How do critical care staff respond to organisational challenge? A qualitative exploration into personality types and cognitive processing in critical care


Autoři: K. E. Grailey aff001;  E. J. Murray aff002;  J. Billings aff003;  S. J. Brett aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom aff001;  Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom aff002;  University College London, London, United Kingdom aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226800

Souhrn

Critical care staff are frequently required to respond to stressful scenarios. The way staff counter organisational challenge may be influenced by their underlying personality type, preferred style of cognitive processing and previous clinical experience. Our objective was to explore the personality types of a sample of critical care workers, and the potential relationship of this with cognitive processing. This was achieved through a qualitative interview study in which participants were presented with difficult but realistic scenarios pertaining to staffing. Data on individual’s personality were captured using the ‘16 Personality Factor’ assessment, a tool that produces scores for 16 different elements of an individual’s personality. The existence of perfectionist and pragmatic cognitive processing styles were identified as one theme emerging from a prior analysis of these interview transcripts. We aimed to validate this, explore our ability to categorise individuals into groups based upon their cognitive processing. We identified that some individuals strongly tended to either a perfectionist or pragmatic style of cognitive processing for the majority of their decisions; however most adapted their style of processing according to the nature of the decision. Overall participants generally demonstrated average scores for all 16 personality factors tested. However, we observed that some factors tended to higher scores than others, indicating a pattern within the personalities of our sample cohort. Whilst a small sample size, our data suggests that individuals working within the same critical care environment may have clear differences in their approach to problem solving as a consequence of both their personality type and preferred style of cognitive processing. Thus there may be individuals within this environment who would benefit from increased support to minimise their risk of cognitive dissonance and stress in times of challenge.

Klíčová slova:

Behavior – Cognition – Personality – Personality differences – Personality tests – Personality traits – Psychometrics – Critical care team organization


Zdroje

1. Epp K. Burnout in critical care nurses: a literature review. Dynamics. 2012 Winter;23(4):25–31 23342935

2. Chuang C-H, Tseng P-C, Lin C-Y et al. Burnout in the Intensive Care Professionals, A Systematic Review. Medicine (2016) 95:50

3. D’Lima DM, Murray EJ, Brett SJ, 2018, Perceptions of Risk and Safety in the ICU: A Qualitative study of Cognitive Processes Relating to Staffing. Critical Care Medicine Vol 46;60:70.

4. Gerbing DW, Tuley MR. The 16PF Related to the Five-Factor Model of Personality: Multiple-Indicator Measurement versus the A Priori Scales. Multivariate Behav Res. 1991. Apr 1;26(2):271–89 doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2602_5 26828255

5. Cattell R, Eber H, Tatsuoka M. Handbook of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) (1974 Edition). Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc., Champaign, IL. 1980.

6. Zhang L, Liu B, Ren H, Liu YF, Zhang Y. The Personality Profile of Excellent Nurses in China: the 16PF. Contemp Nurse 2013 Feb;43(2):219–24. doi: 10.5172/conu.2013.43.2.219 23485225

7. Meit SS, Birges NJ, Cubic BA, Yasek V. Assessing medical students’ personalities: a parallel comparison of normed and perception based metrics. Psychol Rep. 2005 June;96(3 Pt2):1029–43

8. Kluger MT, Laidlaw TM, Khursandi DS. Personality Profiles of Australian Anaesthetists. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care. 1999. 27(3):282–6 doi: 10.1177/0310057X9902700310 10389562

9. Russell MT, Karol D. (2002). The 16PF Fifth Edition administrators manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing

10. www.16pf.com. 2016. 16PF Comprehensive Insights Report. [ONLINE] https://www.16pf.com/en_GB/product/16pf-comprehensive-insights-report/. [Accessed 2 October 2018].

11. Stoeber J, Childs JH. The Assessment of Self-Orientated and Socially Prescribed Perfectionism: Subscales Make a Difference. The Journal of Personality Assessment. 92(6):577–585 doi: 10.1080/00223891.2010.513306 20954059

12. Flett GL, Hewitt PL (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues. In Hewitt P. L. & Flett G. L. (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research and treatment (No. 7, pp 5–31). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

13. Khatibi M, Khormaei F. Personality and Perfectionism: A Review. J. Educ. Manage. Stud. 6(1):13–19

14. Wilhite A. Ideological and Pragmatic Decision-making in Networks. Computing in Economics and Finance 2016 103.

15. Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2018). reasoning | Definition of reasoning in English by Oxford Dictionaries. [online] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reasoning [Accessed 4 Dec. 2018].

16. Cattell H. & Mead A. (2008). The sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16pf). In Boyle G. J. Matthews G. & Saklofske D. H. The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Volume 2—Personality measurement and testing (pp. 135–159). London: SAGE Publications Ltd

17. Conn S.R. and Rieke M.L. (1994) The 16PF Fifth Edition Technical Manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2020 Číslo 1