Beyond School Climate: Validating the School as a Protective Factor-Brief Survey

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of School Health Pub Date : 2024-06-27 DOI:10.1111/josh.13481
Christa L. Lilly PhD, Alfgeir L. Kristjansson PhD, Megan L. Smith PhD, Inibjorg Eva Thrisdottir PhD, Ashley Havlicak MPH, Michael J. Mann PhD
{"title":"Beyond School Climate: Validating the School as a Protective Factor-Brief Survey","authors":"Christa L. Lilly PhD,&nbsp;Alfgeir L. Kristjansson PhD,&nbsp;Megan L. Smith PhD,&nbsp;Inibjorg Eva Thrisdottir PhD,&nbsp;Ashley Havlicak MPH,&nbsp;Michael J. Mann PhD","doi":"10.1111/josh.13481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> BACKGROUND</h3>\n \n <p>The conceptual framework for <i>School as a Protective Factor</i> approach was presented in a companion article in this issue of the journal. The current article describes the validation of the <i>School as a Protective Factor-Brief</i> (<i>SPF-Brief</i>), a 13-item survey measuring the 3 core constructs and 13 defining characteristics of this framework.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> METHODS</h3>\n \n <p>The <i>SPF-Brief</i> was validated through 2 studies. The developmental study used a longitudinal design including 1349 participants who completed surveys over 5 semesters, while the validation study used a cross-sectional design with 2775 participants. Both studies included middle and high school students. Factor analysis, growth model analysis, criterion-related validation, and outcome analysis were employed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> RESULTS</h3>\n \n <p>Analyses provided strong evidence supporting the reliability and validity of the instrument and conceptual framework. Higher <i>SPF-Brief</i> scores were associated with higher math grades, English grades, and quality of life, as well as lower rates of anxiety, depression, conduct disorder, alcohol, e-cigarette, tobacco, and cannabis use. Effect size estimates ranged from moderate to strong.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> CONCLUSIONS</h3>\n \n <p>These findings suggest the utility of the <i>SPF-Brief</i> instrument and the <i>School as a Protective Factor</i> framework. Together, they may offer advantages to the traditional school climate approach.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50059,"journal":{"name":"Journal of School Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/josh.13481","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of School Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josh.13481","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The conceptual framework for School as a Protective Factor approach was presented in a companion article in this issue of the journal. The current article describes the validation of the School as a Protective Factor-Brief (SPF-Brief), a 13-item survey measuring the 3 core constructs and 13 defining characteristics of this framework.

METHODS

The SPF-Brief was validated through 2 studies. The developmental study used a longitudinal design including 1349 participants who completed surveys over 5 semesters, while the validation study used a cross-sectional design with 2775 participants. Both studies included middle and high school students. Factor analysis, growth model analysis, criterion-related validation, and outcome analysis were employed.

RESULTS

Analyses provided strong evidence supporting the reliability and validity of the instrument and conceptual framework. Higher SPF-Brief scores were associated with higher math grades, English grades, and quality of life, as well as lower rates of anxiety, depression, conduct disorder, alcohol, e-cigarette, tobacco, and cannabis use. Effect size estimates ranged from moderate to strong.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest the utility of the SPF-Brief instrument and the School as a Protective Factor framework. Together, they may offer advantages to the traditional school climate approach.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超越学校氛围:验证学校作为保护因素的简要调查。
背景:本期杂志的配套文章介绍了 "学校即保护因素 "方法的概念框架。本期文章介绍了 "学校作为保护因素简况"(School as a Protective Factor-Brief,SPF-Brief)的验证情况,SPF-Brief 是一项 13 个项目的调查,用于测量该框架的 3 个核心结构和 13 个定义特征:方法:通过两项研究对 SPF-Brief 进行了验证。发展研究采用纵向设计,包括 1349 名参与者,他们在 5 个学期中完成了调查;验证研究采用横向设计,包括 2775 名参与者。两项研究均包括初中和高中学生。研究采用了因子分析、成长模型分析、标准相关验证和结果分析等方法:分析结果有力地证明了该工具和概念框架的可靠性和有效性。SPF-Brief得分越高,数学成绩、英语成绩和生活质量越高,焦虑、抑郁、行为障碍、酗酒、吸电子烟、吸烟和吸食大麻的比例越低。效果大小估计从中等到较强不等:这些研究结果表明,SPF-Brief 工具和 "学校是保护因素 "框架非常有用。这些研究结果表明,SPF-Brief 工具和 "学校作为保护因素 "框架是有用的,它们结合在一起,可能会为传统的学校气候方法提供优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of School Health
Journal of School Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
134
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of School Health is published 12 times a year on behalf of the American School Health Association. It addresses practice, theory, and research related to the health and well-being of school-aged youth. The journal is a top-tiered resource for professionals who work toward providing students with the programs, services, and environment they need for good health and academic success.
期刊最新文献
Primary School Pupils' Perceptions and Experiences of Wearable Technologies. Racial Disparities in a Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program: Abstinence-Only Versus a Comprehensive Sexuality Education Program. National Health Education Standards: Model Guidance for Curriculum and Instruction (Third Edition). Effect of Delaying High School Start Time on Teen Physical Activity, Screen Use, and Sports and Extracurricular Activity Participation: Results From START. Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1