Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Mar 3;81(10):6893–6906. doi: 10.1111/jan.16804

The Personal and Collective Resources of Nurses and the Relationship to Job Commitment and Work Engagement

Lynere Wilson 1,✉, Lynn Sheridan 2, Dennis Alonzo 3, Rebekkah Middelton 4
PMCID: PMC12460972  PMID: 40033801

ABSTRACT

Background

Identifying personal, social and emotional resources relevant to nurses' wellbeing and job engagement is important for addressing workforce shortages and nurse burnout, and turnover.

Aim

This study examined the relationships between New Zealand (NZ) nurses' personal resources (resilience, adaptability, self‐efficacy, collective efficacy) and their occupational commitment and job engagement.

Sample

Participants were 270 New Zealand nurses.

Methods

Quantitative research design involving a confirmatory factor analysis was used to provide measurement support and to obtain latent correlations among factors. The final analysis was performed using structural equation modelling. The Job Demands‐Resources (JD‐R) model was adopted as the conceptual framework for this study.

Results

The personal resources for New Zealand nurses of self‐efficacy, adaptability and resilience were generally positively associated with their occupational commitment and job engagement. In addition, New Zealand nurses' collective efficacy was seen as important for managing the demands of the job.

Conclusion

Taken together, findings offer an understanding about the salient personal and collective resources in relation to New Zealand nurses wellbeing and job engagement.

Implications for the Profession

Future research could explore how integrating cultural perspectives can improve job satisfaction and retention among nurses who identify as coming from collectivist cultures. The personal resources used in this study also need to be examined from a Māori perspective to ensure their relevance to the health and wellbeing of Māori nurses.

Impact

This study highlights the crucial role of collective support in enhancing job engagement among nurses. It underscores the importance of incorporating a cultural lens in workplace research, showing how collective efficacy can help individual nurses adapt to workplace challenges and reduce their intention to leave amid global nurse shortages.

Reporting Method

STROBE.

No patient/public contribution.

Keywords: adaptability, collective efficacy, nurses, resilience, self‐efficacy

Summary

  • Impact statement
    • ○
      This is the first study to explore associations between New Zealand nurses' personal and collective resources and their influence on work engagement.
    • ○
      By choosing to include collective efficacy as a personal resource, we have sought to bring cultural considerations to nurse wellbeing.
    • ○
      Collective efficacy is a personal resource that can enhance nurses' personal resources of adaptability and resilience.
    • ○
      This study highlights the importance of the personal resource of adaptability for job engagement and commitment.
    • ○
      Through a focus on workplace relationships, nurse leaders and nursing teams can foster the growth of individual nurses' adaptability and the collective efficacy of team members.
  • Why is this research needed?
    • ○
      Increasing levels of psychological distress and burnout in nurses risk increasing levels of nurses leaving the profession in a time of global nursing workforce shortages.
    • ○
      A growing list of international studies on nurse wellbeing has shown that nurses' job demands (e.g., workload pressures and staff shortages) and personal resources—self–efficacy, adaptability, and resilience are—broadly predictive of their wellbeing.
    • ○
      There is a lack of understanding about how to effectively improve workforce wellbeing and engagement. Additionally, there is uncertainty about how to safeguard and protect nurses to stay in the profession.
  • What are the key findings?
    • ○
      The personal resources of self‐efficacy, adaptability and resilience were generally positively associated with nurses' occupational commitment and job engagement. In addition, nurses' collective efficacy was seen as important for managing the demands of the job.
    • ○
      If we wish to mediate work demands, it is necessary to build collective efficacy and adaptability in nurses.
  • How should the findings be used to influence policy/practice/research/education?
    • ○
      Nurses' collective work relationships offer opportunities to build confidence within an individual and foster trust as part of a team.
    • ○
      Through a focus on the relational elements of the workplace such as mentoring, team cohesion and functioning, and the quality of collegial relationships, nurse leaders and the nursing team can foster the growth of individual nurses' adaptability and the collective efficacy of team members. To achieve this, nurse leaders need to have access to the support, mentoring and guidance that allow them to develop their own relational skills and apply these to their roles.

1. Introduction

The World Health Organisation estimates a global shortage of 5.9 million nurses (World Health Organisation 2020). In the aftermath of COVID‐19, the International Council of Nurses named the current and predicted shortage of nurses a “global health emergency” (Buchan and Catton 2023, p. 4). It is evident that nursing workforce shortages impact extensively throughout healthcare, affecting patient ratios, staff dissatisfaction, occupational stress, staff burnout, staff retention, and ultimately patient safety and quality of care (Maniscalco et al. 2024; Pressley and Garside 2023). This increasing demand for nurses is creating a demand on nurses as workloads and associated pressures escalate. Heightened workloads are creating excessive fatigue, psychological burden, stress, insomnia (Almeida et al. 2023), decreased coping strategies and increasing information overload (Middleton et al. 2021).

A growing list of international studies on nurse wellbeing has shown that nurses' job demands and personal resources—self–efficacy, adaptability, and resilience are—broadly predictive of their wellbeing (Almeida et al. 2023; Cabrera‐Aguilar et al. 2023; Eva et al. 2020). The International Council of Nurses reported between 40% and 80% of nurses describe encountering symptoms of psychological distress (International Council of Nurses 2021), leading to a surge of 20% (or higher) of nurses intending to leave the profession (Buchan and Catton 2023). Insufficient knowledge exists regarding the underlying reasons for these phenomena. As a result, there is a lack of understanding about how to effectively improve workforce wellbeing and engagement. Additionally, there is uncertainty about how to safeguard and protect nurses to stay in the profession (Pressley and Garside 2023).

This study examined the relationships between resilience, adaptability, self‐efficacy and collective efficacy beliefs and nurses' occupational commitment and job engagement while health services in New Zealand were disrupted by the COVID‐19 pandemic. Our aim is to understand how healthcare organisations can sustain a stable nursing workforce by balancing job demands with adequate resources to mitigate the impact of the inherently high demands of nursing. As such, we propose the following research question:

RQ. What are the relationships between nurses' personal and collective resources (resilience, adaptability, self‐efficacy & collective‐efficacy beliefs) and their occupational commitment and job engagement?

1.1. Theoretical Framework

The Job Demands‐Resources (JD‐R) (Bakker and Demerouti 2007) model was adopted as the conceptual framework for this study. Every occupation is characterised by job demands and job resources. Irrespective of the job, job‐related stress and the potential for ‘burnout’ develop when certain job demands are high and certain job resources are low. As a counter to the experience of ‘burnout’, a person's level of engagement and commitment to their work is understood to be more likely when job resources are high, even if job demands are also high (Bakker and Demerouti 2007).

Job demands are those things that require sustained cognitive and emotional effort to meet the demands of the work. As such, they can be organisational, physical or psychosocial in nature. Job resources, on the other hand, are those aspects of the job that help a person to achieve work goals, reduce the associated physical and psychological costs of work demands, or stimulate personal development and learning. Social support, constructive feedback, remuneration, and autonomy of decision‐making can all act as job resources. Personal resources are known to mediate the relationship with job demands that result in stress and exhaustion and can reduce the likelihood of negative work outcomes (Bakker and Demerouti 2017). Job resources may be organisational, with the nature of leadership and managerial resources (e.g., job autonomy) acting as resources (Okuhara et al. 2021). Nurses in situations with lower job resources and higher job demands tend to experience strain in terms of their organisational commitment (Middleton et al. 2021). Increased work demands with decreased job satisfaction appear linked to nurses being less likely to stay in the profession (McVicar 2016; Werke and Weret 2023).

2. Background

Nursing involves emotional work, caring for people who are vulnerable, dying, or in emotional or physical pain, making nursing inherently stressful (Molero et al. 2018). The COVID‐19 pandemic intensified these everyday stressors, with nurses juggling their daily work of caring alongside their own and their family's fears and immediate needs (Zawadzka 2023). Despite New Zealand's strict border controls and internal public health measures, the pandemic significantly impacted NZ nurses' psychological wellbeing (Cook et al. 2021; Slykerman et al. 2022). The pandemic also intensified awareness of the problems associated with staff shortages (de Vries et al. 2023).

Research indicates that there are a range of personal (e.g., stress and workload) and organisational (e.g., staff shortages) factors that influence nurse retention (Al Zamel et al. 2020; Flinkman et al. 2010). The culture of the team within which a nurse works and its ability to function as a supportive collective has the capacity to influence nurses' reason to stay (Al Zamel et al. 2020; Arakelian et al. 2019; de Vries et al. 2023; Flinkman et al. 2010). Organisational factors such as the quality of nursing leadership and the leader's ability to respond to the emotional and professional needs of their team have been shown to impact a nurse's willingness to stay in a job (Arakelian et al. 2019; de Vries et al. 2023; Flinkman et al. 2010). High workload pressures can lead to job dissatisfaction and influence retention (de Vries et al. 2023; Moloney et al. 2018).

2.1. Personal and Social Variables for This Study

Personal factors that influence a nurse's intention to leave are linked to burnout and job satisfaction (de Vries et al. 2023; Moloney et al. 2018; Stordeur et al. 2007). It is well known that personal attributes of self‐efficacy, resilience and adaptability can influence job engagement and a nurse's intention to stay (Moroney and Strickland 2021). Moloney et al. (2018) found that when nurses have high self‐efficacy and experience emotional demands as positive challenges, feelings of burnout and intention to quit decrease. According to Bandura (Bandura 1997) self‐efficacy is the degree to which a person believes they can have control over the events that influence their lives, and this is expressed as personal confidence and competence. Organisational factors such as workload pressure and the emotional demands of the job place pressure on nurses' confidence and competence, leading to a sense of mental and physical exhaustion (de Vries et al. 2023; Moloney et al. 2018).

Collective efficacy i.e. the shared belief of a group that it can achieve its purpose (Bandura 2000) is another job resource that is helpful when seeking to understand nurses' job engagement and intention to quit. Despite this, there is limited research in relation to nurses and little of it is recent. Collective efficacy is understood to influence job satisfaction (Nielsen et al. 2009) and mitigate the impact of role conflict upon job satisfaction and intention to leave (Zellars et al. 2001). Collective efficacy has been found to be positively significantly associated with fewer episodes of missed nursing care (Smith et al. 2018), a sense of personal accomplishment of health care workers (Kiefer 2022), and influencing team satisfaction and goal attainment (Ganotice Jr et al. 2022).

Resilience is best understood as “a broad conceptual umbrella, covering many concepts related to positive patterns of adaptation in the context of adversity” (Masten and Obradovic 2006, p. 14). Wei and Taormina (2014) propose that it is a “multidimensional construct that includes a person's determination and ability to endure, to be adaptable and to recover from adversity” (Wei and Taormina 2014, p. 347). For the purposes of this study, we understand resilience as a long‐term, strategic and dynamic process while adaptability is about the immediate, moment by moment adjustments that a person makes to manage novelty and uncertainty (Middleton et al. 2022). Research into nurse resilience is dominated by a focus on individual factors which impact on resilience rather than external or organisational factors (Cooper et al. 2020). Delgado et al.'s (2021) study found a positive association between workplace resilience and psychological wellbeing. Self‐efficacy is seen to be one of the key personal attributes that helps nurses to build resilience (Badu et al. 2020; Molero et al. 2018).

Much less is known about the construct of adaptability in relation to nurses. The term resilience and adaptability are often used interchangeably (Hognon et al. 2023). Adaptability can be seen as a quality of all living systems where survival is related to the ability to positively adapt in response to a changing environment (Masten and Obradovic 2006; Ployhart and Bliese 2006). In this research adaptability is defined as “the self regulation strengths or capacities that a person may draw on to solve the unfamiliar, complex and ill defined problems” within the work environment (Savickas and Porfeli 2012, p. 662).

Nurses are motivated to stay in an organisation by personal factors like job satisfaction, which are influenced by the organisational culture and their experience of being part of a team. Stordeur (2007) argues that an organisation's ability to balance job demands with rewards and resources fosters job satisfaction among nurses, making them more likely to stay.

3. The Study

Based on literature, the following hypotheses were formulated:

Hypothesis 1

That collective efficacy of nurses is positively associated with their self‐efficacy, adaptability and resilience.

Hypothesis 2

That nurses' adaptability is directly and positively associated with self‐efficacy and resilience.

Hypothesis 3

That self‐efficacy is positively associated with and can predict nurses' work engagement.

Hypothesis 4

That adaptability and resilience are positively associated and can predict nurses' work engagement.

Hypothesis 5

That occupational commitment is positively associated with nurses' work engagement.

4. Method

4.1. The Study Context

As in other countries, New Zealand has a shortage of nurses to meet the health needs of the population. Inequitable access to health care for minority populations, particularly Māori (indigenous people of New Zealand), alongside a steadily aging population and a growth in chronic health conditions, is of increasing concern to New Zealand health care providers (Nursing Advisory Group 2022).

New Zealand's health service is nationally provided with government funding making secondary and tertiary level healthcare free at the point of service. Primary health care operates to a business model with subsidies provided by the government which reduces the cost to patients. Non‐governmental organisations also provide health care, primarily in community settings. Some of these services are Māori‐led services that aim to meet the needs of New Zealand's indigenous population. There is also privately funded (often by health insurance) health care available (Goodyear‐Smith and Ashton 2019).

All nurses are registered with the New Zealand Nursing Council/Te Kaunihera Tapuhi o Aotearoa. As of March 2023, there were 63,578 actively practicing nurses. The ethnicity of nurses in New Zealand is becoming increasingly diverse. In 2023, 7% of nurses identify as Māori, 4% as Pacific, 12% as Filipino, 11% as Indian, and 49% as New Zealand European (Nursing Council of New Zealand 2024a). As of March 2024, internationally qualified nurses (IQNs) made up 42.6% of nurses registered to practice in New Zealand (Nursing Council of New Zealand 2024b).

Despite the initially strict New Zealand policy of COVID‐19 elimination, many New Zealand nurses had to negotiate workplaces that felt chaotic, manage separation from family and feelings of uncertainty and fear (Cook et al. 2021).

4.2. The Study Design

A quantitative approach was adopted to examine the relationship between social–emotional constructs (job and personal resources) and job engagement. The instrument consisted of validated scales and short answer responses. The short answer questions will be published separately. Nurses were recruited by distributing information about the study via newsletters, social media and email forums. A formal request was made to seven different regional health district research offices; personal approaches were made to nurses in national and regional leadership roles and professional nursing organisations.

4.3. Ethical Considerations

4.3.1. Ethical Approval

For this study, approval was granted by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee (D22/148). The Declaration of Helsinki ethical standards and alignment with ethical research practice were adhered to in line with advancing Māori health (Health Research Council of NZ 2019).

4.4. Participants

New Zealand registered nurses were recruited nationally from Sept 2022–May 2023, via a variety of nurse professional organisations' social media, newsletters, and email forums. Regional health districts were approached to seek permission to recruit nurses via their email distribution lists. Key contact people were sent email reminders on one occasion regarding the study and were asked to resend the reminder to their own email lists.

4.5. Instrument and Data Collection

To examine the relationship between nurses' job and personal resources and job engagement, quantitative data were collected, involving the following measures: 1. Occupational Commitment Hackett et al. (2001); 2. Self‐efficacy (Riggs and Knight 1994); 3. Collective Efficacy (Riggs and Knight 1994); 4. Work Engagement; 5. Resilience and Adaptability (4 sections)–Determination, Endurance, Adaptability, and Recuperability (Wei and Taormina 2014).

The survey was first used for Australian nurses. The intention was to gather data from Australian and NZ nurses to compare responses but low response numbers in Australia due to COVID‐19 shutdowns meant that there was insufficient response rate in the Australian study. In the New Zealand study to ensure the instrument was culturally relevant, expertise face validity was used to determine which specific items should be retained during the scale development process. This process involved the expertise of judges (in this case New Zealand nurse academics n = 3) (Hardesty and Bearden 2004). This step was useful in deciding the most appropriate questions to include in the New Zealand context. These same New Zealand nurse academics provided guidance on changes required for the New Zealand context e.g., demographic data collection to ensure ethnicity data in line with national census format, types of health services, regions within which participants lived and worked. Minor wording was changed for some items for cultural/context relevance. The results reported on quantitative data and included the following measures.

4.6. Measures

The following measures were used in the study to provide the association of constructs, with implications for New Zealand nurses' job engagement. Occupational Commitment denotes the strength of motivation to work in a chosen career. It is a 10‐item measure, 5‐point scale (Strongly Diasgree to Strongly Agree), with 1 as the highest occupational commitment, that was used to measure the degree to which NZ nurses' feel committed to nursing (e.g., “I like this vocation too well to give it up.”) Validated items were based on Hackett et al. (2001) study which confirmed the theoretical links among occupational and organisational commitment, work involvement, and quitting intention. Eight items were used from Blau's (1985) scale and two items from Landy and Guion's (1970) scale. Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.82.

4.6.1. Perceived Self‐Efficacy Beliefs

Perceived self‐efficacy beliefs are defined as “beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura 1997, 3). Experiences of personal success or failure in efforts to perform a job task can influence thought patterns and personal behaviours, associated with state of engagement and adaptability to job stressors (Molero et al. 2018). A 10‐item personal self‐ scale (with option 10 being the highest perceived self‐efficacy beliefs) was used in this study and based on Riggs and Knight (1994) (e.g., level of agreement … “I have confidence in my ability to do my job.”). Internal consistency reliability was established (Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.81 to 0.87) (Riggs and Knight 1994).

4.6.2. Nurses' Collective Efficacy

Is defined as the collective belief about the capacity of the group or team to influence and problem solve when faced with obstacles (Bandura 2000). Groups with higher levels of collective efficacy are more likely to persist in problem solving and that efficacy beliefs influence what people choose to do as a group, the degree of effort they put into the job, and their staying power when collective efforts fail (Bandura 1997, 2000). A 7‐item Collective Efficacy Scale (Riggs and Knight 1994) utilising a 6‐point response option (strongly disagree to strongly agree, (with option 6 being the highest collective self‐efficacy) to measure the nurses confidence in their department, ward or team's ability to carry out the nursing role for example, “The department I work with has above average ability”). Internal consistency reliability was established (Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.81 to 0.87) (Riggs and Knight 1994).

4.6.3. Occupational Commitment

Is defined as a positive, fulfilling work‐related state of mind that is characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli and Salanova 2011). The nurse engagement scale adopted Bakker et al.'s (2011) Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) for use in this study. The scale comprised of 17 items (7‐point Likert scale from 0 Never—6 Always, with option 6 being the highest commitment) with three subscales: Vigour (6 items) (e.g., “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”); Dedication (5 items) (“I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose”); Absorption (6 items) (“Time flies when I am working”). Item loadings of the factors ranged from 0.66 to 0.85. Cronbach's alpha coefficients factors range from 0.72 and 0.90, 0.73 and 0.86, and 0.73 and 0.83 respectively.

4.6.4. Nurse Resilience

Resilience is defined here as an individual's long‐term, dynamic approach to the management of adversity (Masten and Obradovic 2006; Middleton et al. 2022). The resilience scale consisted of four 10‐item subscales, namely, Determination, Endurance, Adaptability and Recuperability (Wei and Taormina 2014). A 5‐point Likert scale from 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree (with option 5 being the highest resilent) was used in this study. Determination items represent psychological and cognitive resolve and willpower (“I will not let things stop me from achieving my goals”). Endurance represents psychological and physiological strength (“I can maintain myself as long as I have to”). Adaptability items represent psychological and cognitive flexibility in handling problems or new situations (“I am able to handle new situations”). Recuperability items represent regaining one's psychological and physiological condition despite problems or difficulties (“I am likely to bounce back if I am hit by a problem”) (Wei and Taormina 2014). Cronbach alpha reliability values were: 0.78 for Determination; 0.74 for Endurance; 0.75 for Adaptability; and 0.77 for Recuperability. All the reliabilities were above the recommended value of 0.70 indicating good internal consistency.

4.7. Analysis Strategy

Survey data from the Qualtrics system was downloaded into Excel format and imported into SPSS. Preliminary analysis of the data showed that there are no outliers, but there is missing data. Fifteen respondents were removed due to more than 50% missing data. We used Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) to handle missing data and estimate the value of a population parameter based on our sample data. We further explored the data by calculating the reliability coefficients, means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis for all variables to further explore the data. SPSSv26 was used to conduct these preliminary analyses (see Table 1). Based on the analysis, all scales have good reliability coefficients (X‐Y) and the data approximately approach the normal distribution, given by skewness (X‐Y) and kurtosis (X‐Y) within the recommended values (Field 2009). The slight non‐normality of the data was dealt with using the MLR estimator that is appropriate for non‐normality (Muthén and Muthén 1998‐2012).

TABLE 1.

Reliability and descriptive statistics of variables.

Min Max Missing (%) Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Factor loading Alpha
Collective efficacy beliefs
Item 1 1 6 11.10 4.47 1.21 −0.78 0.14 0.72 0.89
Item 2 1 6 11.10 2.53 1.26 0.66 −0.41 0.74
Item 3 1 6 11.40 3.61 1.51 −0.14 −1.05 0.77
Item 4 1 6 11.40 4.85 1.06 −0.88 0.69 0.60
Item 5 1 6 11.10 2.42 1.36 0.8539 −0.09 0.64
Item 6 1 6 11.10 2.39 1.28 0.89 0.15 0.87
Item 7 1 6 12.50 2.98 1.48 0.21 −1.01 0.71
Total 3.32
Self‐efficacy beliefs
Item 1 1 6 8.7 5.27 0.98 −0.99 −1.23 0.86 0.92
Item 2 1 6 8.7 3.24 1.46 −0.07 −1.26 0.87
Item 3 1 6 8.7 2.35 1.15 0.96 0.61 0.88
Item 4 1 6 8.3 2.20 1.15 0.90 0.28 0.96
Item 5 1 6 8.3 4.62 1.16 −0.87 0.54 0.87
Item 6 1 6 8.3 2.38 1.00 0.75 0.81 0.93
Item 7 1 6 10.7 4.36 1.24 −0.70 0.16 0.94
Item 8 1 6 8.3 1.90 0.99 1.43 2.86 0.90
Item 9 1 6 8.3 5.06 0.96 −1.22 2.23 0.92
Item 10 1 6 10.7 2.23 1.17 0.99 0.61 0.93
Total 3.36
Adaptability
Item 1 1 5 4.03 0.57 −0.42 1.68 0.84 0.89
Item 2 1 5 4.14 0.526 −0.03 1.22 0.89
Item 3 1 5 4.19 0.53 −0.17 1.98 0.93
Item 4 1 5 4.14 0.56 −0.56 2.68 0.95
Item 5 1 5 4.18 0.50 0.14 1.51 0.94
Item 6 1 5 4.14 0.66 −0.61 1.04 0.87
Item 7 1 5 4.23 0.55 −0.06 0.61 0.85
Item 8 1 5 4.16 0.61 −0.22 0.05 0.76
Item 9 1 5 4.12 0.57 −0.27 1.29 0.90
Total 4.15
Resilience
Determination
Item 1 1 5 16.3 3.79 0.76 −0.68 0.80 0.91 0.90
Item 2 1 5 16.3 4.02 0.67 −0.78 1.66 0.82
Item 3 1 5 17 3.62 0.73 −0.30 −0.11 0.94
Item 4 1 5 16.6 3.20 0.93 −0.20 −1.02 0.88
Item 5 1 5 16.3 3.82 0.81 −0.70 0.51 0.97
Item 6 1 5 16.3 3.75 0.79 −0.84 0.97 0.96
Item 7 1 5 16.7 3.95 0.78 −0.93 1.35 0.96
Item 8 1 5 17.3 3.57 0.83 −0.73 0.14 0.93
Item 9 1 5 17.3 3.62 0.79 −0.66 0.49 0.96

Item 10

 1 5 16.3 3.65 0.74 −0.82 0.99 0.96
Total 3.70
Endurance
Item 1 1 5 18.77 3.98 0.66 −0.79 1.73 0.97 0.91
Item 2 1 5 18.01 3.95 0.68 −0.83 1.57 0.98
Item 3 1 5 18.33 3.78 0.75 −0.91 1.50 0.97
Item 4 1 5 18.01 4.08 0.67 −0.78 1.71 0.98
Item 5 1 5 18.33 4.14 0.62 −0.43 0.88 0.98
Item 6 1 5 18.77 3.96 0.66 −0.39 0.52 0.96
Item 7 1 5 18.33 3.77 0.81 −0.56 0.02 0.94
Item 8 1 5 18.77 4.07 0.78 −0.72 0.43 0.96
Item 9 1 5 18.02 3.48 0.92 −0.36 −0.41 0.93
Item 10 1 5 18.33 3.98 0.66 −0.79 1.73 0.91
Total 3.92
Recuperation
Item 1 1 5 21.84 3.47 0.85 −0.34 −0.25 0.97 0.94
Item 2 1 5 21.84 3.98 0.64 −0.61 1.39 0.98
Item 3 1 5 22.10 3.64 0.82 −0.56 −0.19 0.97
Item 4 1 5 22.10 3.96 0.64 −0.88 2.13 0.96
Item 5 1 5 21.84 3.74 0.73 −0.79 1.02 0.98
Item 6 1 5 21.50 3.81 0.77 −0.36 0.15 0.97
Item 7 1 5 21.50 3.98 0.63 −0.48 0.94 0.92
Item 8 1 5 21.84 3.92 0.70 −0.42 0.35 0.94
Item 9 1 5 22.10 3.72 0.79 −0.40 −0.12 0.96
Item 10 1 5 22.10 3.91 0.82 −0.68 0.49 0.89
Total 3.81
Occupational commitment
Item 1 1 5 6.6 3.13 1.34 0.01 −1.19 0.98 0.96
Item 2 1 5 6.9 3.64 0.98 −0.65 0.20 0.70
Item 3 1 5 6.9 2.96 1.35 0.08 −1.24 0.98
Item 4 1 5 6.6 2.71 1.25 0.07 −1.18 0.96
Item 5 1 5 6.9 3.08 1.14 −0.09 −0.89 0.96
Item 6 1 5 6.9 3.26 1.05 −0.41 −0.58 0.71
Item 7 1 5 6.6 2.17 1.08 0.80 −0.03 0.98
Item 8 1 5 6.6 2.56 1.11 0.38 −1.08 0.98
Item 9 1 5 6.9 2.40 1.11 0.53 −0.65 0.70
Total 2.88
Work engagement
Item 1 1 6 14.50 3.08 1.19 −0.08 0.43 0.98 0.94
Item 2 1 6 14.50 4.18 1.10 −0.11 −0.57 0.97
Item 3 1 6 14.50 4.13 1.25 −0.21 −0.21 0.99
Item 4 1 6 14.50 3.26 1.10 0.08 0.68 0.96
Item 5 1 6 14.90 3.87 1.16 −0.13 0.26 0.89
Item 6 1 6 14.90 3.21 1.23 −0.16 −0.03 0.87
Item 7 1 6 14.50 3.56 1.23 0.09 −0.09 0.92
Item 8 1 6 14.50 3.20 1.50 −0.37 −0.38 0.93
Item 9 1 6 14.90 3.82 1.23 −0.28 0.31 0.98
Item 10 1 6 14.90 4.57 1.09 −0.45 0.17 0.96
Item 11 1 6 14.50 3.96 1.22 −0.48 0.86 0.85
Item 12 1 6 14.50 3.93 1.32 −0.49 0.25 0.86
Item 13 1 6 14.90 4.12 1.23 −0.18 −0.34 0.91
Item 14 1 6 14.90 2.96 1.28 −0.07 0.20 0.92
Item 15 1 6 14.90 4.07 1.11 −0.35 −0.14 0.79
Total 3.73
Open in a new tab

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) provided measurement support and obtained latent correlations among factors. The final analysis was performed using structural equation modelling using Robust maximum likelihood (MLR) in Mplus version 8 (Muthén et al. 2017). The full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimator was used to account for all observed data, including missing data (≤ 1%). Six fit indices were used to evaluate the model fit, including chi‐square statistics (X 2 ), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, RMSEA = < 0.05 (Steiger and Lind 1980), Standardised Root Mean Square Residual, SRMR < 0.05 (Joreskog et al. 1979), Comparative Fit Index, CFI > 0.90 (Bentler 1990), Tucker Lewis Index, TLI > 0.90 (Tucker and Lewis 1973), and the Weighted Root Mean Square Residual, WRMR > 0.90 (Muthén and Muthén 1998‐2012) following the conventional cut‐off values. These indices perform reasonably well with categorical and ordinal model estimation (Beauducel and Herzberg 2006), and hence fit well with our ordinal data.

5. Results

A total of 270 out of 63,578 actively practicing nurses completed the survey. Most participants self‐identified as female (93%) and of NZ European ethnicity (73%). People identifying as Māori made up 7% of participants. When grouped by age, 63% were aged 45 years or over. The same percentage (63%) stated their role as Registered Nurse and 65% indicated that they had been working as a nurse for over 15 years, with 11% of the remaining participants being registered for five years or under. When asked the type of health service that they worked in, 53% stated in a public hospital, 6% in a private hospital, 15% in general practice, and 15% in a community setting. The remainder of participants worked in other settings, which included prison, COVID‐19 services, and schools. 63% of participants were working in the South Island. When asked if their service covered urban, rural or a regional area, 67% served an urban area, 10% rural, with a further 3% stating they served both rural and urban areas, and 20% stating they served a region.

The CFA showed that all fit indices are within threshold values, indicating a good model fit: CFA fit: X2 (3135, N = 250) = 5357.24, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.92 and SRMR = 0.04. The correlations (Pearson r) of the constructs are presented in Table 2. Positive correlations existed, with the highest found between work engagement and resilience (r = 0.72) and the lowest between adaptability and collective efficacy (r = 0.21). More specifically, collective efficacy beliefs are positively associated with occupational commitment, resilience, adaptability, self‐efficacy, and work engagement. Among personal resources, occupational commitment is positively associated with resilience, adaptability, self‐efficacy, and work engagement. Adaptability is positively associated with resilience, self‐efficacy, and work engagement. In addition, engagement is positively associated with self‐efficacy beliefs.

TABLE 2.

Latent correlations among factors.

Collective efficacy beliefs Commitment Resilience Adaptability Self‐efficacy beliefs
Collective efficacy beliefs —
Commitment 0.24* —
Resilience 0.21* 0.36* —
Adaptability 0.26* 0.41* 0.58* —
Self‐efficacy beliefs 0.32* 0.32* 0.48* 0.52* —
Work Engagement 0.46* 0.52* 0.72* 0.58* 0.69*
Open in a new tab
*

p < 0.001.

Structural equation model analysis yielded similar fit indices with CFA given the same number of parameters were involved in both models: X2 (3135, N = 250) = 5357.24, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.04, and CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.92 and SRMR = 0.04. The values indicate a good fitting model. There was no model re‐specification performed because the fit indices support that the measurement model is consistent with the data. Also, the modification indices suggested are very low.

Results in Table 3 show that nurses self‐efficacy beliefs are positively associated with work engagement (β = 0.21; p < 0.01) and occupational commitment (β = 0.36 p < 0.001) while adaptability is positively associated with both resilience (β = 0.88; p < 0.001), self‐efficacy beliefs (β = 0.74; p < 0.05), and work engagement (β = 0.23; p < 0.001). In addition, resilience is positively associated with work engagement (β = 0.34; p < 0.001) and collective efficacy beliefs is positively associated with self‐efficacy beliefs (β = 0.26; p < 0.01), adaptability (β = 0.68; p < 0.001), and resilience (β = 0.12; p < 0.01). Lastly, occupational commitment is positively associated with work engagement (β = 0.92; p < 0.001) (Figure 1).

TABLE 3.

Standardised beta estimates from the structural equation modelling.

Commitment Resilience Adaptability Self‐efficacy beliefs Work engagement
Collective efficacy beliefs 0.12* 0.66** 0.26*
Commitment 0.95**
Resilience 0.34**
Adaptability 0.88** 0.74** 0.23*
Self‐efficacy beliefs 0.34** 0.21*
Open in a new tab
**

p < 0.001.

*

p < 0.01.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Significant effects from structural equation model: Standardised beta coefficients. **p < 0.001; *p < 0.01.

In summary, occupational commitment, resilience, self‐efficacy beliefs, and adaptability can predict work engagement. In addition, adaptability can predict resilience, self‐efficacy beliefs, and work engagement. Moreover, collective efficacy beliefs can predict self‐efficacy beliefs, adaptability, and resilience. These associations are aligned with our hypotheses.

We tested an alternative model where the order of job resources and personal resources was reversed; the model fit statistics are the same because both models, hypothesised and alternate, were fully saturated. There are also 11 significant direct effects in the alternate model, but they were much smaller in magnitude than in our hypothesised model. The higher beta values generated in our hypothesised model provide evidence that our model better explains the relationships of the constructs.

6. Discussion

This study sought to test several hypotheses regarding the associations between nurses' levels of resilience, adaptability, self‐efficacy and collective efficacy beliefs and their occupational commitment and work engagement. The aim was to understand the relationships between nurses personal and collective resources and their occupational commitment and engagement. All the hypotheses were found to be true and of particular interest here is the role that collective efficacy and adaptability appears to play in NZ nurses' levels of work engagement.

Regarding Hypothesis 1: That collective efficacy of nurses is positively associated with their self‐efficacy, adaptability and resilience. This study found that a person's collective efficacy or sense of confidence in the group or teams' ability to perform their role was positively associated with their levels of self‐efficacy, adaptability and resilience. This is an important finding from this study as there has been little research on this construct in nursing. Collective efficacy has been found to be positively associated with job satisfaction in nurses (Nielsen et al. 2009) and intentions to leave health care work (Jensen et al. 2011). Increased collective efficacy is associated with nursing care (Smith et al. 2018), a greater sense of personal accomplishment and less emotional exhaustion (Kiefer 2022) and increased sense of team satisfaction (Ganotice Jr et al. 2022). The importance of the team and confidence in the team is a key finding from this study, particularly when the demand of workload pressures is heightened.

When considering Hypothesis 2: That nurses' adaptability is directly and positively associated with self‐efficacy and resilience, the personal attribute of adaptability was positively associated with self‐efficacy and resilience. High self‐efficacy is seen to help nurses build resilience in the workplace (Badu et al. 2020; Molero et al. 2018). This is critical when considering the job demands of workload pressures leading to mental and physical exhaustion.

Hypothesis 3 and 4: That self‐efficacy, adaptability, and resilience are positively associated with nurses' work engagement. All three personal attributes (adaptability, resilience and self‐efficacy) were found to be positively associated with nurses' work engagement. These findings are supported by research that has found that personal levels of resilience in nurses are likely to improve job retention (Cooper et al. 2020) and improve work performance (Delgado et al. 2021). Adaptability is seen to be a protective factor for resilience, with nurses' positive self‐efficacy building resilience in the workplace (Badu et al. 2020). As with collective efficacy, there is little known about the personal resource of adaptability in nursing. Higher levels of adaptability have been associated with an increased ability to manage emotional distress and the job demands of overlapping workplace and personal stress in nurses during the COVID‐19 pandemic (Gázquez Linares et al. 2022). Results indicate that fostering the personal resource of adaptability may enhance nurses' workplace resilience and self‐efficacy and help to keep nurses in the job of nursing.

Hypothesis 5: That occupational commitment is positively associated with nurses' work engagement. This study appears to be one of only a few that explore both personal and collective resources with a focus on an outcome of work engagement (Cabrera‐Aguilar et al. 2023). Our findings suggest that collective efficacy and adaptability are important personal and social resources for NZ nurses that can help to buffer the work demands and improve work engagement, and this is supported in other research (Al Zamel et al. 2020; Moloney et al. 2018). This finding is particularly important for NZ nurses, many of whom likely identify as being part of a collectivist ethnic culture and who work professionally as part of a team.

Adaptability, resilience and self‐efficacy can be considered personal resources that nurses bring to the job. The argument made here is that while they may be expressed through an individual, these attributes are shaped through human relationships and interactions (Schore 2021). Nurses' collective work relationships offer opportunities to build confidence within an individual and foster trust as part of a team. If we wish to mediate work demands it is necessary to build collective efficacy and adaptability in nurses. This in‐turn provides the potential to strengthen collective relationships and confidence in the team in the workplace as well as supporting nurse's individual capacity to adapt to workplace stress and challenges.

6.1. Strengths and Limitations

This study's unique contribution is that it is the first study to explore associations between New Zealand nurses' personal and collective resources and their influence upon work engagement. Little research has been done in this area, particularly in the context of nurses and health professionals more broadly. The strength of our study is that, as non‐Māori researchers, we have sought to intentionally consider Māori culture in our approach to the research design and validity checks. By choosing to include collective efficacy as a personal resource, we have sought to go beyond an individualist approach to wellbeing, which has implications for the growing ethnic diversity of nurses in the New Zealand workforce.

In addition, another strength is in the findings that point to the importance of nurses' collective work relationships, with implications for building team trust in nursing teams. Our study also identified nurse adaptability as a personal resource, separate from resilience. Adaptability—a personal resource—was seen as important for managing job demands (stress) and building individual and team confidence.

The study found strong links to nurses' collective efficacy in relation to personal factors such as trust in colleagues, rather than being a direct form of organisational support. The study scope did not enable organisational factors such as policy and leadership to be measured in relation to the impact on nurse wellbeing. Future research should focus on organisational support mechanisms that may enhance nurse wellbeing amidst multiple job demands.

The proposed model for understanding these relationships is limited by the size of the sample. As a study using self‐report, there may be some differences between participants reported responses and practices or actual beliefs. In addition, consideration of participants being from a single country with a small population may not make it possible to compare more broadly. As non‐Māori researchers, it is also possible that despite the advice we sought, assumptions have been made about the value of our chosen constructs for Māori nurses. Further research should specifically examine the relevance of both the JD‐R model and these personal resources in an indigenous context.

6.2. Implications for Nursing Practice

An imbalance between job demands and resources impacts nurse retention (Arakelian et al. 2019; Hörberg et al. 2023; Senek et al. 2020). This has implications for nurse leadership on how best to maintain the collective efficacy of the nursing team, which this study found can enhance nurses' personal resources of adaptability and resilience. Nursing leaders have the ability to shape and influence team functioning (Cheng et al. 2016) and a team as a collective can influence the mental wellbeing of team members (Wei et al. 2020). Fostering occupational commitment and job engagement can lead to greater team effectiveness, a key mediating factor for successful interpersonal processes of nursing teams (Elms et al. 2023).

A second implication from this study is the importance of the personal resource of adaptability, particularly for job engagement and commitment (Middleton et al. 2022). Through a focus on the relational elements of the workplace, such as mentoring, team cohesion and functioning, and the quality of collegial relationships, nurse leaders and the nursing team can foster the growth of individual nurses' adaptability and the collective efficacy of team members. To achieve this, nurse leaders need to have access to the support, mentoring and guidance that allow them to develop their own relational skills and apply these to their roles.

6.3. Recommendations for Further Research

There appear to be significant gaps in what is known about the relevance of collective efficacy and adaptability in relation to nurses and nursing practice. This presents an opportunity for further research, particularly qualitative studies that engage in the stories of nurses and nursing teams. The influence of collectivist cultures on the nursing workplace, particularly in regard to work demands and resources, is an area for further research, as this study found it to be critical to job engagement. Further exploration of the collective nursing team on individual nurses commitment to the job is important for retaining and enhancing the nursing workforce during crises and everyday challenges.

7. Conclusion

Managing workforce shortages within health care is important globally and in New Zealand. For nurses themselves, the shortages add additional pressures on an already stressful job and further increase the likelihood of them leaving the profession. The reasons nurses leave the profession are multi‐factorial. Yet personal resources of any employee are known to help mediate the demands of a particular job, and the social context of work can offer an important social resource as well as be the source of additional stress. For nurses', collegial relationships, mentoring, job autonomy and responsive managers can all help to buffer the impact of high demand jobs. Studies have tended to focus upon individual wellbeing with less attention to the social context of the workplace and the role this might play in job engagement and retention. The results from this study direct our attention to the importance of workplace relationships and their potential to foster collective efficacy and adaptability in nurses thus reducing nurses' intention to leave.

Author Contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data and involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content. All authors given final approval of the version to be published. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. All authors agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Disclosure

Statistics: The authors have checked to make sure that our submission conforms as applicable to the Journal's statistical guidelines. There is a statistician on the author team—Dennis Alonzo. The author(s) affirm that the methods used in the data analyses are suitably applied to their data within their study design and context, and the statistical findings have been implemented and interpreted correctly. The author(s) agree to take responsibility for ensuring that the choice of statistical approach is appropriate and is conducted and interpreted correctly as a condition to submit to the Journal.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Peer Review

The peer review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer‐review/10.1111/jan.16804.

Supporting information

Data S1.

JAN-81-6893-s001.docx (34.5KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the participants and nurse leaders who gave their time to support this study. Open access publishing facilitated by University of Otago, as part of the Wiley ‐ University of Otago agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability Statement

The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

References

  1. Al Zamel, L. G. , Lim Abdullah K., Chan C. M., and Piaw C. Y.. 2020. “Factors Influencing Nurses' Intention to Leave and Intention to Stay: An Integrative Review.” Home Health Care Management & Practice 32, no. 4: 218–228. 10.1177/1084822320931363. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Almeida, S. , Gunasekara A., Wilson V., and Middleton R.. 2023. “Career Optimism and Job‐Related Well‐Being of Australian Nurses During COVID‐19: A Cross‐Sectional Study.” Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing 20, no. 5: 431–441. 10.1111/wvn.12671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arakelian, E. , Rudolfsson G., Rask‐Andersen A., Runeson‐Broberg R., and Wålinder R.. 2019. “I Stay—Swedish Specialist Nurses in the Perioperative Context and Their Reasons to Stay at Their Workplace.” Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing 34, no. 3: 633–644. 10.1016/j.jopan.2018.06.095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Badu, E. , O'Brien A. P., Mitchell R., et al. 2020. “Workplace Stress and Resilience in the Australian Nursing Workforce: A Comprehensive Integrative Review.” International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 29, no. 1: 5–34. 10.1111/inm.12662. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakker, A. B. , and Demerouti E.. 2007. “The Job Demands‐Resources Model: State of the Art.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 22, no. 3: 309–328. 10.1108/02683940710733115. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bakker, A. B. , and Demerouti E.. 2017. “Job Demands–Resources Theory: Taking Stock and Looking Forward.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22, no. 3: 273–285. 10.1037/ocp0000056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bakker, A. B. , Albrecht S. L., and Leiter M. P.. 2011. “Work Engagement: Further Reflections on the State of Play.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20, no. 1: 74–88. 10.1080/1359432X.2010.546711. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bandura, A. 1997. Self‐Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bandura, A. 2000. “Exercise of Human Agency Through Collective Efficacy.” Current Directions in Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society 9, no. 3: 75–78. 10.1111/1467-8721.00064. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Beauducel, A. , and Herzberg P. Y.. 2006. “On the Performance of Maximum Likelihood Versus Means and Variance Adjusted Weighted Least Squares Estimation in CFA.” Structural Equation Modeling 13, no. 2: 186–203. 10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bentler, P. M. 1990. “Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models.” Psychological Bulletin 107, no. 2: 238. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2mk8r49v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Blau, G. J. 1985. “The Measurement and Prediction of Career Commitment.” Journal of Occupational Psychology 58, no. 4: 277–288. https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2044‐8325.1985.tb00201.x?casa_token=bPJoBap0NSkAAAAA:‐w6dBtc4xVv8IrWEwG8Ned‐Jef‐dbG2W0ShEuUNfrpzcAMD820mX7nOlYf‐PbfqmULsJpAobGxStVpQ10.1111/j.2044‐8325.1985.tb00201.x. [Google Scholar]
  13. Buchan, J. , and Catton H.. 2023. Recover to rebuild: Investing in the nursing workforce for health system effectiveness International Council of Nurses, 2023–2003. https://www.icn.ch/sites/default/files/2023‐07/ICN_Recover‐to‐Rebuild_report_EN.pdf.
  14. Cabrera‐Aguilar, E. , Zevallos‐Francia M., Morales‐García M., et al. 2023. “Resilience and Stress as Predictors of Work Engagement: The Mediating Role of Self‐Efficacy in Nurses.” Frontiers in Psychiatry 14: 1202048. 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1202048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cheng, C. , Bartram T., Karimi L., and Leggat S.. 2016. “Transformational Leadership and Social Identity as Predictors of Team Climate, Perceived Quality of Care, Burnout and Turnover Intention Among Nurses.” Personnel Review 45, no. 6: 1200–1216. 10.1108/PR-05-2015-0118. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cook, C. , Brunton M., Chapman M. K., and Roskruge M.. 2021. “Frontline nurses' Sensemaking During the Initial Phase of the COVID‐19 Pandemic in 2020 Aotearoa New Zealand.” Nursing Praxis in Aotearoa New Zealand 37, no. 3: 41–52. 10.36951/27034542.2021.034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cooper, A. L. , Brown J. A., Rees C. S., and Leslie G. D.. 2020. “Nurse Resilience: A Concept Analysis.” International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 29, no. 4: 553–575. 10.1111/inm.12721. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. de Vries, N. , Boone A., Godderis L., et al. 2023. “The Race to Retain Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review on Factors That Impact Retention of Nurses and Physicians in Hospitals.” INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing 60: 00469580231159318. 10.1177/00469580231159318. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Delgado, C. , Roche M., Fethney J., and Foster K.. 2021. “Mental Health nurses' Psychological Well‐Being, Mental Distress, and Workplace Resilience: A Cross‐Sectional Survey.” International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 30, no. 5: 1234–1247. 10.1111/inm.12874. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Elms, A. K. , Gill H., and Gonzalez‐Morales M. G.. 2023. “Confidence Is Key: Collective Efficacy, Team Processes, and Team Effectiveness.” Small Group Research 54, no. 2: 191–218. 10.1177/10464964221104218. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Eva, N. , Newman A., Jiang Z., and Brouwer M.. 2020. “Career Optimism: A Systematic Review and Agenda for Future Research.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 116: 103287. 10.1016/j.jvb.2019.02.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Field, A. 2009. “Discovering Statistics Using SPSS.”
  23. Flinkman, M. , Leino‐Kilpi H., and Salanterä S.. 2010. “Nurses' Intention to Leave the Profession: Integrative Review.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 66, no. 7: 1422–1434. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05322.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ganotice Jr, F. A. , Chan L., Shen X., et al. 2022. “Team Cohesiveness and Collective Efficacy Explain Outcomes in Interprofessional Education.” BMC Medical Education 22, no. 1: 820. 10.1186/s12909-022-03886-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gázquez Linares, J. J. , Molero Jurado M. d. M., Pérez‐Fuentes M. d. C., Herrera‐Peco I., Martos Martínez Á., and Barragán Martín A. B.. 2022. “The “Mask Effect” of the Emotional Factor in Nurses' Adaptability to Change: Mental Health in a COVID‐19 Setting.” Health 10, no. 8: 1457. 10.3390/healthcare10081457. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Goodyear‐Smith, F. , and Ashton T.. 2019. “New Zealand Health System: Universalism Struggles With Persisting Inequities.” Lancet 394, no. 10196: 432–442. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31238-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hackett, R. D. , Lapierre L. M., and Hausdorf P. A.. 2001. “Understanding the Links Between Work Commitment Constructs.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 58, no. 3: 392–413. 10.1006/jvbe.2000.1776. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hardesty, D. M. , and Bearden W. O.. 2004. “The Use of Expert Judges in Scale Development: Implications for Improving Face Validity of Measures of Unobservable Constructs.” Journal of Business Research 57, no. 2: 98–107. 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00295-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Health Research Council of NZ . 2019. Māori health advancement guidelines Auckland: Health Research Council of NZ. https://www.hrc.govt.nz/resources/maori‐health‐advancement‐guidelines.
  30. Hognon, L. , Heraud N., Varray A., and Torre K.. 2023. “Complex Systems Approaches to the Adaptability of Human Functions and Behavior in Health, Aging, and Chronic Diseases: Protocol for a Meta‐Narrative Review.” Systematic Reviews 12, no. 1: 122. 10.1186/s13643-023-02268-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hörberg, A. , Gadolin C., Skyvell Nilsson M., Gustavsson P., and Rudman A.. 2023. “Experienced Nurses' Motivation, Intention to Leave, and Reasons for Turnover: A Qualitative Survey Study.” Journal of Nursing Management 2023: 2780839. 10.1155/2023/2780839. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Jensen, J. N. , Holten A. L., Karpatschof B., and Albertsen K.. 2011. “Does Collective Efficacy Moderate the Associations Between Physical Work Load and Intention to Leave or Sickness Absence?” Journal of Advanced Nursing 67, no. 11: 2425–2434. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05674.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Joreskog, K. G. , Dag S., and Magidson J.. 1979. Advances in Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Models. Abt books. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kiefer, A. 2022. “Burnout, Collective Efficacy, and the Social Network of a Unit Dissertation. Loyola University Chicago.” https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/3962.
  35. Landy, F. J. , and Guion R. M.. 1970. “Development of Scales for the Measurement of Work Motivation.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 5, no. 1: 93–103. 10.1016/0030-5073(70)90007-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Maniscalco, L. , Enea M., de Vries N., et al. 2024. “Intention to Leave, Depersonalisation and Job Satisfaction in Physicians and Nurses: A Cross‐Sectional Study in Europe.” Scientific Reports 14, no. 1: 2312. 10.1038/s41598-024-52887-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Masten, A. S. , and Obradovic J.. 2006. “Competence and Resilience in Development.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1094, no. 1: 13–27. 10.1196/annals.1376.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. McVicar, A. 2016. “Scoping the Common Antecedents of Job Stress and Job Satisfaction for Nurses (2000–2013) Using the Job Demands–Resources Model of Stress.” Journal of Nursing Management 24, no. 2: E112–E136. 10.1111/jonm.12326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Middleton, R. , Loveday C., Hobbs C., et al. 2021. “The COVID‐19 Pandemic–A Focus on Nurse managers' Mental Health, Coping Behaviours and Organisational Commitment.” Collegian 28, no. 6: 703–708. 10.1016/j.colegn.2021.10.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Middleton, R. , Kinghorn G., Patulny R., Sheridan L., Andersen P., and McKenzie J.. 2022. “Qualitatively Exploring the Attributes of Adaptability and Resilience Amongst Recently Graduated Nurses.” Nurse Education in Practice 63: 103406. 10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Molero, M. D. M. , Pérez‐Fuentes M. d. C., and Gázquez J. J.. 2018. “Analysis of the Mediating Role of Self‐Efficacy and Self‐Esteem on the Effect of Workload on Burnout's Influence on Nurses' Plans to Work Longer.” Frontiers in Psychology 9: 2605. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Moloney, W. , Gorman D., Parsons M., and Cheung G.. 2018. “How to Keep Registered Nurses Working in New Zealand Even as Economic Conditions Improve.” Human Resources for Health 16: 1–8. 10.1186/s12960-018-0312-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Moroney, T. , and Strickland K.. 2021. “Resilience: Is It Time for a Rethink?” AJAN‐The Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing 38, no. 2: 1–2. 10.37464/2020.382.526. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Muthén, B. O. , Muthén L. K., and Asparouhov T.. 2017. Regression and Mediation Analysis Using Mplus. Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  45. Muthén, L. K. , and Muthén B. O.. 1998. ‐2012. “Mplus User's Guide (Version 7).” Muthén & Muthén.
  46. Nielsen, K. , Yarker J., Randall R., and Munir F.. 2009. “The Mediating Effects of Team and Self‐Efficacy on the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership, and Job Satisfaction and Psychological Well‐Being in Healthcare Professionals: A Cross‐Sectional Questionnaire Survey.” International Journal of Nursing Studies 46, no. 9: 1236–1244. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Nursing Advisory Group . 2022. “Nursing Safe Staffing Review and Report on the Review of the Care Capacity Demand Management (CCDM) Programme.” https://www.health.govt.nz/publications/nursing‐safe‐staffing‐review‐and‐report‐on‐the‐review‐of‐the‐care‐capacity‐demand‐management‐ccdm#:~:text=The%20Report%20confirms%20that%20CCDM,to%20be%20fit%20for%20purpose.
  48. Nursing Council of New Zealand . 2024a. “The New Zealand Nursing Workforce.” A Profile of Nurse Practitioner, Registered Nurses and Enrolled Nurses 2022–2023. https://online.flippingbook.com/view/947433727/.
  49. Nursing Council of New Zealand . 2024b. “Nursing Council of New Zealand Quarterly Data Report. March 2024 Quarter.” https://www.nursingcouncil.org.nz/Public/News_Media/Publications/Workforce_Statistics/NCNZ/publications‐section/Workforce_statistics.aspx?hkey=3f3f39c4‐c909‐4d1d‐b87f‐e6270b531145.
  50. Okuhara, M. , Sato K., and Kodama Y.. 2021. “The nurses' Occupational Stress Components and Outcomes, Findings From an Integrative Review.” Nursing Open 8, no. 5: 2153–2174. 10.1002/nop2.780. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Ployhart, R. E. , and Bliese P. D.. 2006. “Individual Adaptability (I‐ADAPT) Theory: Conceptualizing the Antecedents, Consequences, and Measurement of Individual Differences in Adaptability.” In Understanding Adaptability: A Prerequisite for Effective Performance Within Complex Environments, 3–39. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 10.1016/S1479-3601(05)06001-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Pressley, C. , and Garside J.. 2023. “Safeguarding the Retention of Nurses: A Systematic Review on Determinants of nurse's Intentions to Stay.” Nursing Open 10, no. 5: 2842–2858. 10.1002/nop2.1588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Riggs, M. L. , and Knight P. A.. 1994. “The Impact of Perceived Group Success‐Failure on Motivational Beliefs and Attitudes: A Causal Model.” Journal of Applied Psychology 79, no. 5: 755–766. 10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Savickas, M. L. , and Porfeli E. J.. 2012. “Career Adapt‐Abilities Scale: Construction, Reliability, and Measurement Equivalence Across 13 Countries.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 80, no. 3: 661–673. 10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Schaufeli, W. , and Salanova M.. 2011. “Work Engagement: On How to Better Catch a Slippery Concept.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20, no. 1: 39–46. 10.1080/1359432X.2010.515981. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Schore, A. N. 2021. “The Interpersonal Neurobiology of Intersubjectivity.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 648616. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648616. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Senek, M. , Robertson S., Ryan T., et al. 2020. “Determinants of Nurse Job Dissatisfaction ‐ Findings From a Cross‐Sectional Survey Analysis in the UK.” BMC Nursing 19, no. 1: 88. 10.1186/s12912-020-00481-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Slykerman, R. F. , Li E., and Booth R. J.. 2022. “Improvement in the Psychological Health of Nurses Working During the COVID‐19 Pandemic.” Nursing Forum 57, no. 1: 87–93. 10.1111/nuf.12660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Smith, J. G. , Morin K. H., Wallace L. E., and Lake E. T.. 2018. “Association of the Nurse Work Environment, Collective Efficacy, and Missed Care.” Western Journal of Nursing Research 40, no. 6: 779–798. 10.1177/0193945917734159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Steiger, J. H. , and Lind J.. 1980. “Statistically Based Tests for the Number of Common Factors.” Iowa City, IA: Paper presented at the Psychometric Society Annual Meeting. [Google Scholar]
  61. Stordeur, S. , D'Hoore W., and Group, T. N.‐S . 2007. “Organizational Configuration of Hospitals Succeeding in Attracting and Retaining Nurses.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 57, no. 1: 45–58. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04095.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Tucker, L. R. , and Lewis C.. 1973. “A Reliability Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis.” Psychometrika 38, no. 1: 1–10. 10.1007/BF02291170. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Wei, H. , King A., Jiang Y., Sewell K. A., and Lake D. M.. 2020. “The Impact of Nurse Leadership Styles on Nurse Burnout:: A Systematic Literature Review.” Nurse Leader 18, no. 5: 439–450. 10.1016/j.mnl.2020.04.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Wei, W. , and Taormina R. J.. 2014. “A New Multidimensional Measure of Personal Resilience and Its Use: Chinese Nurse Resilience, Organizational Socialization and Career Success.” Nursing Inquiry 21, no. 4: 346–357. 10.1111/nin.12067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Werke, E. B. , and Weret Z. S.. 2023. “Occupational Stress and Associated Factors Among Nurses Working at Public Hospitals of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2022; A Hospital Based Cross‐Sectional Study.” Frontiers in Public Health 11: 1147086. 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1147086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. World Health Organisation . 2020. “State of the World's Nursing 2020: Investing in Education, Jobs and Leadership.” World Health Organisation. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240003279.
  67. Zawadzka, S. 2023. “Family Ties and COVID Lies.” Clinical Infectious Diseases 78, no. 4: 813–814. 10.1093/cid/ciad578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Zellars, K. L. , Hochwarter W. A., Perrewe P. L., Miles A. K., and Kiewitz C.. 2001. “Beyond Self‐Efficacy: Interactive Effects of Role Conflict and Perceived Collective Efficacy.” Journal of Managerial Issues 13, no. 4: 483–499. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40604366. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data S1.

JAN-81-6893-s001.docx (34.5KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Articles from Journal of Advanced Nursing are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES