Table 5.
Determinants of Nursing Assistant Retention
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | (SE) | Coefficient | (SE) | Coefficient | (SE) | Coefficient | (SE) | Coefficient | (SE) | |
| Job satisfaction | -0.02 | (0.08) | -0.01 | (0.10) | ||||||
| Intent to stay in job | -0.18 | (0.58) | -0.17 | (0.65) | -0.12 | (0.68) | ||||
| Perceived job characteristics | ||||||||||
| Supervisor support | -0.34 | (0.52) | -0.50 | (0.48) | ||||||
| Workload | -0.24 | (0.53) | -0.34 | (0.50) | ||||||
| Financial rewards | -0.11 | (0.27) | -0.06 | (0.26) | ||||||
| Career rewards | -0.04 | (0.35) | -0.09 | (0.39) | ||||||
| Quality of coworkers | -0.72 | (0.56) | -0.63 | (0.56) | ||||||
| Perceived quality of care | -0.82 | (0.50) | -0.76 | (0.52) | ||||||
| Team care | 0.31 | (0.47) | 0.41 | (0.49) | ||||||
| Contingency factors | ||||||||||
| Breadwinner | -0.94* | (0.41) | -0.94* | (0.42) | -0.94* | (0.42) | -0.74 | (0.38) | -0.92* | (0.37) |
| Single mother | 0.86 | (0.64) | 0.91 | (0.64) | 0.91 | (0.64) | 0.80 | (0.64) | 0.93 | (0.69) |
| Public assistance | -0.31 | (0.61) | -0.32 | (0.63) | -0.32 | (0.63) | -0.21 | (0.58) | -0.35 | (0.66) |
| Health insurance | 0.63 | (0.39) | 0.64 | (0.38) | 0.64 | (0.39) | 0.85* | (0.35) | 0.77* | (0.37) |
| Personal characteristics | ||||||||||
| Age (logged) | 0.17 | (0.67) | 0.2 | (0.70) | 0.2 | (0.70) | -0.03 | (0.59) | 0.09 | (0.62) |
| Female | 1.19 | (0.87) | 1.16 | (0.89) | 1.16 | (0.89) | 1.37 | (0.90) | 1.28 | (0.98) |
| Black | 0.21 | (0.33) | 0.17 | (0.32) | 0.17 | (0.32) | -0.03 | (0.33) | -0.02 | (0.31) |
| Other minority | 1.01 | (1.01) | 0.96 | (1.13) | 0.96 | (1.12) | 0.76 | (0.91) | 0.35 | (0.96) |
| High school degree or less | -0.73 | (0.52) | -0.7 | (0.50) | -0.70 | (0.52) | -0.77 | (0.46) | -0.77 | (0.49) |
| Tenure in job | 0.44* | (0.18) | 0.44* | (0.18) | 0.44* | (0.18) | 0.47* | (0.17) | 0.47* | (0.18) |
| Past health experi-ence | -0.88* | (0.41) | -0.85* | (0.41) | -0.86* | (0.40) | -0.86* | (0.36) | -0.86* | (0.35) |
| Organizational characteristics | ||||||||||
| For-profit | 0.3 | (0.39) | 0.25 | (0.40) | 0.25 | (0.39) | 0.18 | (0.44) | 0.31 | (0.47) |
| Size/10 | 0.1 | (0.06) | 0.09 | (0.07) | 0.09 | (0.07) | 0.10 | (0.06) | 0.11 | (0.08) |
| Economic indicators | ||||||||||
| Unemployment rate | 0.03 | (0.16) | 0.04 | (0.17) | 0.04 | (0.16) | 0.10 | (0.14) | 0.06 | (0.14) |
| Comparable in-come/1000 | 0.18 | (0.23) | 0.19 | (0.24) | 0.19 | (0.24) | 0.19 | (0.21) | 0.21 | (0.24) |
| Constant | -1.31 | (2.59) | -1.36 | (2.53) | -1.30 | (2.55) | 3.94 | (2.82) | 3.58 | (3.13) |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.27 | |||||
Notes: N = 315 nursing assistants in 18 nursing home. The measure of "intent" in model is: "I intend to remain in my current position for the near future." The "intent" variable is dichotomous (0 = disagree or strongly disagree; 1 = agree or strongly agree). We ran additional models of retention with other measures of "intent" included as independent variables, and the findings were similar. Additional models of retention available upon request. Because this study utilizes data from individuals nested within organizations, Huber White Sandwich Estimators were used in all models to correct for clustering of the error terms (Wooldridge, 2002). Finally, we used the Sobel-Goodman mediation test with bootstrapped standard errors to test whether intent to stay mediated the relationship between key independent variables and retention (Ender, 2008). We did not find that intent to stay was a significant mediator between any of the independent variables shown in Tables 3 and 4 and retention.
*p = .05. **p =. 01. ***p = .001.