4.3 Article

National Study on Faculty and Administrators' Perceptions of Civility and Incivility in Nursing Education

Journal

NURSE EDUCATOR
Volume 46, Issue 5, Pages 276-283

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000948

Keywords

civility; incivility; nursing education; psychometrics; Workplace Incivility/Civility Survey

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This national study examined the perceptions of civility and incivility among nursing faculty and administrators, identified various themes of uncivil behaviors, and validated the Workplace Incivility/Civility Survey as a reliable instrument for measuring civility and incivility. The study provided evidence-based strategies to prevent and address workplace incivility in nursing education.
Background: Incivility among nursing faculty and administrators lowers morale, damages relationships, and threatens workplace health and productivity. Purpose: This national study examined nursing faculty and administrators' perceptions of civility and incivility in nursing education, ways to address the problem, and psychometric properties of the Workplace Incivility/Civility Survey (WICS). Methods: A convergent mixed-methodological study was used to conduct the study. A factor analysis and other reliability analyses were conducted on the WICS. Results: Respondents included 1074 faculty and administrators who identified types and frequency of incivility, severity and contributors to the problem, reasons for avoiding incivility, and strategies to improve civility. Eight themes of uncivil behaviors were garnered. The WICS was shown to be a psychometrically sound instrument to measure civility and incivility. Conclusion: This study reported faculty and administrators' perceptions of civility and incivility in nursing education and provided evidence-based strategies to prevent and address the problem.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available