Unfortunately, Garrosa, Rainho, Moreno-Jimenez and Monteiro (2010, p. 205-217), authors of “The relationship between job stressors, hardy personality, coping resources and burnout in a sample of nurses: A correlational study at two time points,” do not address the benefits and risks of participating in this study. On the other hand, these risks and benefits are noticeable. First, the confidentiality of the subjects’ information was not assured; thus, the information of these subjects could be revealed to a third party, and this could place the nurses at risk of job loss. Secondly, the patients were at risk of recurring emotional pain because they had to think about some past experiences such as death of a patient when filling out the questionnaire.
This study was also investigating coping mechanisms, and the authors should have told the subjects that they would benefit by learning about some of the effective coping strategies that would help them address their burnout. Despite the fact that there was no provision of informed consent, the subjects took part in the study willingly as indicated by the statement, “…and all of them agreed” (Garrosa et al., 2010. p. 207). There is no indication that the study was approved by an institutional review board.
The variables under study are succinctly identified, but not their categorization. The reader is left to delineate the independent and dependent variables. The dependent variable is burnout while the dependent variables are “job stressors, hardy personality and coping mechanisms at two different time points” (Garrosa et al., 2010. p. 205-215). Data was collected in the form of a questionnaire, and variables were quantified using scores. In addition, data was collected in two phases: first time and 4-weeks later.
The authors did not give a detailed description about the mode of study. But, judging by the nature of data collected, quantitative data was collected. The objective of the author was to find a correlation between the aforementioned independent variables and burnout, and there is no better method to achieve this other than by using a quantitative approach. The authors state that the research design used: cross-sectional design, is imperative in this study because it ensured a temporal dimension that did not attribute the effects of variables to the methodological artefacts (Garrosa et al., 2010, p. 208). In addition, according to Burns and Grove (2011, p. 34), correlational analysis helps a researcher to obtain the degree and the nature of relationship between variables.
In accordance with the aim of this paper, interpretation of findings will solely focus on the job stressors. Socio-demographic characteristics did not have significant effects on burnout. Correlation (temporal effect) of variables was carried out in two steps: wave 1 and wave 2 (cross-sectional level). Commensurate with other studies, this study revealed a significant relationship between the job stressors and burnout at the correlational level.
The study emphasizes that emotional exhaustion and overload are reliable variables, and both have a strong correlation. I have no confidence in these findings due to inadequacies in the methodological procedure. First, as noted by Burns and Grove (2011, p. 40, 51), sample size determination is imperative, and it should be a reflection of the study population. Convenience sampling, used in this study, tends to introduce sampling bias because those recruited are subjectively selected, and the probability of recruiting every member of the larger population is not guaranteed.
The study is a cross-sectional study, in which data was collected at a certain point in time in two stages. However, it is not clear how much time was spent to collect data at each stage. The questionnaire was a self-evaluation of oneself in reference to the variables. Each participant filled out a burnout questionnaire.
There is no indication of the statistical software used for data analysis. However, various tests were applied to reassure the rigor of the methodology. Normality was checked for all indicators, and linear regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. In addition, multicollinearity of data was evaluated. The authors have mentioned their critical decision to separate variables in stages (3 stages) while simultaneously checking for correlation. This stepwise approach was used to reduce bias attributed to common method (cross-section research design). There is no indication of the number of researchers who analyzed the data; hence, it is not certain that researcher bias was addressed.
Findings were presented in a coherent manner, and each variable was discussed at a time. The methodology was highlighted as one limitation of this study. Secondly, the sample size used was small and targeted an unspecified cohort as indicated by the demographic characteristics, making it difficult to generalize results. Also, the short time interval between the two points in time was a limitation. Future studies should address the raised concerns by recruiting a larger sample size, adopting an experimental approach, and increasing the interval between the two points in time.
This study indicated that there is a relationship between the studied variables, but in accordance with Burns and Grove (2011, p. 35), more credible methods such as the quasi-experimental and experimental studies are required. The study results cannot be generalized to a particular population because of the unknown characteristics of the study sample. The only clear and generalizable characteristic known is that the study was carried out in Portugal among the nurses, but the sample size is too small.
This study has implications for nursing practice as an entire unit, for example, identification of job stressors associated with burnout and how to deal with them. Drawing such findings for implication in the nursing field is supported by the fact that these findings are commensurate with a majority of other studies adopting a similar cross-sectional approach.
References
Burns, N., & Grove, S. (2011). Understanding Nursing Research: Building an Evidence-Based Practice (5th ed.). Maryland: Elsevier Sanders.
Garrosa, E., Rainho, C., Moreno-Jimenes, B., & Monteiro, M. (2010). The relationship between job stressors, hardy personality, coping resources and burnout in a sample of nurses: A correlational study at two time points. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 205-215.