, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 137–143 | Cite as

Robot use self-efficacy in healthcare work (RUSH): development and validation of a new measure

  • Tuuli TurjaEmail author
  • Teemu Rantanen
  • Atte Oksanen
Open Forum


The aim of this study was to develop and validate a measure of robot use self-efficacy in healthcare work (RUSH) based on social cognitive theory and the theory of planned behavior. This article provides a briefing on technology-specific self-efficacy and discusses the development, validation, and implementation of an instrument that measures care workers’ self-efficacy in working with robots. The validity evaluation of the Finnish-language measure was based on representative survey samples gathered in 2016. The respondents included practical and registered nurses, homecare workers, and physiotherapists. A majority of the respondents were female. The full instrument consists of a set of six task-specific self-efficacy items concerning general views of technological skills, confidence in learning robot use, and confidence in guiding others in robot use. Three items were chosen for the shorter version of the measure. The face validity, construct validity, and reliability were established to validate the instruments. Both 3-item and 6-item measures were found to be highly consistent in structure. Respondents with high levels of RUSH also reported more general self-efficacy and interest in technology, on average. A very brief instrument of three items is convenient to include in repeated employee surveys.


Care work Nurse Service robot Task-specific self-efficacy Technology 



We thank Dr Teo Keipi from the University of Turku for refining the item translations.

Compliance with ethical standards


This research is part of the project Robots and the Future of Welfare Services (2015–2020), which is funded by the Academy of Finland’s Strategic Research Council.

Financial disclosure

The authors report no financial conflicts related to this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.


  1. Ahonen O, Kouri P, Kinnunen U-M, Junttila P, Liljamo P, Arifulla D, Saranto K (2016) The development process of eHealth strategy for nurses in Finland. In: Sermeus Walter, Procter Paula M, Weber Patrick (eds) Nursing informatics. IOS, Amsterdam, pp 203–207Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen I (2002) Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 32:665–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball J, Murrells T, Rafferty AM, Morrow E, Griffiths P (2014) ‘Care left undone’ during nursing shifts: associations with workload and perceived quality of care. BMJ Qual Saf 23:116–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84:191–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, NJGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck S (2016) The problem of ascribing legal responsibility in the case of robotics. AI Soc 31:473–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bekey GA (2005) Autonomous robots: From biological inspiration to implementation and control. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernerth JB, Walker HJ, Harris SG (2011) Change fatigue: development and initial validation of a new measure. Work Stress 25:321–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen N-H, Huang C-T (2016) Domestic technology adoption: comparison of innovation adoption models and moderators. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf 26:177–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen G, Gully SM, Eden D (2001) Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organ Res Methods 4:62–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Compeau DR, Higgins CA (1991) A social cognitive theory perspective on individual reactions to computing technology. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Information Systems, ACM Dec 1991, pp 187–198Google Scholar
  12. Decker M (2008) Caregiving robots and ethical reflection: the perspective of interdisciplinary technology assessment. AI Soc 8:315–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL (1991) Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 12:142–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dotson T (2014) Authentic virtual others? The promise of post-modern technologies. AI Soc 29:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erkkilä S, Simberg S, Hyvärinen M (2016) Jos minä nyt kuitenkin jaksan: Selvitys lähi- ja perushoitajien kokemasta työkuormasta. Finnish Union of Practical NursesGoogle Scholar
  16. Goeldner M, Herstatt C, Tietze F (2015) The emergence of care robotics—a patent and publication analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Change 92:115–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WB (2003) A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J Res Pers 37:504–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Härkäpää K (1995) Optimism, competence and coping skills. Definitions and empirical studies in rehabilitation. Rehabilitation FoundationGoogle Scholar
  19. Heerink M (2011) Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. In The sixth ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. LausanneGoogle Scholar
  20. Henry KE, Hager DN, Pronovost PJ, Saria S (2015) A targeted real-time early warning score (TREWScore) for septic shock. Sci Transl Med 7Google Scholar
  21. Johnson DO, Cuijpers RH, Pollmann K, van de Ven AAJ (2016) Exploring the entertainment value of playing games with a humanoid robot. Int J Soc Robot 8:247–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Judge T, Ilies R (2002) Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta-analytic review. J Appl Psychol 87:797–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kang SC (2012) Initiation of the SuanLien Living Lab—a living Lab with an Elderly Welfare Focus. Int J of Autom and Smart Tech 2Google Scholar
  24. Katz JE, Halpern D (2014) Attitudes towards robots suitability for various jobs as affected robot appearance. Behav Inform Technol 33:941–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kilpeläinen T (2010) Foreign nurses’ guide to Finnish working life. European Social Fund (ESF)Google Scholar
  26. Koceski S, Koceska N (2016) Evaluation of an assistive telepresence robot for elderly healthcare. J Med Syst 40:121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koistinen P, Lilja K (1988) Consensual adaptation to new technology. In: Richard Hyman, Wolfgang Streeck (eds) New technology and industrial relations. Basil Blackwell NY, pp 265–272Google Scholar
  28. Koskinen S, Salminen L, Stolt M, Leino-Kilpi H (2014) The education received by nursing students regarding nursing. Scand J Caring 3Google Scholar
  29. Lämsä E, Timonen J, Mäntyselkä P, Ahonen R (2017) Pharmacy customers’ experiences with the national online service for viewing electronic prescriptions in Finland. Int J Med Inform 97:221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maillet É, Mathieu L, Sicotte C (2015) Modeling factors explaining the acceptance, actual use and satisfaction of nurses using an electronic patient record in acute care settings: an extension of the UTAUT. Int J Med Inform 84:36–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Malhotra Y, Galletta DF (1999) Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical validation. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Science, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  32. Marini CP, Ritter G, Sharma C, McNelis J, Goldberg M, Barrera R (2015) The effect of robotic telerounding in the surgical intensive care units impact on medical education. J Robot Surg 9:51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McMillan K, Perron A (2013) Nurses amidst change: the concept of change fatigue offers an alternative perspective on organizational change. Policy Polit Nurs Pract 14:26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Melkas H, Hennala L, Pekkarinen S, Kyrki V (2016) Human impact assessment of robot implementation in Finnish elderly care. Proc ICServ 2016:202–206Google Scholar
  35. Menon SP (2015) Maximizing time with the patient: the creative concept of a physician scribe. Curr Oncol Rep 17Google Scholar
  36. Moore GC, Benbasat I (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res 2:192–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mukai T, Hirano S, Nakashima H., Kato Y, Sakaida Y, Guo S, Hosoe S (2010) Development of a nursing-care assistant robot Riba that can lift a human in its arms. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), IEEE/RSJ International Conference (pp 5996–6001). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  38. Niederhauser DS, Perkmen S (2008) Validation of the intrapersonal technology integration scale: assessing the influence of intrapersonal factors that influence technology integration. Comput Sch 25:98–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T (2006) Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI Soc 20:138–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ohlyansky L, Cairns P, Thimbleby H (2007) Validating the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) tool cross-culturally. Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: HCI… but not as we know it, volume 2. British Computer SocietyGoogle Scholar
  41. Ornston D (2012) Old Ideas and new investments: divergent pathways to a knowledge economy in Denmark and Finland. Governance 25:687–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rahman MS, Ko M, Warren J, Carpenter D (2016) Healthcare technology self-efficacy (HTSE) and its influence on individual attitude: an empirical study. Comput Hum Behav 58:12–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reineck C (2007) Models of change. J Nurs Adm 37:388–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rhodes RE, Courneya KS (2004) Differentiating motivation and control in the theory of planned behaviour. Psychol Health Med 9:205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Romppel M, Herrmann-Lingen C, Wachter R, Edelmann F, Düngen H-D, Pieske B, Grande G (2013) A short form of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE-6): development, psychometric properties and validity in an intercultural non-clinical sample and a sample of patients at risk for heart failure. Psychosoc Med 10:1–7Google Scholar
  46. Scholz U, Doña BG, Sud S, Schwarzer R (2002) Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. Eur J Psychol Assess 18:242–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schroeders U, Wilhelm O, Olaru G (2016) Meta-heuristics in short scale construction: ant colony optimization and genetic algorithm. PLOS One 11(11)Google Scholar
  48. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M (1995) Optimistic self-beliefs as a resource factor in coping with stress. In Extreme stress and communities: Impact and intervention. Springer Netherlands, pp 159–177Google Scholar
  49. Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2012) Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol 14:27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Special Eurobarometer 382 (2012) Public Attitudes towards robots. European CommissionGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of TampereTampereFinland
  2. 2.Laurea University of Applied SciencesVantaaFinland

Personalised recommendations