显著信念启发中辅助动词的考察

IF 0.5 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health Behavior and Policy Review Pub Date : 2021-07-01 DOI:10.14485/hbpr.8.4.9
Julie Maier, K. Jozkowski, María S. Montenegro, Malachi Willis, R. Turner, Brandon L. Crawford, Wen‐Juo Lo
{"title":"显著信念启发中辅助动词的考察","authors":"Julie Maier, K. Jozkowski, María S. Montenegro, Malachi Willis, R. Turner, Brandon L. Crawford, Wen‐Juo Lo","doi":"10.14485/hbpr.8.4.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Salient belief elicitations (SBEs) measure beliefs toward a health behavior through open-ended questions, with the purpose of developing close-ended survey questions. Auxiliary verbs used in SBE questions often differ (eg, What are the top 3 reasons you would/should decide to have an abortion?). We tested how 2 auxiliary verbs function in a SBE assessing abortion in English and Spanish: would/decidíra and should/debería. Methods: We administered a SBE survey online (N = 175) and in-person (N = 72); in-person participants also participated in cognitive interviews to assess question interpretation. Participants were assigned to survey versions that included identical SBE questions aside from auxiliary verbs—would/decidíra versus should/debería. Data analysis included: (1) content analysis of survey responses to assess differences in responses by version and (2) thematic analysis of interview data focused on interpretations of would/decidíra and should/ debería. Results: Would/decidíra surveys generated more response categories. Similarly, cognitive interview findings suggest participants conceptualized would/decidíra as allowing for more options, while should/debería was thought to include only the most significant reasons/circumstances for abortion, potentially restricting participants’ responses. Conclusion: These findings have important measurement implications for researchers administering SBEs","PeriodicalId":44486,"journal":{"name":"Health Behavior and Policy Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining Auxiliary Verbs in a Salient Belief Elicitation\",\"authors\":\"Julie Maier, K. Jozkowski, María S. Montenegro, Malachi Willis, R. Turner, Brandon L. Crawford, Wen‐Juo Lo\",\"doi\":\"10.14485/hbpr.8.4.9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: Salient belief elicitations (SBEs) measure beliefs toward a health behavior through open-ended questions, with the purpose of developing close-ended survey questions. Auxiliary verbs used in SBE questions often differ (eg, What are the top 3 reasons you would/should decide to have an abortion?). We tested how 2 auxiliary verbs function in a SBE assessing abortion in English and Spanish: would/decidíra and should/debería. Methods: We administered a SBE survey online (N = 175) and in-person (N = 72); in-person participants also participated in cognitive interviews to assess question interpretation. Participants were assigned to survey versions that included identical SBE questions aside from auxiliary verbs—would/decidíra versus should/debería. Data analysis included: (1) content analysis of survey responses to assess differences in responses by version and (2) thematic analysis of interview data focused on interpretations of would/decidíra and should/ debería. Results: Would/decidíra surveys generated more response categories. Similarly, cognitive interview findings suggest participants conceptualized would/decidíra as allowing for more options, while should/debería was thought to include only the most significant reasons/circumstances for abortion, potentially restricting participants’ responses. Conclusion: These findings have important measurement implications for researchers administering SBEs\",\"PeriodicalId\":44486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Behavior and Policy Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Behavior and Policy Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14485/hbpr.8.4.9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Behavior and Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14485/hbpr.8.4.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:显著信念启发(SBE)通过开放式问题测量对健康行为的信念,目的是开发封闭式调查问题。SBE问题中使用的助动词通常不同(例如,你决定/应该决定堕胎的前三个原因是什么?)。我们测试了英语和西班牙语中两个辅助动词在SBE评估堕胎中的作用:would/delectíra和should/debería。方法:我们在网上(N=175)和亲自(N=72)进行SBE调查;面对面的参与者还参与了认知访谈,以评估问题的解释。参与者被分配到调查版本,其中除了助动词外,还包括相同的SBE问题——会/devicíra与应该/debería。数据分析包括:(1)调查回应的内容分析,以评估不同版本回应的差异;(2)访谈数据的主题分析,重点是对意愿/决定和应该/debería的解释。结果:意愿/决策调查产生了更多的回应类别。同样,认知访谈的结果表明,参与者将“意愿/决定”概念化为允许更多的选择,而“应该/决定”被认为只包括堕胎的最重要原因/情况,这可能会限制参与者的反应。结论:这些发现对SBE的研究人员具有重要的测量意义
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Examining Auxiliary Verbs in a Salient Belief Elicitation
Objective: Salient belief elicitations (SBEs) measure beliefs toward a health behavior through open-ended questions, with the purpose of developing close-ended survey questions. Auxiliary verbs used in SBE questions often differ (eg, What are the top 3 reasons you would/should decide to have an abortion?). We tested how 2 auxiliary verbs function in a SBE assessing abortion in English and Spanish: would/decidíra and should/debería. Methods: We administered a SBE survey online (N = 175) and in-person (N = 72); in-person participants also participated in cognitive interviews to assess question interpretation. Participants were assigned to survey versions that included identical SBE questions aside from auxiliary verbs—would/decidíra versus should/debería. Data analysis included: (1) content analysis of survey responses to assess differences in responses by version and (2) thematic analysis of interview data focused on interpretations of would/decidíra and should/ debería. Results: Would/decidíra surveys generated more response categories. Similarly, cognitive interview findings suggest participants conceptualized would/decidíra as allowing for more options, while should/debería was thought to include only the most significant reasons/circumstances for abortion, potentially restricting participants’ responses. Conclusion: These findings have important measurement implications for researchers administering SBEs
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Behavior and Policy Review
Health Behavior and Policy Review PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
37
期刊最新文献
Internalized Homonegativity is Indirectly Associated with Smoking Status through Somatic Anxiety. Trauma Informed Care Can Enhance Whole Person Care to Meet the Quadruple Aim Barriers to Cervical Cancer Screening among Sub-Saharan African Immigrant Women in the United States: A Qualitative Report Socioeconomic Factors, Movement Behavior Context, and Self-reported Physical and Mental Health in Adults Living in New York City Exploring the Common Factors that Influence Physical Activity, Academic Self-efficacy, and Depression among Junior High School Students: A Literature Review
×
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