CHAPTER III METODOLOGY OF RESEARCH

This chapter highlights on how the research problem was explored, the participants were selected and the procedure followed to gather the data. Furthermore, the ethical considerations and confidentiality aspects are addressed and the measuring instruments to gather the data are discussed. The chapter concludes with the statistical techniques utilized for the data analysis. 3.1 Research Design Research design used in this research was descriptive correlation design.The purpose of a descriptive correlation design is to examine the relationship that exist in a situation. Using this design will facilitate the identification of many interrelationship in a situation in a short period of time !urn,"##$%. This study see&s to explore the relationship between 'ob stress factors interpersonal conflict, organizational constraint, quantitative wor&load% and 'ob satisfaction among nurses in R(U) )r.(oewandhi and *+, +ospital (urabaya. 3.1.1.Pop !a"ion an# Se""ing This research was conducted in R(U) )r.(oewandhi and *+, +ospital (urabaya, -ndonesia. The population targeted in this study are all of the nurses in R(U) )r. (oewandhi and *+, hospital (urabaya. The number of the nurses in R(U) )r.(oewandhi are #. and "/# nurses in *+, hospital (urabaya. The total number of nurses of both hospitals are 0// nurses. 3.1.$. Sa%p!e Si&e The sample in this study was "#$ nurses, The sample size was calculated using the formula 1re'eie 2 3organ "#/4% in 5uriah, 0446% 7 80 9.p " : p% (; d0 9:"% < 80.p ":p% ( ; sample size desired 9 ; population size p ; proportion estimated

d ; degree of realiability 80 ; Chi-Square table value for one degree of freedom, confidence level 4,#=7 $,.>" $,.>" . 0//. 4,= 4,=% ; "6".0 ; "6" nurses. 4,4=% ? . 0/6% < $,.>". 4,= . 4.=% +ence, minimum sample size required in this study is "#$ respondents including 04 @ of drop out factor%

3.1.3 Sa%p!ing Me"ho#

For the purpose of the study probability sampling design was adopted and used a simple random sampling method to gather the data. *robability sampling methods have been developed to ensure some degree of precision in accurately estimating the population parameters. -n simple random sampling ,the names of respondents written on slips of paper,placed in a container,mixed well,and then drawn out one at a time until the desired sample size has been reached !urn,"##$%. The sample must meet the chosen criteria for this study. Inc! sion cri"eria The inclusion criteria of the samples are7 a% 3inimum education level in diploma of nursing b% Aor&ing experience at least 0 years c% *articipants voluntary involve in this study d% Bbsence of psychiatric disorder or drug abuse. E'c! sion cri"eria The exclusion criteria of the samples are7 a% Refuse to involve in the study. b% 9urses currently in training, maternity leave, birth or annual leave.

Table $." (ample proportion of nurses in each Aards in R(U) )r. (oewandhi and *+, +ospital (urabaya, (eptember:Cctober 04"$ (o " 0 $ > = 6 / . # "4 "" "0 "$ "> "= "6 "/ ". "# 04 0" 00 0$ 0> RS)D Dr.Soe*an#hi +ar#s -npatient ward - class -npatient ward -- class -npatient ward ---a class -npatient ward ---b class *ediatric ward 9eonates ward Cperating RoomDRecovery Room -ntensive care Unit -ntensive ,ardiac ,are Unit +aemodyalisis Emergency Unit ,linics PHC Hospi"a! +ar#s Emergency Unit -ntensive ,are Unit +aemodyalisis Cutpatient ,linic (pesialist ,linic -npatient ward7 Blstom -npatient ward7-ntan -npatient ward75amrud -npatient ward73utiara -npatient ward7 3irah -npatient ward7 Ruby -npatient ward7 (afir -npatient ward7Emerald Cperating Room To"a! Sa%p!es 0 > $ > / = "> = = $ = "4 . 04 . > / / . / "" / / . . "6 "#$

3.1.,

Ins"r %en"a"ion

$.".>." -nstrument (elf:administered questionnaire was used in this study to collect data from participants. The questionnaires about 'ob stress factors -nterpersonal ,onflicts at Aor& (cale -,BA(%, Crganizational ,onstraints (cale C,(% and Fuantitative wor&load inventory FA-%% and Gob (atisfaction (urvey G((% were adopted from (pector and Gex "##.%. The original English version of the questionnaires was translated into !ahasa -ndonesia by the forward:bac&ward translation method. There are $ three% part of the questionnaires as follow7 *art B 7 Respon#en"s Da"a.This part consists of "0 items on respondent data which consists

of the participants age, sex, marital status, religion, education level, number of children, employment status, and familyHs income, wor&ing hours, position in the wor&place, period of service and main reason why they wor&. *art !7 -o. S"ress Fac"ors. This part consist of interpersonal conflicts at wor& (cale -,BA(%, Crganizational ,onstraints (cale C,(%, and Fuantitative Aor&load -nventory FA-%. In"erpersona! Con/!ic" a" +or0 Sca!e 1ICA+S2 . -nterpersonal ,onflict was

assessed with (pector and GexHs "##.%. The four:items of -nterpersonal ,onflict at Aor& (cale -,BA(% measure how often the employee experienced arguments, yelling, and rudeness in interactions with co:wor&ers (pector and Fox,044"%. -ts items as& about how well the respondent gets along with others at wor&, specifically getting into arguments with others and how often others act nasty to the respondent. Five response choices are given, ranging from less than once per month or never, coded ", to several times per day, coded =. +igh scores represent frequent conflicts with others, with a possible range from > to 04. -nternal consistency reliability coefficient alpha% was reported by (pector and Gex "##.% to average ./> across "$ studies (pector,"##>%. Organi&a"iona! Cons"rain"s Sca!e 1OCS2. Aor& constraints were measured by the Crganizational ,onstraints (cale C,(I (pector 2 Gex, "##.%, an "":item scale based on constraint areas identified by *eters and CH,onnor "#.4%. Crganizational constraints are situations or things that interfere with tas& performance at wor&. The C,( was based on the wor& of *eters and CH,onnor "#.4%, who listed "" areas of constraints, e.g., rules and procedures, availability of resources, co:wor&ers, interruptions, and inadequate training, faulty equipment, or incomplete information. Cne item assesses each of the "" constraint areas, and all items are summed into a total score. Respondents are as&ed to indicate how often it is difficult or impossible to do his or her 'ob because of each item. Response choices range from less than once per month or never, coded ", to several times per day, coded =. +igh scores

represent high levels of constraints, with a possible range of scores from "" to == (pector,"##>%. 3 an"i"a"i4e +or0!oa# In4en"or5 1 3+I2. The FA- is a = item scale designed to assess the amount or quantity of wor& in a 'ob, as opposed to qualitative wor&load which is the difficulty of the wor&. Respondents are as&ed to indicate how often each statement occurs, with five response choices, ranging from less than once per month or never, coded ", to several times per day, coded =. +igh scores represent a high level of wor&load, with a possible range from = to 0=. (pector and Gex "##.% reported an average internal consistency coefficient alpha% of ..0 across "= studies. (pector,"##>% *art , 7 -o. Sa"is/ac"ion S r4e5 G(( %. The 'ob satisfaction survey G((% is nine facet scale to assess employee attitudes about the 'ob and aspects of the 'ob was provided by (pector "##.%. Each facet is assessed with four items, and a total score is computed from all items. B summated rating scale format is used, with six choices per item ranging from Jstrongly disagreeJ to Jstrongly agreeJ. -tems are written in both directions, so about half must be reverse scored. The nine facets are *ay, *romotion, (upervision, Fringe !enefits, ,ontingent Rewards performance based rewards%, Cperating *rocedures required rules and procedures%, ,owor&ers, 9ature of Aor&, and ,ommunication. The Gob (atisfaction (urvey or G((, has some of its items written in each direction:: positive and negative. (cores on each of nine facet subscales, based on > items each, can range from > to 0>I while scores for total 'ob satisfaction, based on the sum of all $6 items, can range from $6 to 0"6. Each item is scored from " to 6 if the original response choices are used. +igh scores on the scale represent 'ob satisfaction, so the scores on the negatively worded items must be reversed before summing with the positively worded into facet or total scores. B score of 6 representing strongest agreement with a negatively worded item is considered equivalent to a score of " representing strongest disagreement on a positively worded item, allowing them to be combined meaningfully (pector,"##>%.

Kiven the G(( uses 6:point agree:disagree response choices, we can assume that agreement with positively:worded items and disagreement with negatively:worded items would represent satisfaction. )isagreement with positive:worded items, and agreement with negative:worded items represents dissatisfaction. For the >:item subscales, as well as the $6: item total score, this means that scores with a mean item response after reverse scoring the negatively:worded items% of > or more represents satisfaction, whereas mean responses of $ or less represents dissatisfaction. 3ean scores between $ and > are ambivalence. Translated into the summed scores, for the >:item subscales with a range from > to 0>, scores of > to "0 are dissatisfied, "6 to 0> are satisfied, and between "0 and "6 are ambivalent. For the $6:item total where possible scores range from $6 to 0"6, the ranges are $6 to "4. for dissatisfaction, ">> to 0"6 for satisfaction, and between "4. and ">> for ambivalent (pector,"##>%. 3.1.,.$ Meas re%en" o/ 6aria.!es -n this study, the independent variable is 'ob stress factors interpersonal conflict, organizational constraint and quantitative wor&load%. The dependent variable is 'ob satisfaction. 3.1.,.3 Trans!a"ion o/ Ins"r %en" The process of translation and adaptation of instruments is to achieve different language versions of the English instrument that are conceptually equivalent in each of the target countriesDcultures. That is, the instrument should be equally natural and acceptable and should practically perform in the same way. The focus is on cross:cultural and conceptual, rather than on linguisticDliteral equivalence A+C,04">%.The original questionnaire was translated from English to -ndonesia language by the researcher. The translated questionnaire was then chec&ed by the supervisor and another two lecturers who is expert in English and nursing fields and also fluent in both English and -ndonesia language. Two lecturers corrected the translated questionnaire. The translated questionnaire was also sent to sworn translator for bac& translation. )oing bac& translation was important in order to maintain the meaning of the original questionnaire. Furthermore, it is necessary to pre:test the instrument on the target

population. Each questionnaire was tested on "4 nurses as pre:test respondents A+C,04">%. The researcher as&ed the pre:test respondents if there is anything they do not understand from the questionnaires or if there is any expression they found inappropriate or offensive. Finally, when alternative words or expression exist for one item or expression, the pre:test respondents was as&ed to choose which of the alternatives conforms better to their usual language. 3.1.4.4 6a!i#i"5 an# Re!ia.i!i"5 o/ "he Ins"r %en" Reliability is concerned with how consistently the tools or questionnaires selected measure the concept of interest. (ince all measurement technique may contain some random error, reliability exists in a degree and is usually expressed as a form of correlation coefficient, with a ".44 indicating perfect reliability and 4.44 indicating no reliability. Thus, high reported reliability values on an established instrument do not guarantee that reliability will be satisfactory in another sample or with different population !urn,"##$%. The internal

consistency approach to estimating an instrumentHs reliability is probably the most widely used method among researchers today *olit and +ungler,"###%. The statistical procedures use for this process are ,ronbachHs alpha coefficient for continuous data and Richardson formula% for dichotomous data 1:R 04 1uder:

!urn,"##$%.The validity of an instrument is a

determination of the extent to which the instrument actually reflects the abstract construct being examined. Lalidity as well as reliability is not an all:or Mnothing phenomenon but rather a matter of degree. 9o instrument is completely valid. Thus, one determines the degree of validity of a measure rather than whether or not validity exists !urn,"##$%. In"erpersona! Con/!ic" a" +or0 Sca!e7 ICA+S . ,onflict was assessed with (pector and GexHs "##.% four:item -nterpersonal ,onflict at Aor& (cale -,BA(%, which measures how often the employee experienced arguments, yelling, and rudeness in interactions with co: wor&ers. -nternal consistency reliability coefficient alpha% was reported by (pector and Gex "##.% to average ./> across "$ studies (pector,"##>%.

Organi&a"iona! Cons"rain"s Sca!e7 OCS. Aor& constraints were measured by the Crganizational ,onstraints (cale C,(I (pector 2 Gex, "##.%, an "":item scale based on constraint areas identified by *eters and CH,onnor "#.4%. Crganizational constraints are situations or things that interfere with tas& performance at wor&. The C,( was based on the wor& of *eters and CH,onnor "#.4%, who listed "" areas of constraints, e.g., rules and procedures, availability of resources, co:wor&ers, interruptions, and inadequate training ,faulty equipment, or incomplete information. (pector and Gex "##.% reported an average internal consistency coefficient alpha% of ..0 across "= studies. 3 an"i"a"i4e +or0!oa# In4en"or57 3+I. The FA- is a = item scale designed to assess the amount or quantity of wor& in a 'ob, as opposed to qualitative wor&load which is the difficulty of the wor&. (pector and Gex "##.% reported an average internal consistency coefficient alpha% of ..0 across "= studies (pector,"##>% -o. Sa"is/ac"ion S r4e5 1 -SS2 is a $6 item, nine facet scale to assess employee attitudes about the 'ob and aspects of the 'ob. Each facet is assessed with four items, and a total score is computed from all items. The nine facets are *ay, *romotion, (upervision, Fringe !enefits, ,ontingent Rewards performance based rewards%, Cperating *rocedures required rules and procedures%, ,owor&ers, 9ature of Aor&, and ,ommunication. The internal consistency reliabilities coefficient alpha%, based on a sample of 0,./4 for all of facet total . #" (pector,"##>%. -n this study, to test the validity and reliability of the instruments in the study population, a pilot study was conducted on $4 nurses in R(U) )r.(oewandhi (urabaya on "=: 00 Bugust 04"$. The sample size for pilot study was calculated with the assisting of sample size estimation software programme with the rules N ; 4.4=I ":O;4..I total number of item ; =6I ,ronbach N expected ; 4.#I lowest acceptable limited ; 4./=% and found the calculated sample size was 00, then up to $4 samples. To test the reliability and the validity of the instruments, the researcher used reliability

analysis from statistic software programme (*((% and seen the ,ronbachHs alpha value to determine the questionnaire reliable or not. Furthemore, to identify validity for each item in questionnaire can be seen from the output ,orrected -tem:Total ,orrelation column (ofyan and 1urniawan,044#%. -n order to interpret that an items were valid or not, the minimal score correlation 4.$4 can be adopted *riyatno,04"0%. The result of pilot study shown as below 7 ". -nterpersonal conflict at wor& (cale Fuestionnaire 7 !ased on the reliability analysis, ,ronbachHs alpha score was 4.//$. Bccording to *riyatno 04"0% the instrument can be declared reliable or not if the ,ronbachHs Blpha more than 4.6. The interpersonal conflict at wor& (cale score was more than 4.6, it means the instrument was reliable. 3eanwhile, Four:item -nterpersonal ,onflict at Aor& (cale were also valid. Bll the score in ,orrected:-tem:Total ,orrelation output column are more than 4.$4. 0. Crganizational ,onstraint (cale questionnaire The result of reliability analysis, ,ronbachHs alpha score was 4...#. Bccording to *riyatno 04"0% the instrument can be declared reliable or not if the ,ronbachHs Blpha more than 4.6. The organizational constraint (cale score was more than 4.6, it means the instrument was reliable. 3eanwhile, an "" areas of constraints, e.g., rules and procedures, availability of resources, co:wor&ers, interruptions, and inadequate training, faulty equipment, or incomplete information, were also valid. Bll the score in ,orrected:-tem:Total ,orrelation output column are more than 4.$4. $. Fuantitative wor&load -nventory Fuestionnaire !ased on the reliability analysis, ,ronbachHs alpha score was 4.#"/. Bccording to *riyatno 04"0% the instrument can be declared reliable or not if the ,ronbachHs Blpha more than 4.6. The interpersonal conflict at wor& (cale score was more than 4.6, it means the instrument was reliable. Furthermore, a = five% item scale designed to assess the amount or quantity of wor& in a 'ob were also valid. Bll the score in

,orrected:-tem:Total ,orrelation output column are more than 4.$4. >. Gob (atisfaction (urvey Fuestionnaire The result of reliability analysis, ,ronbachHs alpha score was 4.//6. Bccording to *riyatno 04"0% the instrument can be declared reliable or not if the ,ronbachHs Blpha more than 4.6. The 'ob satisfaction survey G((% score was more than 4.6, it means the instrument was reliable. 3eanwhile, a $6 item, nine facet scale to assess employee attitudes about the 'ob and aspects of the 'ob were also valid. Bll the score in ,orrected:-tem:Total ,orrelation output column are more than 4.$4.

- would suggest we write these in the following manner ". -ntroduce the scale, authors, subscales involved, no of items etc 0. Reliability scores from others $. Reliability scores from our present study 3.$ S" #5 4aria.!es

3.3 ST)DY 6ARIA8LES Ta.!e 3.1 Fra%e*or0 /or #e/ining 4aria.!es

3., E"hica! Consi#era"ions Ahile conducting this study, general ethical issues considered to promote and protect human rights. The ethical approval was gathered from the +uman Research Ethics ,ommittee University (ains 3alaysia on 6 th 3ay 04"$ and written permission from the directors of R(U) )r.(oewandhi on 0# th Guly 04"$ and also from *+, +ospital (urabaya on $"st Guly 04"$. Furthermore, the permission from the +ead of 9ursing and Research )epartment of R(U) )r.(oewandhi and *+, +ospital (urabaya also required before conduct the study. *rior to data collection, the researcher introduced herself and explained the purpose of the study so that the participant can ta&e a decision as respondent in the research or not. To prevent the problem of ethics, appropriate emphasis ethical issues which includes 7 3.$.1 In/or%e# Consen" Ethical considerations should be considered before conducting this study. -nformation about this study provided to respondents in order to give clear details of the purposes of the study, the procedures to be carried out, and the duration of time required from the individual. Researcher explained that this study do no harm and the data would be used only for academic purposes. Researcher also informed them

that their participation was optional and they could withdraw from this study at any time. Respondents as&ed to sign the consent form if they agree to participate. 3.$.$ Con/i#en"ia!i"5 Respondents was ensured confidentiality and informed that their

participation is voluntary. RespondentHs name would not be &ept anonymously and will be assured by using code numbers. 3.3 Da"a Co!!ec"ion Me"ho#s )ata for this study collected via a self:administered questionnaire in two month from (eptember:Cctober 04"$. Researcher went to wards at R(U) )r. (oewandhi and *+, +ospital to identify respondents within the inclusion criteria that had been decided for this study. The researcher then approach the respondents individually and explained the purposes and the procedures of the study. Bfter, a written consent obtained and respondents agreed to participate, the questionnaire given to each respondent. The way to filled the questionnaire was instructed by researcher. Ahen the respondents as&ed questions regarding the questions or the study,the researcher explained as requested.

F!o* Char" o/ The S" #5 Bpproval from the +uman Research Ethics ,ommitee U(3 Bpproval from the )irector of )r. (oewandhi and *+, +ospital (urabaya Bpproval to conduct research from the +ead of Research 2 9ursing )epartment in )r.(oewandhi and *+, hospital (urabaya (electing the respondents -nclusion criteria Exclusion criteria

3eeting with the respondents and giving explaination about the purpose of the study

Lerbal and written informed consent from the respondents

Refuse

Bgree )istribution of the questionnaire to be completed ,ollection of questionnaire )ata analysis

3., Da"a Ana!5sis Bfter completing collection of data, the researcher undertoo& the following activities7 editing data, coding, entry data into statistics program computer pac&age. The (tatistical pac&age for (ocial (ciences (*((% "6 was used to assist the process of analyzing data. Furthermore, researcher used computer assistance to test the hypotheses with the analysis of the following stages7 univariate analysis ,bivariate analysis and multivariate analysis (amuel,0444%. $.>." )ni4aria"e Ana!5sis Researchers conducted a univariate analysis with the purpose of descriptive analysis. )escriptive analysis performed to describe each variable studied separately in a way to create a table of frequencies of each variable. The initial analysis was conducted by calculating descriptive statistics including frequencies, mean scores and standard deviations . b.8i4aria"e Ana!5sis To determine the relationship or degree of closeness between the variables studied, namely "% interpersonal conflict, 0% organizational constraint, $% quantitative wor&load, with the 'ob satisfaction used bivariate analysis. The independent and dependent variables are classified as categorical variable. Thus, to identify the relationship between independent and dependent variable which is categorical used correlation test Chi Square +astono,044/%. c. M !"i4aria"e Ana!5sis -n this study, to determine the weight of each independent variable in the prediction of self rated 'ob satisfaction researchers conducted a multiple logistic

regression analysis. Pogistic regression sometimes referred to as logit analysis% uses maximum li&elihood estimation for analyzing relationships between multiple independent variables and a categorical dependent variable..Pogistic regression enables the researcher to generate odds ratios that can be meaningfully interpreted and graphically displayed. Bn o##s ra"io CR% is the ratio of one odds to another odds, and thus is an index of relative ris&Qthat is, the ris& of an event occurring given one condition, versus the ris& of it occurring given a different condition *olit and !ec&,044$%. Aith the help of the stepwise method in statistics program (*((% multiple logistic regression, where the system will determine the dominant independent variable p value R4.4=% which is effect the dependent variable, and issued an independent variables that has no effect on the dependent variable value p S 4.4=% Tamin and 1urniawan,044#%.