A comparison of time-and-motion and self-reporting methods of work measurement

Objective: To compare results obtained from a time-and-motion study with th ose obtained using self-reporting. Summary Background Data: Nurse executives are of-ten required to provide ad ditional patient care services with limited personnel resources. As a resul t, nurse executives must evaluate the appropriate allocation of nursing per sonnel resources. Work measurement may be used to evaluate personnel alloca tion. Multiple measurement approaches are available, but few studies have c ompared these methods. Methods and Subjects: Eight nurses were observed by a single observer durin g five shifts (or approximately 40 hours per nurse). After completion of th e time-and-motion study participants were to self-report their work activit ies during their ensuing five shifts. Mixed-effects analysis of variance wa s used to determine the significance of the work measurement method on perc entage of total time, number of activities, and mean time per activity by a ctivity category. Results: Two hundred ninety hours of time-and-motion study observations and 338 hours of self-report data were available for analysis. Comparable amou nts of total time were reported within the various activity categories usin g time-and-motion and self-reporting methods. In terms of number of activit ies reported, a significantly higher number of activities were reported usi ng time-and-motion. As a result, mean activity times were significantly lon ger using the self-reporting method compared with time-and-motion. Conclusions: Nurse executives should consider continuous self-reporting as a low-cost means of quantifying allocation of time among nursing personnel. Self-reporting, however is not recommended for estimating the total number of activities or the mean time per activity because of perceptual differen ces between participants of what constitutes an activity.