 41.2%였다(F=6.96, p<.001). 결론 및 제언: 이상의 연구결과를 통해 비판적 사고성향이 간호업무성과에 영향을 미치는 주요 요인임을 알 수 있었다. 따 라서 병원 내에서 임상간호사의 비판적 사고성향을 증진시키는 교육이 지속적으로 이루어지고, 전문직 경력을 개발할 수 있도록 상급 교육을 지원하는 등 장기적인 간호인력 관리가 필요하다.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify the relationship between empathy ability, critical thinking disposition, and nursing work performance and to identify the influencing factors to nursing work performance in clinical nurses. Method: The participants were 144 nurses with more than 6 months of clinical career at the general hospital with more than 100 beds and less than 300 beds in G, I, and H city in G-do. Data were collected from September 15 to October 4, 2021, using structured questionnaires to measure general characteristics, empathic ability, critical thinking disposition, and nursing work performance. Data analysis was performed with descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, Scheffe test, Pearson''s correlation coefficients, and multiple linear regression analysis using the SPSS 28.0 program. Results: The result of this study are as follows. 1. The degree of empathic ability of the subjects was averaged 3.31±0.36 out of 5 points, the degree of critical thinking disposition was averaged 3.32±0.41 out of 5 points, and the degree of nursing work performance was averaged 3.85±0.52 out of 5 points. 2. There was no statistically significant difference in empathic ability according to the general characteristics of the subjects in all variables (p≥.05). 3. Critical thinking disposition according to the general characteristics of the subjects was age (F=6.49, p=.002), gender (t=-2.61, p=.010), education level (t=-3.32, p=.001), total clinical career (F=5.48, p=.001), department (F=7.34, p<.001), duty type (t=2.81, p=.006), and position (t=4.28, p=.016) showed statistically significant difference. 4. Nursing work performance according to the general characteristics of the subjects was age (F=13.24, p<.001), marital status (t=-2.18, p=.031), education level (t=-3.01, p=.003), total clinical career (F=9.32, p<.001), department (F=6.78, p=.002), duty type (t=3.16, p=.002), and position (t=8.33, p<.001) showed statistically significant difference. 5. Nursing work performance of the subjects showed a statistically significant positive correlation with critical thinking disposition (r=.48, p<.001), and there was no correlation with empathic ability. 6. Nursing work performance of the subject showed positive correlated with perspective taking (r=.36, p<.001) and empathic concern (r=.25, p=.002), and a negative correlation with personal distress (r=-.23, p=.005) among the sub-factors of empathic ability. Nursing work performance of the subjects showed intellectual integrity (r=.53, p<.001), objectivity (r=.39, p< .001), inquisitiveness (r=.38, p<.001), challenge (r=.34, p<.001), prudence (r=.32, p<.001), truth-seeking (r=.31, p<.001), open-mindness (r=.29, p<.001) among the sub-factors of critical thinking disposition showed a positive correlation in that order. 7. As result of the multiple linear regression analysis to confirm the factors affecting nursing work performance of the subjects, showed that the total clinical career was less than 5 to 10 years (β=.29, p=.017), the critical thinking disposition (β=.28, p<.001), the department was the emergency room and the intensive care unit (β=.18, p=.020), and that the education level was more than a the university graduate (β=.18, p=.017) in that or- der, the total explanatory power of these variables on nursing work performance was 41.2% (F=6.96, p<.001). Conclusion and Suggestions: The results of this study show that the critical thinking disposition is a major factor affecting nursing work performance. Therefore, there is a need for long-term nursing staff management, such as providing continuous education to improve the critical thinking disposition of clinical nurses in hospitals, and supporting advanced education to develop professional careers.
목차
목 차Ⅰ. 서 론 11. 연구의 필요성······················ 12. 연구의 목적························· 63. 용어의 정의························· 71) 공감능력··························· 72) 비판적 사고성향················ 73) 간호업무성과···················· 8Ⅱ. 문헌고찰······························· 91. 공감능력······························· 92. 비판적 사고성향··················· 143. 간호업무성과······················· 20Ⅲ. 연구방법····························· 261. 연구설계····························· 262. 연구대상····························· 273. 연구도구····························· 281) 일반적 특성························ 282) 공감능력···························· 293) 비판적 사고성향··················294) 간호업무성과···················· 304. 자료수집 방법······················ 315. 자료분석 방법······················ 326. 윤리적 고려························· 337. 연구의 제한점······················ 33Ⅳ. 연구결과····························· 341. 대상자의 일반적 특성············342. 대상자의 공감능력, 비판적 사고성향 및 간호업무성과 정도·························363. 대상자의 일반적 특성에 따른 공감능력, 비판적 사고성향 및 간호 업무성과의 차이·························381) 대상자의 일반적 특성에 따른 공감능력의 차이································382) 대상자의 일반적 특성에 따른 비판적 사고성향 차이·························403) 대상자의 일반적 특성에 따른 간호업무성과의 차이·························424. 대상자의 공감능력, 비판적 사고성향 및 간호업무성과 간의 상관관계·························441) 대상자의 공감능력, 비판적 사고성향 및 간호업무성과간의 상관관계·························442) 대상자의 공감능력의 하위영역, 비판적 사고성향의 하위영역 및 간호업무성과 간의 상관관계········455. 대상자의 간호업무성과에 미치는 영향요인·························47Ⅴ. 논 의····································································································49Ⅵ. 결론 및 제언···············································································63참고문헌···············································································65부 록···············································································92Abstract···············································································102