SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2018 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1

The Development of a General Disaster Preparedness Belief Scale Using the Health Belief Model as a Theoretical Framework

Nuri DOGAN
Kerim Hakan ALTİNTAS
Ebru INAL
Pages
145–158
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings from this study can be used to guide intervention aimed at informing and educating people about disaster preparedness.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Health Belief Model (HBM) is one of the oldest and most recognized conceptual framework of health behavior and can be applied to disaster preparedness efforts which focus predominantly on human behavior.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A study group of 286 academic and administrative staff working in a Turkish University located in the city of Yalova completed a GDPB scale instrument containing 60 items.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings from this study can be used to guide intervention aimed at informing and educating people about disaster preparedness.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Disaster preparedness beliefs · Health Belief Model · Reliability and validity

Abstract

The Health Belief Model (HBM) is one of the oldest and most recognized conceptual framework of health behavior and can be applied to disaster preparedness efforts which focus predominantly on human behavior. The study aims to develop and test the psychometric properties of the General Disaster Preparedness Belief (GDPB) scale based on the HBM. A study group of 286 academic and administrative staff working in a Turkish University located in the city of Yalova completed a GDPB scale instrument containing 60 items. Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA) was used for the construct validity of scale. Item analysis was assessed using item–total correlations and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. The EFA extracted six factors that jointly accounted for 59.2% of variance observed namely; Self efficacy (8 items), Cues to action (5 items), perceived susceptibility (6 items), perceived barriers (6 items), perceived benefits (3 items) and perceived severity (3 items). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the subscales ranged from 0.90 to 0.74. The GDPB scale based on the HBM was found to be a valid and reliable tool. Findings from this study can be used to guide intervention aimed at informing and educating people about disaster preparedness.

🔖

Cite This Article

DOGAN, N., ALTİNTAS, K. H., INAL, E. (2022). The Development of a General Disaster Preparedness Belief Scale Using the Health Belief Model as a Theoretical Framework. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1, 145–158. https://ajindex.com/articles/540221

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Akgül, A. (1997). Tıbbi araştırmalarda istatistiksel analiz teknikleri “SPSS uygulamaları. (2. Baskı). Ankara.
  2. Emek Ofset. Akompab, D.K., Bi, P., Williams, S., Grant, J., Walker, I.A., & Augoustinos, M. (2013). Heat waves and climate change: Applying the Health Belief Model to identify predictors of risk perception and adaptive behaviors in Adelaide, Australia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10 (6), 2164-2184.
  3. Armaş, I., & Avram, E. (2008). Patterns and trends in the perception of seismic risk. Case study: Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Natural Hazards, 44(1), 147-61.
  4. Becker, J., Paton, D., Johnston, D., et al. (2013). Salient beliefs about earthquake hazards and household preparedness. Risk Anal, 33, 1710-27.
  5. Buyukozturk, Sener. Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı istatistik, araştırma deseni SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum, Pegem Yayınları,
  6. Pegem Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2002.
  7. Cattell, R.B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis. New York. Plenum. Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis. Continuum, London. Davis, L.L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5 (4). 194-197.
  8. Donahue, A., & Joyce, P. (2001). A framework for analyzing emergency management with an application to federal budgeting. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 728-740.
  9. Ejeta, L.T, Ardalan, A., & Paton, D. (2015). Application of behavioral theories to disaster and emergency health preparedness. A systematic review. PLOS Currents Disasters, 7, 2015.
  10. Ersoy, S., & Kocak, A. (2015). Disasters and earthquake preparedness of children and schools in Istanbul, Turkey. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risks, 7(4). 1307-1336.
  11. Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., & Strahan, E.J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4 (3). 272-299.
  12. Fabrigar, L., Petty, R., Smith, S., et al. (2006). Understanding knowledge effects on attitude-behavior consistency: the role of relevance, complexity, and amount of knowledge. J Pers Soc Psychol, 90 556-77.
  13. Farley, J. E., Barlow, H. D., Finklestein, M. S., and Riley, L. (1993). Earthquake hysteria, before and after: a survey and follow-up on public response to the browning forecast. Int.J. Mass Emergencies Disasters. 11, 305-322.
  14. Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K., Viswanath, K., (eds). (2008). Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. John Wiley & Sons. Glanz, K., Rim