Looking at Male Nurse Discrimination among Nursing Students with O’Connor Finger-Dexterity Test

Main Article Content



hand-eye coordination, gender discrimination, male nursing students, male nurses



Hand-dexterity and hand-eye coordination are important in nursing profession.. In nursing vocational education, equal conditions for gaining experience regardless of gender difference should be established.

            The aim of our study was to evaluate the effects of gender difference, and anthropometric features on hand-dexterity and hand-eye coordination evaluated by O’Connor dexterity test.


Our study included 100 undergraduate nursing students of  Trakya University. To evaluate hand dexterity age, sex, sociodemographic features  were recorded.


Previous studies demonstrated that male nurses were careful, attentive and willing to take care of their patients but they felt they had to be at the backstage because the occupation is a female  predominant one. They were also careful and attentive during O’Connor finger test.

The average O’Connor hand-dexterity test duration of female students was 7.44 minutes for the dominant hand. Males completed test at 8.06 minutes with dominant hand. No statistically significant difference was detected.

Students with longer hand and palm lengths had better hand-dexterity. Because wrist circumference and width were more in male students than females this provided an advantage to male nursing students. 

O’Connor finger-dexterity results also demonstrated that gender discrimination in nursing profession is meaningless in terms of dexterity.


Our study approaches gender discrimination in nursing with a different perspective. Our study demonstrated that male nursing students are not less successful than female students in hand-eye coordination and hand-dexterity.

It is important for male nursing students to have clinical learning without having sexual discrimination in order to provide high quality patient care. Another advantage of male nurses is their strength which makes them more effective at healthcare facilities. In conclusion, reproductive health and other areas of nursing care should not be seen as the area of a particular gender. Doing so may prevent the development of professions and also lead to missing valuable opportunities to gain remarkable perspectives and insights.

Abstract 60 | pdf Downloads 59 HTML Downloads 9 xml Downloads 0


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). http://dx.doi.org/ 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/curatio-nis.v38i2.1517
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.57.1.108
5. Yancosek KE, Howell D. A narrative review of dexterity assessments. J Hand Ther. 2009;22(3): 258–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2008.11.004
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/154193128603001011
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.MIN.0000266940. 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:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.07.010
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.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. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0973-6131.91710
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.05.010
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.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-1979-y
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2010. 03.011
19. Berger MA, Krul AJ, Daanen HA. Task specific-ity of finger dexterity tests. Appl Ergonom. 2009; 40(1):145–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.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:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12008
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.MIN. 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. https:// books.google.com.tr/books