Suchergebnisse

Purpose. Report on the development and psychometric testing of a theoretically and evidence-grounded instrument, the Characteristics of Responsible Drinking Survey (CHORDS). Design. Instrument subjected to four phases of pretesting (cognitive validity, cognitive and motivational qualities, pilot test, and item evaluation) and a final posttest implementation. Setting. Large public university in Texas. Subjects. Randomly selected convenience sample (n = 729) of currently enrolled students. Measures. This 78-item questionnaire measures individuals' responsible drinking beliefs, motivations, intentions, and behaviors. Cronbach α, split-half reliability, principal components analysis and Spearman ρ were conducted to investigate reliability, stability, and validity. Results. Measures in the CHORDS exhibited high internal consistency reliability and strong correlations of split-half reliability. Factor analyses indicated five distinct scales were present, as proposed in the theoretical model. Subscale composite scores also exhibited a correlation to alcohol consumption behaviors, indicating concurrent validity. Conclusions. The CHORDS represents the first instrument specifically designed to assess responsible drinking beliefs and behaviors. It was found to elicit valid and reliable data among a college student sample. This instrument holds much promise for practitioners who desire to empirically investigate dimensions of responsible drinking.

ObjectiveTopic modeling (TM) refers to a group of methods for mathematically identifying latent topics in large corpora of data. Although TM shows promise as a tool for social science research, most researchers lack awareness of the tool's utility. Therefore, this article provides a brief overview of TM's logic and processes, offers a simple example, and suggests several possible uses in social sciences.MethodsUsing latent semantic analysis in our example, we analyzed transcripts of the 2016 U.S. presidential debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.ResultsResulting topics paralleled the most frequent policy‐related Internet searches at the time. When divided by candidate, changes in emergent topics reflected individual policy stances, with nuanced differences between the two.ConclusionFindings underscored the utility of TM to identify thematic patterns embedded in large quantities of text. TM, therefore, represents a valuable addition to the social scientist's methodological tool set.

We propose a methodological framework for conducting collaborative and analytic autoethnography (CAAE) in action research inquiry. Similar to other action research methodologies, CAAE is: (a) systematic, framed by a research question and employing explicit, transparent methods; (b) problem-based, drawn from health educators' practices; and (c) cyclical, predicated on the assumption that a plan for implementing changes is derived from the findings and will be tested in subsequent action research cycles. The autoethnographic action research framework comprises four phases: inductive stage/formative assessment—developing a hypothesis (phase 1), pre-deductive stage—organizing the study (phase 2), deductive stage/summative evaluation—collecting data and testing the hypothesis (phase 3), and synthesis stage—constructing meaning (phase 4). Collaborative analytic autoethnography supports reflexivity, awareness, and agency by providing practitioners with an explicit framework for continually evaluating the complexities of self, the Other (i.e. experiencing self from another's perspective), and context.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of genomics training workshops for public health professionals and professionals-in-training. Design: A pre- and post-test evaluation design with 3-month follow-up. Setting and Participants: Thirteen genomics training workshops were delivered across Texas to 377 public health professionals and professionals-in-training (66.7% were ethnic minorities). Intervention: Three-hour theory-based, face-to-face genomics training workshops focusing on family health history practice were delivered. Methods: We administered surveys prior to the workshops, immediately post-workshops, and at 3-month follow-up to examine the changes in participants' knowledge, attitudes, intention, self-efficacy, and behavior in adopting genomics into public health practice. Linear mixed modeling analyses were used to analyze the quantitative survey data. A content analysis was also conducted for qualitative survey data analysis. Results: Genomics practice significantly improved among public health professionals at 3-month follow-up ( P < .01). For all participants, knowledge, attitudes, intention, and self-efficacy scores increased significantly immediately post-workshop compared to the pre-workshop scores (all Ps < .01). Knowledge and attitudes scores at the 3-month follow-up remained significantly higher than those scores at the pre-workshop (all Ps < .01). The feedback from workshop participants was positive. Conclusion: Our genomics training workshop is an effective program that can be disseminated at a national level to establish genomic competencies among public health professionals and professionals-in-training in the United States.