Quality of nursing doctoral education in seven countries: survey of faculty and students/graduates

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims. This study aimed to compare the findings of the quality of nursingdoctoral education survey across seven countries and discuss the strategicdirections for improving quality.Background. No comparative evaluation of global quality of nursing doctoraleducation has been reported to date despite the rapid increase in the number ofnursing doctoral programmes.Design. A descriptive, cross-country, comparative design was employed.Methods. Data were collected from 2007–2010 from nursing schools in sevencountries: Australia, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Thailand, UK and USA. Anonline questionnaire was used to evaluate quality of nursing doctoral educationexcept for Japan, where a paper version was used. Korea and South Africa usede-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/graduatesparticipated. The perceptions of faculty and students/graduates about the qualityof nursing doctoral education across the seven countries were mostly favourableon all four domains. The faculty domain score had the largest estimatedcoefficient for relative importance. As the overall quality level of doctoraleducation rose from fair to good, the resource domain showed an increasedeffect.Conclusions. Both faculty and students/graduates groups rated the overall qualityof nursing doctoral education favourably. The faculty domain had the greatest importance for quality, followed by the programme domain. However, theimportance of the resource domain gained significance as the overall quality ofnursing doctoral education increased, indicating the needs for more attention toresources if the quality of nursing doctoral education is to improve.
LanguageEnglish
Pages1098-1109
JournalJournal of Advanced Nursing
Volume71
Issue number5
Early online date28 Jan 2015
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 28 Jan 2015

Fingerprint

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

Keywords

  • doctoral education
  • evaluation
  • faculty
  • global
  • nursing education
  • PhD
  • postgraduate study
  • quality
  • students / graduates

Cite this

Kim, Mi Ja ; Park, Chang Gi ; McKenna, Hugh ; Ketefien, Shake ; Park, So Hyun ; Klopper, Hester ; Lee, Hyeonkyeong ; Kunaviktikul, Wipada ; Gregg, Misuzu ; Daly, John ; Coetzee, Siedine ; Juntasopeepun, Phanida ; Murashima, Sachiyo ; Keeney, Sinead ; Shaheen, Khan. / 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{82d23c8c85f44a85aa548f748332cff9,
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 nursingdoctoral education survey across seven countries and discuss the strategicdirections for improving quality.Background. No comparative evaluation of global quality of nursing doctoraleducation has been reported to date despite the rapid increase in the number ofnursing doctoral programmes.Design. A descriptive, cross-country, comparative design was employed.Methods. Data were collected from 2007–2010 from nursing schools in sevencountries: Australia, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Thailand, UK and USA. Anonline questionnaire was used to evaluate quality of nursing doctoral educationexcept for Japan, where a paper version was used. Korea and South Africa usede-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/graduatesparticipated. The perceptions of faculty and students/graduates about the qualityof nursing doctoral education across the seven countries were mostly favourableon all four domains. The faculty domain score had the largest estimatedcoefficient for relative importance. As the overall quality level of doctoraleducation rose from fair to good, the resource domain showed an increasedeffect.Conclusions. Both faculty and students/graduates groups rated the overall qualityof nursing doctoral education favourably. The faculty domain had the greatest importance for quality, followed by the programme domain. However, theimportance of the resource domain gained significance as the overall quality ofnursing doctoral education increased, indicating the needs for more attention toresources if the quality of nursing doctoral education is to improve.",
keywords = "doctoral education, evaluation, faculty, global, nursing education, PhD, postgraduate study, quality, students / graduates",
author = "Kim, {Mi Ja} and Park, {Chang Gi} and Hugh McKenna and Shake Ketefien and Park, {So Hyun} and Hester Klopper and Hyeonkyeong Lee and Wipada Kunaviktikul and Misuzu Gregg and John Daly and Siedine Coetzee and Phanida Juntasopeepun and Sachiyo Murashima and Sinead Keeney and Khan Shaheen",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "28",
doi = "10.1111/jan.12606",
language = "English",
volume = "71",
pages = "1098--1109",
journal = "Journal of Advanced Nursing",
issn = "0309-2402",
number = "5",

}

Kim, MJ, Park, CG, McKenna, H, Ketefien, S, Park, SH, Klopper, H, Lee, H, Kunaviktikul, W, Gregg, M, Daly, J, Coetzee, S, Juntasopeepun, P, Murashima, S, Keeney, S & Shaheen, K 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; Ketefien, Shake; Park, So Hyun; Klopper, Hester; Lee, Hyeonkyeong; Kunaviktikul, Wipada; Gregg, Misuzu; Daly, John; Coetzee, Siedine; Juntasopeepun, Phanida; Murashima, Sachiyo; Keeney, Sinead; Shaheen, Khan.

In: Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 71, No. 5, 28.01.2015, p. 1098-1109.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality of nursing doctoral education in seven countries: survey of faculty and students/graduates

AU - Kim, Mi Ja

AU - Park, Chang Gi

AU - McKenna, Hugh

AU - Ketefien, Shake

AU - Park, So Hyun

AU - Klopper, Hester

AU - Lee, Hyeonkyeong

AU - Kunaviktikul, Wipada

AU - Gregg, Misuzu

AU - Daly, John

AU - Coetzee, Siedine

AU - Juntasopeepun, Phanida

AU - Murashima, Sachiyo

AU - Keeney, Sinead

AU - Shaheen, Khan

PY - 2015/1/28

Y1 - 2015/1/28

N2 - Aims. This study aimed to compare the findings of the quality of nursingdoctoral education survey across seven countries and discuss the strategicdirections for improving quality.Background. No comparative evaluation of global quality of nursing doctoraleducation has been reported to date despite the rapid increase in the number ofnursing doctoral programmes.Design. A descriptive, cross-country, comparative design was employed.Methods. Data were collected from 2007–2010 from nursing schools in sevencountries: Australia, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Thailand, UK and USA. Anonline questionnaire was used to evaluate quality of nursing doctoral educationexcept for Japan, where a paper version was used. Korea and South Africa usede-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/graduatesparticipated. The perceptions of faculty and students/graduates about the qualityof nursing doctoral education across the seven countries were mostly favourableon all four domains. The faculty domain score had the largest estimatedcoefficient for relative importance. As the overall quality level of doctoraleducation rose from fair to good, the resource domain showed an increasedeffect.Conclusions. Both faculty and students/graduates groups rated the overall qualityof nursing doctoral education favourably. The faculty domain had the greatest importance for quality, followed by the programme domain. However, theimportance of the resource domain gained significance as the overall quality ofnursing doctoral education increased, indicating the needs for more attention toresources if the quality of nursing doctoral education is to improve.

AB - Aims. This study aimed to compare the findings of the quality of nursingdoctoral education survey across seven countries and discuss the strategicdirections for improving quality.Background. No comparative evaluation of global quality of nursing doctoraleducation has been reported to date despite the rapid increase in the number ofnursing doctoral programmes.Design. A descriptive, cross-country, comparative design was employed.Methods. Data were collected from 2007–2010 from nursing schools in sevencountries: Australia, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Thailand, UK and USA. Anonline questionnaire was used to evaluate quality of nursing doctoral educationexcept for Japan, where a paper version was used. Korea and South Africa usede-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/graduatesparticipated. The perceptions of faculty and students/graduates about the qualityof nursing doctoral education across the seven countries were mostly favourableon all four domains. The faculty domain score had the largest estimatedcoefficient for relative importance. As the overall quality level of doctoraleducation rose from fair to good, the resource domain showed an increasedeffect.Conclusions. Both faculty and students/graduates groups rated the overall qualityof nursing doctoral education favourably. The faculty domain had the greatest importance for quality, followed by the programme domain. However, theimportance of the resource domain gained significance as the overall quality ofnursing doctoral education increased, indicating the needs for more attention toresources if the quality of nursing doctoral education is to improve.

KW - doctoral education

KW - evaluation

KW - faculty

KW - global

KW - nursing education

KW - PhD

KW - postgraduate study

KW - quality

KW - students / graduates

U2 - 10.1111/jan.12606

DO - 10.1111/jan.12606

M3 - Article

VL - 71

SP - 1098

EP - 1109

JO - Journal of Advanced Nursing

T2 - Journal of Advanced Nursing

JF - Journal of Advanced Nursing

SN - 0309-2402

IS - 5

ER -