Tomorrow's leaders in health promotion are being educated at American University today.

 

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

As proposed in Chapter 1, this study was designed to examine the computing habits, attitudes, and behaviors of health promotion professionals. This chapter describes the sample population, the procedures, and the statistical techniques that were used to analyze the data. Potential problems, limitations, and ethical considerations are presented. The data from this study will provide a snapshot or benchmark of several key computer-related factors.

Design of the Study

This investigation used a non-experimental methodology. A descriptive survey design was used to capture the computing habits, attitudes, and behaviors of the population sample that was identified as important in the review of the literature in Chapter 2.

Subjects

The population sample for this study included attendees at the American Journal of Health Promotion Conference, "The Art and Science of Health Promotion: Balancing High Tech with Human Touch." The conference took place on March 3-6, 1999, in Amelia Island, Florida. Those who attend this annual conference are generally considered to be among the leaders of the health promotion field.

The attendees were practitioners, managers, consultants, academics, researchers, and entrepreneurs. They represent a diverse array of health and medical fields professions and subspecialties across multiple domains. The attendees at the conference come from the private, public, and non-profit sectors.

Restrictions and Limitations

No restrictions were placed on the subjects who could respond to the questionnaire other than they must have been registered for the conference. However, they were required to be physically present at the time the surveys were distributed, since no forms were mailed to the potential participants and no electronic means of submitting the forms was available. Any form that had at least one page of items completed was included in the final data analysis.

Instrument

As stated in Chapter 2, no survey was available that fit the needs of this study. Therefore, a two-page instrument was tailored to the general types of work and services that health promotion practitioners typically provide to their clients. The instrument was field-tested in three graduate-level health promotion classes. The 23-item instrument featured a mixture of questions that are common on general computer-user surveys and items that are more germane to the health promotion profession. The questionnaire was divided into three parts: computing habits, computer use in health promotion activities, and personal and occupational demographic data. The instrument included a mix of check-the-box items, Likert-type scales, and fill-in blanks. All of the data was self-reported.

A panel of 18 experts was convened to assist the researcher in the various stages of development of the survey (Appendix 4). Each member of the panel had earned an advanced degree or received extensive training in an area of health promotion. Through telephone conversations, personal interviews, and focus-group meetings, the panel advised the researcher on the topics of greatest priority and interest to leaders of the industry; they rated the relative importance of the items in the initial pool of questions, and they assisted the researcher in developing the questionnaire, phrasing the items, and selecting the questions most appropriate for the objectives of the study. The panel helped to establish face validity for the items as well as refine the protocol for administration of the survey. The researcher also submitted drafts of the instrument and a proposed plan of administration to Dr. Michael O'Donnell, a cooperating advisor and the executive director of the conference, for suggestions, comments, and recommendations.

The researcher submitted the instrument to American University's Institutional Review Board (IRB). An IRB exemption was granted because of the nature of the items in the instrument. A full research and administration plan and protocol for collecting and managing the data was included in the IRB submission. A plan for protecting the human subjects from potential was outlined in the IRB proposal.

The researcher administered the instrument to three graduate-level health promotion classes in order to field test the survey, to refine the administrative procedures, and to obtain some preliminary validity and reliability data. The researcher used the field-testing sessions as an opportunity to improve upon all aspects of the instrument including improving the face validity of the questions and learning how to administer it most efficiently. The instrument was then administered to one of the classes, two weeks apart, in order to obtain a measure of test-retest reliability. A Chronbach's alpha value of r=.618, which is significant at the p=.05 level, was found for test-retest reliability for the instrument. However, because of the small number of subjects (N=16) in the test group and the number of fully identifiable and completed forms (N=12), the reliability factor for the instrument does not meet some of the conventions for statistical credibility.

Procedures

The questionnaires were placed on every chair for the audience prior to the first general session. At the beginning of the first general session, Dr. O'Donnell briefly explained the nature of the study, allotted 10 minutes to begin completing the survey, and encouraged the attendees to hand in questionnaire to the session monitors stationed at each exit door. At the end of the session, Dr. O'Donnell reminded the attendees to complete and hand in the survey. The researcher collected the completed or blank forms that were left behind.

In order to boost the response rate at each of the subsequent general sessions, Dr. O'Donnell made a promotional announcement reminding anyone who missed the first session or who had not handed in the questionnaire to do so. Surveys were distributed to late arrivals at the registration desk, and they were informed about the study by the registration staff. The conference attendees were instructed to return forms not collected at the general session to the registration table.

Data Entry, Management, and Analysis

The researcher manually entered the data from the completed forms into a Statistical Products & Service Solutions (SPSS) database for management and analysis. In order to ensure confidentiality, the database and all backups were password protected. The forms were stored in a locked filing cabinet in a locked office except during data entry sessions. The forms were assigned a random ID number in order to promote confidentiality.

The data was entered into a SPSS database. During the data entry process, the data was checked for accuracy and consistency of entry, spot checks were performed, and range limitations were established to ensure the integrity of the data.

The data from the three parts of the survey were subjected to standardized statistical analysis techniques. The data from each of the sections were summarized and presented in summary tables. Each of the key portions of the five research questions were explored for statistical relationships, correlations, patterns, or trends. For example, on items where the data were arranged on a continuum, the two answers on either the positive or negative side of the average were combined and analyzed both as an individual response and as a composite measure.

Statistical Tools

SPSS version 10.0 for Windows was used to perform the statistical analysis of the variables for this investigation (SPSS, 1999).

Potential Problems, Threats, and Ethical Considerations

There were several potential problems, threats, and considerations of which the researcher was mindful. First, the protection of human subjects from harm was a high priority. The safety procedures and protocols that were outlined in the Institutional Review Board submission were followed throughout the course of the study.

Second, as the worth of the data is often determined by the quality of the instrument and the procedures used during the study, the researcher endeavored to meet the highest standards of research. Among the steps that were taken to minimize investigator bias were convening the expert panel, field testing the instrument, and standardizing the administration procedures. In addition, the researcher carefully followed the detailed plan as outlined above in order to develop an instrument that was appropriate for the objectives of this study and that demonstrates strong psychometric properties.

Third, in order to enhance the scientific rigor of this study the researcher executed the research plan and methodology according to the highest standards of research. By adhering to the plan it was possible to capture high quality data and avoid low response rates that might have compromised the integrity of the results.

Finally, there were a variety of threats to the worth of the study that could have come from deviations from accepted procedures and protocols for handling and analyzing the data. The researcher followed the generally accepted standards and practices for statistical treatment of the data.

Next chapter
Last Updated: December 10, 2001