Abstract
Objectives
The purpose of this paper was to investigate the psychometric properties of a newly-designed scale intended to measure the perceived attributes of a Health Promoting School initiative and its context in terms of factor structure, reliability and predictive validity. The scale was developed to explore possible predictors of the adoption of the Healthy School approach (HS) in Québec.
Methods
Data were gathered from a 2007 cross-sectional study of 107 schools and 141 participants (school principals and school health promotion delegates). The scale was based on 7 attributes borrowed from the theories on diffusion of innovation. The factor structure of the scale was tested by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.
Results
The final scale included 14 items capturing 4 factors: school contextual barriers, collective efficacy, anticipated benefits and relative advantages. Reliability, in terms of internal consistency of the factors, ranged from a high of 0.85 to a low of 0.60. Three of the 4 factors significantly predicted HS adoption.
Conclusion
Overall, the scale showed good psychometric properties and may be useful to assess the attributes that could influence the adoption of this type of initiative.
Key words: Health promoting school, innovation, scale development, psychometrics
Résumé
Objectifs
L’objectif de cet article est de présenter les qualités psychométriques d’un nouvel indice mesurant les attributs perçus d’une approche École en santé (AÉS), en termes de structure factorielle, de fidélité et de validité prédictive.
Méthodes
Les données proviennent d’une enquête postale menée à l’automne 2007 auprès de 107 écoles du Québec et de 141 participants scolaires (directeurs et responsables de la promotion de la santé). La théorie de la diffusion de Rogers ainsi que d’autres écrits sur la diffusion des innovations ont servi à la construction de l’indice. Deux analyses, exploratoire et confirmatoire, ont permis de tester la structure factorielle de l’indice.
Résultats
L’indice obtenu inclut 14 items répartis en 4 facteurs: contraintes dans l’environnement scolaire, efficacité collective, bénéfices anticipés et avantages relatifs. La consistance interne de ces facteurs varie entre,85 et,60. Les trois premiers facteurs ont permis de prédire l’adoption de l’AÉS.
Conclusion
Globalement, l’indice possède de bonnes qualités psychométriques et peut s’avérer utile pour évaluer l’influence des attributs de ce type d’approche sur son adoption par les écoles.
Mots clés: école en santé, innovation, indice, qualités psychométriques
Footnotes
Acknowledgements: This study was supported by a grant from the Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la société et la culture (FQRSC) in collaboration with the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec (FRSQ), the Ministry of Health and Social Services and the Centre de recherche en prévention de l’obésité.
References
- 1.World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. Health-Promoting Series 5: Regional Guidelines. Development of Health-Promoting Schools: A Framework for Action. Manila, Philippines: World Health Organization; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Marx E, Wooley SF, Northrop D, editors. Health is Academic. A Guide to Coordinated School Health Programs. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 3.St Leger L, Nutbeam D. A model for mapping linkages between health and education agencies to improve school health. J Sch Health. 2000;70(2):45–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2000.tb07239.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Parsons C, Stears D, Thomas C. The health promoting school in Europe: Conceptualising and evaluating the change. Health Educ J. 1996;55(3):311–21. doi: 10.1177/001789699605500306. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hoelscher DM, Evans A, Parcel GS, Kelder SH. Designing effective nutrition interventions for adolescents. J Am Diet Assoc. 2002;102(3):S52–S63. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8223(02)90422-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.James WPT, Rigby NJ, Leach RJ, Kumanyika S, Lobstein T, Swinburn B. Global Strategies to Prevent Childhood Obesity: Forging a Societal Plan That Works. London, UK: International Association for the Study of Obesity/International Obesity Task Force; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Stewart-Brown S. What Is the Evidence on School Health Promotion in Improving Health or Preventing Disease and, Specifically, What Is the Effectiveness of the Health Promoting Schools Approach? Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Warren JM, Henry CJK, Lightowler HJ, Bradshaw SM, Perwaiz S. Evaluation of a pilot school programme aimed at the prevention of obesity in children. Health Promot Int. 2003;18(4):287–96. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dag402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux. Rapport annuel de gestion 2006–2007 du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux. Québec, QC: Gouvernement du Québec; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Deschesnes M, Martin C, Jomphe Hill A. Comprehensive approaches to school health promotion: How to achieve broader implementation? Health Promot Int. 2003;18(4):387–96. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dag410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Micucci S. Environmental interventions to improve nutrition and increase physical activity in children and youth. In: Thomas H, Ciliska D, Micucci S, Wilson-Abra J, Dobbins M, editors. Effectiveness of Physical Activity Enhancement and Obesity Prevention Programs in Children and Youth. Hamilton, ON: Effective Public Health Practice Project; 2004. pp. 223–64. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Inchley J, Muldoon J, Currie C. Becoming a health promoting school: Evaluating the process of effective implementation in Scotland. Health Promot Int. 2006;22(1):65–71. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dal059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Barry MM, Domitrovich C, Lara MA. The implementation of mental health promotion programmes. Promot Educ. 2005;12(Suppl2):30–36. doi: 10.1177/10253823050120020105x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Kiefer L, Frank J, Di Ruggiero E, Dobbins M, Manuel D, Gully PR, Mowat D. Fostering evidence-based decision-making in Canada: Examining the need for a Canadian population and public health evidence centre and research network. Can J Public Health. 2005;96(3):I1–I19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Greenberg MR. The diffusion of public health innovations. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(2):209–10. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.078360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Greenhalgh T, Robert G, MacFarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Oldenburg B, Parcel GS. Diffusion of innovations. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM, editors. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2002. pp. 312–34. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Sussman S, Valente TW, Rohrbach LA, Skara S, Pentz M-A. Translation in the health professions: Converting science into action. Eval Health Prof. 2006;29(1):7–32. doi: 10.1177/0163278705284441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Edwards P, Roberts IG, Clarke MJ, Di Guiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, et al. Methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;2:1–18. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Goldman D. Perceptions of innovations as predictors of implementation levels: The diffusion of a nation-wide health education campaign. Health Educ Q. 1992;21(4):429–45. doi: 10.1177/109019819402100406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Lafferty CK. Diffusion of an asset building innovation in three Portage County school districts: A model of individual change [dissertation] Ann Arbor, MI: Kent State University; 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Parcel GS, O’Hara-Tompkins NM, Harrist RB, Basen-Engquist KM, McCormick LK, Gottlieb NH, Eriksen MP. Diffusion of an effective tobacco prevention program. Part II: Evaluation of the adoption phase. Health Educ Res. 1995;10(3):297–307. doi: 10.1093/her/10.3.297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1991. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Loehlin JC. Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Equation Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Stevens J. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Hu LT, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods. 1998;3:424–53. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. Lisrel 7: A Guide to the Program and Applications. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.; 1988. [Google Scholar]