Quality of nursing doctoral education in Korea: towards policy development
Article first published online: 23 NOV 2011
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Volume 68, Issue 7, pages 1494–1503, July 2012
How to Cite
Ja Kim, M., Gi Park, C., Kim, M., Lee, H., Ahn, Y.-H., Kim, E., Yun, S.-N. and Lee, K.-J. (2012), Quality of nursing doctoral education in Korea: towards policy development. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68: 1494–1503. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05885.x
- Issue published online: 20 JUN 2012
- Article first published online: 23 NOV 2011
- Accepted for publication 15 October 2011
- quality of nursing doctoral education;
- questionnaire survey
kim m.j., park c.g., kim m., lee h., ahn y-h., kim e., yun s-n. & lee k-j. (2012) Quality of nursing doctoral education in Korea: towards policy development. Journal of Advanced Nursing68(7), 1494–1503.
Aims. This article is a report on an international study of the quality of nursing doctoral education; herein, we report findings for Korea. Specific aims were to: examine the validity and reliability of the quality of nursing doctoral education questionnaire; and identify contributing factors and domain(s) for improvement.
Background. The quality of nursing doctoral education has been a worldwide concern with the recent rapid increase in number of nursing doctoral programmes around the world, and comprehensive evaluation is needed for policy recommendations.
Methods. A cross-sectional descriptive study, conducted from October 2006 to January 2007, used an online questionnaire evaluating four domains: programme, faculty, resources and evaluation. Seven deans, 48 faculty, 52 graduates and 87 students from 14 nursing schools participated.
Results. Content and construct validity, and construct reliability of the questionnaire were established. Overall, participants reported that the perceived quality of private universities/schools was significantly higher than that of public/national universities. A higher ratio of doctoral to non-doctoral students was significantly associated with higher quality. The domains of programme, faculty and resources were highly correlated. The programme was the most important domain; availability of sufficient materials and information for students most needed improvement. Overall, faculty perceived the quality of the programme, faculty and resources as more positively than did the graduates and students.
Conclusion. This study provides useful policy guidance for nurse educators worldwide for improving doctoral programmes and faculty’s role in educating students. Further study is recommended that examines contributing factors to quality doctoral education.