Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jan 31.
Published in final edited form as: Sci Total Environ. 2014 May 26;505:1274–1281. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.05.017

Table 5.

Means and Standard Deviations of RANAS Variables, Associations (N=452) and Summary of Binary Logistic Regression Analysisa (n=278) for RANAS Variables Predicting the Behavior of Having Tested Well Water and Included As in the Most Recent Test

Variable Agree (1 = Strongly Disagree; 6 = Strongly Agree) Mb SD rs OR 95% CI Li
M
Wi
M
V/W
M
Lower Upper
I. Risk
 a. Vulnerability
Family risk for drinking contaminated water 3.0 1.7 .08 .99 .76 1.28 2.8 2.9 2.7
Town risk for well As contamination 4.2 1.5 .19** 1.28 .88 1.86 4.2 3.7 3.6c
Household risk for drinking As contaminated water 3.4 1.7 −.02 .83 .62 1.13 3.3 3.0 2.9c
 b. Severity
Adverse health effects from drinking well water not overblown 4.3 1.5 .16** 1.19 .91 1.56 4.1 4.3 4.3
As-related health effects likely serious 5.0 1.2 .13** .60 .36 1.01 5.2 5.0 5.2
Health risks from As exposure not overblown 4.6 1.3 .15** 1.21 .87 1.67 4.7 4.5 4.7
 c. Knowledge
Wells in area at risk of contamination 3.9 1.6 .21** .96 .72 1.28 3.6 3.6 3.4
Well water quality can change overtime 4.5 1.3 .18** 1.16 .86 1.56 4.3 4.7 4.6
We can be exposed to As from well water 4.9 1.3 .18** .88 .66 1.17 5.3 4.8 4.9
Years of exposure increases As-related health risks 5.0 1.1 .16** 1.92* 1.11 3.31 5.2 5.1 5.2
II. Attitude
 a. Instrumental
Testing results helpful to protect family health 5.3 1.0 .16** .55* .34 .88 5.4 5.3 5.2
Regularly testing is affordable 3.0 1.5 .14** 1.00 .80 1.27 2.7 2.2c 2.7
Regularly testing does not take too much time 4.4 1.4 .20** 1.59** 1.14 2.21 4.0 4.5 4.3
Concerned that bad test will hurt property value 3.3 1.7 .12* 1.03 .80 1.32 3.5 3.4 3.7
 b. Affective
Feel safer having well tested by lab 4.9 1.3 .19** 1.09 .78 1.53 5.2 5.2 4.7
Feel better knowing what is in well water 4.9 1.6 .21** 1.10 .86 1.40 5.1 4.5 4.9
Concerned about water despite drinking long time with no problem 3.7 1.7 .24** 1.03 .80 1.32 3.6 3.6 3.3
III. Norms
 a. Descriptive
Neighbors regularly test well water 2.5 1.2 .08 1.46* 1.01 2.09 2.1c 2.3 2.4
Relatives recently tested well water 2.3 1.4 .11* 1.15 .84 1.58 2.0 2.3 2.1
Friends recently tested well water 2.3 1.3 .08 .82 .54 1.26 1.9c 2.1 2.1
Know someone with As well problem 2.9 2.0 .17** 1.09 .91 1.32 2.7 2.4 2.4c
 b. Injunctive
Neighbors expect me to regularly test well water 1.9 1.1 .03 .99 .68 1.45 1.6 1.7 1.7
Local authorities recommended to test well water 2.0 1.4 .05 .77 .59 1.01 1.9 1.8 1.6c
 c. Personal
Feel personally obligated to test well water 3.5 1.7 .18** 1.06 .83 1.34 3.1 3.7 3.1
My responsibility to have water tested 4.9 1.4 .11* .80 .62 1.04 4.8 4.6 4.6
IV. Ability
 a. Action Knowledge
Know who to contact to get well tested 4.3 1.8 .37** 1.69** 1.31 2.19 4.0 3.5c 3.9
 b. Self-efficacy
Finding well testing service is easy enough 4.4 1.5 .25** .72* .52 .99 3.9c 3.8c 4.0
Confident can manage regularly testing water 4.4 1.4 .30** 1.28 .97 1.69 4.1 4.0 4.2
Something can be done about As level in water 4.8 1.4 .26** 1.23 .94 1.63 5.0 4.7 4.8
V. Self-regulation
 a. Action Planning
Thought about having well water tested 4.5 1.7 .36** 1.17 .93 1.48 4.8 3.9 4.5
Plan to have well tested within next year 3.6 1.7 .20** 1.10 .87 1.39 3.4 3.3 3.2
 b. Remembering
No problem remembering when I want to 3.9 1.8 .13** 1.024 .83 1.27 3.8 3.7 3.8
 c. Commitment
Committed to monitoring quality of well water 4.1 1.5 .25** .994 .75 1.32 4.0 3.2c 3.7
Committed to drinking safe water 5.2 1.0 .22** .932 .63 1.38 5.0 5.2 5.2
VI. Intention to have water tested 4.9 1.5 .21** 4.9 5.2 4.8
*

Significant to the .05 level;

**

Significant to the .01 level

OR = Odds ratio, CI = Confidence Interval, Li = Litchfield, Wi = Windsor, V/W = Vienna and Wales

OR can be interpreted as the increase in odds of having included As in the most recent well test associated with each unit increase of agreement on the survey scale (from 1 to 6)

a

Nagelkerke R Square = .415; Overall predictive rate of 75.5%

b

<3.5 means disagreement on average, >3.5 means average agreement

c

Significantly different from study area mean to the .05 level

Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to test inter-item correlation within each RANAS factor block but in almost all cases was too low (<.70) to justify a combined factor for analysis, so each was kept individually. Repeating the regression analysis with a mean Vulnerability score (cronbach’s alpha = .772) and mean descriptive testing norms score (cronbach’s alpha = .744) similarly identifies knowledge that years of exposure increases As-related health risks, believing regularly testing does not take too much time, and knowing who to contact to get the well tested as significant predictors. Additionally believing that As-related health effects are likely serious and knowing someone with an As well problem emerge as significant. However, when descriptive testing norms of neighbors, relatives, and friends are combined the significance of having neighbors who regularly test their well water is lost. Nagelkerke R Square = .400, overall predictive rate of 74.8%.