Article Data

  • Views 1073
  • Dowloads 226

Original Research

Open Access


  • Gulden Aynaci1
  • Hediye Gulmez1

1Trakya University, Health Science Undergraduate School, Edirne, Turkey

DOI: 10.22374/jomh.v15i2.131 Vol.15,Issue 2,April 2019 pp.27-36

Published: 01 April 2019

*Corresponding Author(s): Gulden Aynaci E-mail:

PDF (423 kB)


Background and objective

Hand dexterity and hand–eye coordination are very important in nursing profession. In nursing education, equal conditions for gaining experience should be established regardless of gender difference. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of gender difference on hand dexterity and hand–eye coordination.

Material and methods

This study included 100 undergraduate nursing students from the Trakya University, and they were evaluated using the O’Connor’s finger dexterity test.


Previous study results demonstrated that males were careful and willing to take care of their patients, but they felt that they had to be at the backstage because the occupation is a female-predominant one. They were very careful during the O’Connor’s test. The average test duration for both the male and female students was similar. Students with longer hand and palm lengths had better hand dexterity. The larger wrist circumference and wrist width in male students than female students provided an advantage to the male nursing students. The O’Connor’s test results demonstrated that gender discrim-ination in nursing profession is meaningless in terms of dexterity.


This study approaches gender discrimination in nursing with a different perspective. Male students are not less successful in hand and eye coordination and hand dexterity. It is important for males to have clinical learning without having sexual discrimination in order to provide high-quality patient care, it may help their career growth.


Gender discrimination; Hand–eye coordination; Male nurse; Male nursing students

Cite and Share



1. Ndou NP, Moloko-Phiri SS. Four-year diploma male students’ experiences in a profession tradi-tionally perceived as a female domain at a selected public college of nursing in Limpopo, South Africa. Curationis. 2018;41(1). 10.4102/curationis.v41i1.1932

2. Buthelezi SF, Fakude LP, Martin PD, Daniels FM. Clinical learning experiences of male nursing students in a Bachelor of Nursing programme: Strategies to overcome challenges. Curationis. 2015;38(2):1–7.

3. Gauvin C, Tellier C, Daigle R, Petitjean-Roget T, editors. Evaluation of dexterity tests for gloves. Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Protective Clothing and NOKOBETEF; 2006.

4. Gallus J, Mathiowetz V. Test–retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard for persons with multiple sclerosis. Am J Occup Ther. 2003;57(1):108–11.

5. Yancosek KE, Howell D. A narrative review of dexterity assessments. J Hand Ther. 2009;22(3): 258–70.

6. Johnson RF, Sleeper LA, editors. Effects of chemical protective handwear and headgear on manual dex-terity. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting; 1986; Sage; Los Angeles, CA.

7. Agarwal S, Patel S. Effect of long term smok-ing on manual dexterity–an observational study on chronic smokers between the ages of 25 to 60 years. Indian J Appl Res. 2018;8(6):1121–6.

8. Hines E. A measure of finger dexterity. Personnel J. 1926;4:379–82.

9. Simpson R. Masculinity at work: The experiences of men in female dominated occupations. Work Employ Soc. 2004;18(2):349–68. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/09500172004042773

 10. Bartfay WJ, Bartfay E. Canadian view of men in nursing explored. Men Nurs. 2007;2(2):32–7. 93559.50

 11. Pearce AJ, Hoy K, Rogers MA, et al. Acute motor, neurocognitive and neurophysiological change following concussion injury in Australian ama-teur football. A prospective multimodal investi-gation. J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18(5):500–6. http://


 12. De Andrés AG, Sánchez E, Hidalgo JJ, et al. Appraisal of psychomotor skills of dental stu-dents at University Complutense of Madrid. Eur J Dent Educ. 2004;8(1):24–30. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1600-0579.2004.00296.x

 13. Lugassy D, Levanon Y, Pilo R, et al. Predicting the clinical performance of dental students with a man-ual dexterity test. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0193980. pone. 0193980

 14. Kidgell DJ, Frazer AK, Pearce AJ. The effect of task complexity influencing bilateral transfer. Int J Exerc Sci. 2017;10(8):1174–83.

 15. Telles S, Singh N, Balkrishna A. Finger dexter-ity and visual discrimination following two yoga breathing practices. Int J Yoga. 2012;5(1):37.

 16. Brossard-Racine M, Majnemer A, Shevell M, et al. Handwriting capacity in children newly diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32(6):2927–34.

 17. Yoshie M, Kudo K, Murakoshi T, et al. Music performance anxiety in skilled pianists: Effects of social-evaluative performance situation on subjective, autonomic, and electromyographic reactions. Exp Brain Res. 2009;199(2):117. http://dx.

 18. Wang H, Li X, Hu X, et al. Perceptions of nurs-ing profession and learning experiences of male students in baccalaureate nursing program in Changsha, China. Nurse Educ Today. 2011; 31(1):36–42. 2010. 03.011

 19. Berger MA, Krul AJ, Daanen HA. Task specific-ity of finger dexterity tests. Appl Ergonom. 2009; 40(1):145–7. 2008.01.014

 20. Ross DJ. Perceptions of men in the nursing pro-fession: Historical and contemporary issues. Links Health Soc Care. 2017;2(1):4–20.

 21. Yu M, Kang KJ, Yu SJ, et al. Factors affect-ing retention intention of male nurses working health care institution in Korea. J Korean Acad Nurs Admin. 2017;23(3):280–9. http://dx.doi. org/10.11111/jkana.2017.23.3.280

 22. Mott J, Lee OD. Navigating unfamiliar waters: Men in nursing academia. J Prof Nurs. 2018;34(1):42–6. 2017.07.005

 23. Rajacich D, Kane D, Williston C, et al., editors. If they do call you a nurse, it is always a “male nurse”: Experiences of men in the nursing pro-fession. Nurs Forum. 2013;48(1):71–80. http://


 24. Newham J, Alderdice F. If gender matters in maternity care, does it matter in maternity care research? J Reproduc and Infant Physc. 2017; 35 (3): 209–11.

 25. Pilkenton D, Schorn MN. Midwifery. Men Nurs. 2008;3(1):29–33. 0000310888.82818.15

 26. Alden KR, Lowdermilk DL, Cashion MC, et al. Maternity and women’s health care-E-book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013. 888–97.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,200 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Social Sciences Citation Index Social Sciences Citation Index contains over 3,400 journals across 58 social sciences disciplines, as well as selected items from 3,500 of the world’s leading scientific and technical journals. More than 9.37 million records and 122 million cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in the social and behavioral sciences.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

SCOPUS Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

DOAJ DOAJ is a community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals.

CrossRef Crossref makes research outputs easy to find, cite, link, assess, and reuse. Crossref committed to open scholarly infrastructure and collaboration, this is now announcing a very deliberate path.

Portico Portico is a community-supported preservation archive that safeguards access to e-journals, e-books, and digital collections. Our unique, trusted process ensures that the content we preserve will remain accessible and usable for researchers, scholars, and students in the future.

Submission Turnaround Time