Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Open Access Theses Theses and Dissertations Fall 2014 Risk Attitudes and Characteristics of Student Pharmacists Across Cohorts Kristin Rose Villa Purdue University Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.edu/open_access_theses Part of the Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Villa, Kristin Rose, "Risk Attitudes and Characteristics of Student Pharmacists Across Cohorts" (2014). Open Access Theses.edu/open_access_theses/394 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact epubs@purdue.edu for additional information. Graduate School Form (Revised / ) PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance This is to certify that the thesis/dissertation prepared Kristin Rose Villa By Entitled Risk Attitudes and Characteristics of Student Pharmacists Across Cohorts Master of Science For the degree of Is approved by the final examining committee: Matthew M.
Plake Mangala Subramaniam To the best of my knowledge and as understood by the student in the Thesis/Dissertation Agreement, Publication Delay, and Certification/Disclaimer (Graduate School Form 32), this thesis/ dissertation adheres to the provisions of Purdue University’s “Policy on Integrity in Research” and the use of copyrighted material. Murawski Approved by Major Professor(s): ____________________________________ ____________________________________ 11/19/2014 Approved by: Joseph Thomas III Head of the Graduate Program Date e i RISK ATTITUDES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENT PHARMACISTS ACROSS COHORTS A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University by Kristin R. Villa In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science December 2014 Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project would not have been possible without the help of a number of individuals. First, I would like to thank my major professor, Dr.
Matthew Murawski, who has patiently guided me through this process and provided encouragement at the right moments. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Kimberly Plake and Dr. Mangala Subramaniam, for their time, insight, patience, and encouragement throughout this process.
I would also to thank each of the faculty members and former Purdue graduate students who helped expand the reach of this study beyond Purdue. Aleda Chen (Cedarville University), Dr. Caitlin Frail (University of Minnesota), Dr. Nicholas Hagemeier (East Tennessee State University), Dr.
Mary Kiersma (Manchester University), Dr. Brittany Melton (University of Kansas), and Dr. Nalin Payakachat (University of Arkansas), your assistance, knowledge, and encouragement was invaluable – I could not have completed this project without you. Additionally, I would like to thank the Department of Pharmacy Practice, especially Mindy Schultz who always has answers for my many questions and Dr.
Joseph Thomas who has provided support throughout my graduate education. I would like to thank my friends in the Pharmacy Practice graduate program including Marwa, Jigar, Jyothi, iii Suyuan, and Pragya for always providing sound advice and helping me keep things in perspective. I would also like to thank my statistical consultant, Zhaonan Sun, for providing her expertise and knowledge to help with my statistical analysis. Finally, I would like to thank my family.
Thank you to my parents, Bob and Sue, for encouraging me to continue to my education. Thanks to my brother, Rob, for cultivating my curiosity and need for answers by being a lawyer and never giving me a straight answer. Thank you to my sister-‐in-‐law, Kathleen, who shares my profession. Thanks to my sister, Julieann, for being a source of inspiration.
Last but not least, thank you to my niece and nephew, Robert and Kayla. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . 1 Statement of Problem . 4 Significance of the Study .
5 Objectives and Hypotheses . 11 Existing Barriers to Change . 17 Beyond the Barriers . 18 Professional Socialization and Individual Pharmacist .
20 Attitudes Towards Change and Risk . 36 Reaction-‐to-‐Change Inventory . 37 Risk Taking Index . 38 Big Five Inventory Openness Sub-‐Scale .
39 Big Five Inventory Conscientiousness Sub-‐Scale . 41 Stimulating and Instrumental Risk Questionnaire . 43 Objective One Analysis: Pharmacy Population Versus Non-‐Pharmacy Population . 43 Objective Two Analysis: Current and Potential Student Pharmacist Attitudes by Year………………….
44 Objective Three Analysis: Current and Potential Student Pharmacist Attitudes by Career Intention . 55 East Tennessee State University . 62 vi Page Purdue University . 65 University of Arkansas .
69 University of Kansas . 73 University of Minnesota . 76 Scale Descriptive Statistics . 80 Reaction-‐to-‐Change (RTC) Inventory .
81 Risk Taking Index (RTI) . 82 Big Five Inventory (BFI) Openness Sub-‐Scale . 83 Big Five Inventory (BFI) Conscientiousness Sub-‐Scale . 85 Instrumental Risk Sub-‐Scale .
86 Stimulating Risk Sub-‐Scale . 91 East Tennessee State University . 98 University of Arkansas . 101 University of Kansas .
103 University of Minnesota . 127 Discussion of Objective One . 129 vii Page Discussion of Objective Two . 132 Discussion of Objective Three .
133 Discussion of Additional Analyses . 139 Cross-‐Sectional Study Design . 139 Cover Letter Differences . 143 FUTURE RESEARCH, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS .
146 Areas of Future Research . 146 Conclusions and Implications . 151 APPENDICES Appendix A: Initial Survey Introduction Email Sent to Respondents at Six Institutions…………………………. 159 Appendix B: Reminder Email Sent to Respondents at Six Institutions.
160 Appendix C: Initial Survey Introduction Email Sent to Respondents at the University of Minnesota. 161 Appendix D: Reminder Email Sent to Respondents at the University of Minnesota…………………. 162 Appendix E: Survey Instrument on Qualtrics . 163 viii LIST OF TABLES Table .
Characteristics of Participating Institutions. Summary of Participating Institutions. Response Rates for Each College or School of Pharmacy. Response Rates for Full Sample by Year in the Program.
Full Sample Demographic Data. Cedarville University Demographic Data. East Tennessee State University Demographic Data. Manchester University Demographic Data.
Purdue University Demographic Data. University of Arkansas Demographic Data. University of Kansas Demographic Data. University of Minnesota Demographic Data.
Summary of Scale Determinates. Reaction-‐to-‐Change Inventory Descriptive Statistics. Risk Taking Index Descriptive Statistics. Big Five Inventory Openness Sub-‐Scale Descriptive Statistics.
Big Five Inventory Conscientiousness Sub-‐Scale Descriptive Statistics. 84 ix Table Page 18. Change Scale Descriptive Statistics. Instrumental Risk Sub-‐Scale Descriptive Statistics.
Stimulating Risk Sub-‐Scale Descriptive Statistics. T-‐Test Comparisons of Population Norms and the Complete Sample by Scale. T-‐Test Comparisons of Population Norms and the Complete Pre-‐Pharmacy Student Sample by Scale…. T-‐Test Comparisons of Population Norms and the Complete Professional Student Sample by Scale.
T-‐Test Comparisons of Population Norms and the Complete Cedarville Student Sample by Scale. T-‐Test Comparisons of Population Norms and the Complete Cedarville Pre-‐Pharmacy Student Sample by Scale. T-‐Test Comparisons of Population Norms and the Complete Cedarville Professional Student Sample by Scale. T-‐Test Comparisons of Population Norms and the Complete East Tennessee State University Sample by Scale.
T-‐Test Comparisons of Population Norms and the Complete Manchester University Student Sample by Scale. T-‐Test Comparisons of Population Norms and the Complete Purdue University Student Sample by Scale. T-‐Test Comparisons of Population Norms and the Complete Purdue University Pre-‐ Pharmacy Student Sample by Scale. T-‐Test Comparisons of Population Norms and the Complete Purdue University Professional Student Sample by Scale.
T-‐Test Comparisons of Population Norms and the Complete University of Arkansas Student Sample by Scale. T-‐Test Comparisons of Population Norms and the Complete University of Kansas Student Sample by Scale. T-‐Test Comparisons of Population Norms and the Complete University of Kansas Professional Student Sample by Scale. T-‐Test Comparisons of Population Norms and the Complete University of Kansas Professional Student Sample by Scale.
T-‐Test Comparisons of Population Norms and the Complete University of Minnesota Student Sample by Scale. ANOVA Comparison Between Year in the Program. ANOVA Comparison Between Years in the Program by University. ANOVA Comparison Between Professional Program Years in the Program by University.
ANOVA Comparison of Career Intentions for the Full Sample. ANOVA Comparison of Career Intention by University. ANOVA Comparison of Career Intention by Practice Type. ANOVA Comparison for Career Intention by Practice Type for Each University.
ANOVA Comparison for Residency/Fellowship/Graduate-‐Trained Group Versus Non-‐ Residency/Fellowship/Graduate-‐Trained Group. ANOVA Comparison for Residency/Fellowship/Graduate-‐Trained Group Versus Non-‐ Residency/Fellowship/Graduate-‐Trained Group by University. T-‐Test Comparisons Between the Pre-‐Pharmacy and Professional Samples. ANOVA Comparison Across Institution.
ANOVA Comparison Across Institution for Professional Sample Only. Comparison by Age of Institution. 124 xi Table Page 50. Comparison by Age of Institution for the Professional Sample Only.
125 xii ABSTRACT Villa, Kristin R., Purdue University, December 2014. Risk Attitudes and Characteristics of Student Pharmacists Across Cohorts. Major Professor: Matthew Murawski. In unstable environments, adaptation is a prerequisite for survival of organizations or groups.
The Affordable Care Act has created a changing environment for health care providers. Unfortunately for Pharmacy, innovation within our profession has languished, leaving pharmacists in a precarious position. Many have noted the stagnation of the profession; in fact it has been a recurring theme in the commentary over the last five decades. The dialogue has focused on the externalities that represent barriers to the profession’s evolution, including the direction change should take and the legal or organizational issues that inhibit change and innovation.
Little attention has been given to the characteristics of the profession’s members that may inhibit change, adoption, or innovation of new ideas. The lack of understanding of the professional’s or future professional’s propensity for change and innovation is an important gap in current knowledge.