David Coniglio, EdD, PA-C

Campbell University

Duane Akroyd, PhD

North Carolina State University

October 17, 2013

Why study faculty turnover intention?

Institutional and departmental development

Institutional and departmental reputation

Support faculty growth and development

Decrease unwanted departures

Intent-to-leave: thoughts or behaviors preceding

the act of leaving a position, institution or academic

career within a specified time-frame

Intent is an established proxy for actual turnover

Why study Physician Assistant Faculty?

Rapid growth in the PA profession and PA educational programs

PA faculty not included in existing faculty workforce literature

PA faculty not ‘traditional’ academic faculty

Contribute to our understanding of PA faculty worklife

The purpose of this research is to examine

demographic, human capital, organizational,

and environmental factors which impact PA

faculty intent to leave their current position.

What is the predictive ability of demographic factors

(age, gender, race, marital status, number of

dependents, employment status), human capital

factors (faculty rank, faculty role, tenure status,

Years as a PA educator, years in current position,

and highest degree held), organizational factors

(autonomy, organizational support, distributive

justice, role conflict, workload), and environmental

factors (job opportunities, family considerations),

on physician assistant faculty intent-to-leave the

current position?

NCSU IRB Administrative Review and Exemption

Research design

Non-experimental, cross-sectional, predictive design; web-based survey

Continuous variables scored on Likert-scale

Quantitative analysis – SAS9.3

Population and sample

Simple random sample of 1000 PA faculty from the Physician Assistant Education Association

Descriptive statistics to describe the population of interest & summarize respondent characteristics

Factor analysis for establishing construct validity and internal reliability

Test of correlation of the variables to establish relationship between the variables

Multiple regression procedure - determine percent of variance in intent to leave accounted

for by linear combination of independent variables

- determine which variables were significant predictors of intent-to-leave

- determine the magnitude of contribution of each variable

Organizational Support α = .94

Autonomy α = .92

Workload α = .92

Distributive Justice α = .83

Role Conflict α = .83

OrgSup1 .85 Auton1 .78 Load1 .77 DJ1 .54 RolCon1 .40

OrgSup2 .58 Auton2 .79 Load2 .90 DJ2 .52* RolCon2 .39*

OrgSup3 .75 Auton3 .77 Load3 .80 DJ3 .56 RolCon3 .46

OrgSup4 .84 Auton4 .69 Load4 .35* DJ4 .77 RolCon4 .72

OrgSup5 .76 Auton5 .81 Load5 .75 DJ5 .75 RolCon5 .70

OrgSup6 .84 Auton6 .79 Load6 .82 DJ6 .75 RolCon6 .70

OrgSup7 .88 Auton7 .46 DJ7 .39 RolCon7 .33*

OrgSup8 .78 Auton8 .58 RolCon8 .40

Auton9 .61

*Deleted from analysis: Load < .40 or loaded on more than one factor.

Intent to Leave α = .87

JobOpp1 .53 Family1 -.48* Intent1 .55

JobOpp2 .63 Family2 .37* Intent2 .36*

JobOpp3 .60 Family3 .78 Intent3 .46*

JobOpp4 .49 Family4 .71 Intent4 .48

JopOpp5 .56

JobOpp6 .58

*Deleted from analysis: Load < .40 or loaded on more than one factor.

Response rate: 343/996 = 34.4%

Available for analysis: 271= 27.2%

Category N* Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum

Age 318 47.4 9.9 28 70

# Dependents 302 1.0 1.2 0 5

Hours worked per week 316 49.4 12.5 15 130

*Not all respondents answered every survey item

Variable Category Frequency* Percent

Gender Female Male

212 112

65.5 34.5

Race African-American Asian-American Caucasian Hispanic Native-American Other

5 10 278 16 3 7

1.6 3.1

87.1 5.0 1.0 2.2

Marital Status

Married/Partnered Other Separated/Widowed/Divorced Single

269 1 24

29

83.3 0.3 7.4 9.0

Employment Status

Full-time Part-time

313 15

95.4 4.6

*Not all respondents answered every survey item

Category N* Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum

# Years PA Educator 330 8.86 7.37 0 40

# Years in current position

326 5.06 5.11 0 38

*Not all respondents answered every survey item

Variable Category Frequency* Percent

Faculty Role Academic Coordinator Associate/Assistant Director Clinical Coordinator General Faculty Other Program Director/Chair/Dean

60 24 56

109 22 59

18.2 7.3

17.0 33.0

6.7 17.9

Faculty Rank Assistant Professor Associate Professor Clinical Associate Instructor No Faculty Rank Other Professor

178 77

4 41

5 6

19

54.0 23.3

1.2 12.4

1.5 1.8 5.8

*Not all respondents answered every survey item

Variable Category Frequency* Percent

Tenure Status

Not on tenure track Other Tenure-eligible Tenured

269 1 24

29

83.3 0.3 7.4 9.0

Highest Degree Held

Baccalaureate Doctorate Masters Other

11 69

246 3

3.3 21.0 74.8

0.9

*Not all respondents answered every survey item

Variable N* Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum

Workload 343 3.84 1.60 1.00 7.00

Autonomy 340 5.22 1.15 1.00 7.00

Organizational Support 338 4.86 1.44 1.00 7.00

Distributive Justice 335 4.32 1.48 1.00 7.00

Role Conflict 334 3.65 1.24 1.00 7.00

Intent to Leave 332 3.06 1.28 1.00 7.00

Response Item Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative Percent

1 - Strongly Disagree 73 22.0 73 22.0

2 – Moderately Disagree 96 28.9 169 50.9

3 – Mildly Disagree 81 24.4 250 75.3

4 - Neither Disagree nor Agree

52

15.7

302

91.0

5 - Mildly Agree 29 8.7 331 99.7

6 - Moderately Agree 1 0.3 332 100.0

7 - Strongly Agree 0 0.0 --

Variable B b SE b t Pr > |t|

Workload -0.02 -0.04 0.12 -0.35 0.73

Autonomy -0.03 -0.04 0.09 -0.45 0.65

OrgSupp -0.41 -0.51 0.09 -5.69 <.0001

DistJust -0.09 -0.18 0.13 -1.36 0.17

RoleConf 0.15 0.29 0.12 2.47 0.01

Age -0.13 -0.19 0.09 -1.98 0.05

Gender 0.08 2.44 1.61 1.51 0.13

Race 0.05 2.19 2.07 1.06 0.29

Marital 0.00 -0.18 1.99 -0.09 0.92

R2 = .40 (F[17,253] = 9.86, p <.0001

Variable B b SE b t Pr > |t|

Child -0.08 -0.96 0.73 -1.32 0.19

EmpStat 0.08 5.64 3.84 1.47 0.14

Hours 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.20 0.84

FacRole -0.03 -1.01 2.10 -0.48 0.63

FacRank 0.03 0.96 1.88 0.51 0.61

Tenure -0.01 -0.32 1.64 -0.20 0.84

Yr_Curr 0.05 0.14 0.89 0.89 0.37

Degree -0.08 -2.79 2.11 -1.32 0.19

R2 = .40 (F[17,253] = 9.86, p <.0001

Perceived organizational support is negatively correlated (B = -0.41) with intent to leave

◦ Meaning: faculty who perceive that they are supported have a low intent to leave

Role conflict is correlated (B = 0.15) with intent to leave

◦ Meaning: faculty perceiving high role conflict have a higher intent to leave

Age is negatively correlated (B = -0.13) with intent to leave

◦ Meaning: as faculty age increases, intent to leave decreases

Institutions ◦ Individualize support within departments to meet diverse

needs of faculty

◦ Plan for adequate growth of faculty, staff, resources to meet changing educational climate

◦ Provide clear expectations of faculty for work requirements, promotion, and tenure if applicable

◦ Improve the climate for scholarly productivity

Program Administration ◦ Create a work environment that diminishes opportunity for role

conflict

◦ Open lines of communication

◦ Policies supporting and encouraging shared governance

◦ Clearly defined work roles

Faculty Development and Retention ◦ Individualize faculty development programs and resources

◦ Recognize that faculty needs differ among newer and more seasoned faculty

◦ Conduct ongoing self-assessment to determine if faculty perceive that needs are not being met

Other Considerations ◦ Increased attention to lack of diversity in faculty ranks and

in the profession in general

◦ Institutions need to consider governance policies that recognize clinical faculty preparation differs from traditional academic faculty – the “terminal degree” issue

Cross-sectional study from Summer 2012, faculty attitudes, opinions, and beliefs may have changed

Response rate moderately low – an improved response rate might reveal other significant predictors

Results not generalizable to other faculty

Complete the model ◦ External factors

Family/kinship factors

Job opportunities

Other predictors ◦ Organizational commitment

◦ Influence of leadership styles

◦ Job Satisfaction

Extend to other professional education faculty

Qualitative analysis of responses to open statements

Allison, P., (1999). Multiple Regression: A Primer. Thousand Oaks,CA: Pine Forge Press.

Barnes, L. L. B., Agago, M. O., & Coombs, W. T. (1998). Effects of job-related stress on faculty intention to leave academia. Research in Higher Education, 39, 457-469.

Carter, O., Nathisuwan, S., Stoddard, J., Munger, M. (2003). Faculty turnover within academic pharmacy departments. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 37, 197-201.

Conklin, M. H., & Desselle, S. P. (2007). Job turnover among pharmacy faculty. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 71, 1-9.

Cropsey, C.J., Masho, S.,Shiang, R., Sikka, V., Kornstein, S.G.,& Hampton , C.L., (2008). Why do faculty leave? Reasons for attrition of women and minority faculty from a medical school: Four year results. Journal of Women’s Health, 17, 1111-1118.

Daly, C. J., & Dee, J. R. (2006). Greener pastures: Faculty turnover intent in urban public universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 776-803.

Hatcher, L., (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.

Heckert, T. M., Farabee, A. M. (2006). Turnover intentions of the faculty at a teaching-focused university. Psychological Reports, 99, 39-45.

Johnsrud, L., & Rosser, V.J. (2002). Faculty members’ morale and their intention to leave: A multi-level explanation. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 518-542.

Lane, S., Scott, C. (2012). Twenty-sixth annual report on Physician Assistant Educational Programs in the United States, 2009-2010. Alexandria, VA: Physician Assistant Education Association.

Lowenstein, S. R., Fernandez, G., & Crane, L. A., (2007). Medical school faculty discontent: Prevalence and predictors of intent to leave academic careers. BMC Medical Education, 7, 1-8.

Radtka, S., (1993). Predictors of physical therapy faculty job turnover. Physical Therapy, 73, 243-251.

Rosser, V. J. (2004). Faculty members’ intentions to leave: A national study on their worklife and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 45, 285-309.

Ryan, J. F., Healy, R., Sullivan, J. (2012). Oh, won’t you stay? Predictors of faculty intent to leave a public research university. Higher Education, 63, 421-437.

Zhou, Y., & Volkwein, J.F. (2004). Examining the influences on faculty departure intentions: A comparison of tenured versus nontenured faculty at research universities using NSOPF-99. Research in Higher Education, 45, 139-176.