Top

Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology

Gepubliceerd in:

01-10-2009

Modeling the Bullying Prevention Program Preferences of Educators: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment

Auteurs: Charles E. Cunningham, Tracy Vaillancourt, Heather Rimas, Ken Deal, Lesley Cunningham, Kathy Short, Yvonne Chen

Gepubliceerd in: Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology | Uitgave 7/2009

Abstract

We used discrete choice conjoint analysis to model the bullying prevention program preferences of educators. Using themes from computerized decision support lab focus groups (n = 45 educators), we composed 20 three-level bullying prevention program design attributes. Each of 1,176 educators completed 25 choice tasks presenting experimentally varied combinations of the study’s attribute levels. Latent class analysis yielded three segments with different preferences. Decision Sensitive educators (31%) preferred that individual schools select bullying prevention programs. In contrast, Support Sensitive educators (51%) preferred that local school boards chose bullying prevention programs. This segment preferred more logistical and social support at every stage of the adoption, training, implementation, and long term maintenance processes. Cost Sensitive educators (16%) showed a stronger preference for programs minimizing costs, training, and implementation time demands. They felt prevention programs were less effective and that the time and space in the curriculum for bullying prevention was less adequate. They were less likely to believe that bullying prevention was their responsibility and more likely to agree that prevention was the responsibility of parents. All segments preferred programs supported by the anecdotal reports of colleagues from other schools rather than those based on scientific evidence. To ensure that the bullying prevention options available reflect the complex combination of attributes influencing real world adoption decisions, program developers need to accommodate the differing views of the Decision, Support, and Cost Sensitive segments while maximizing the support of parents and students.

vorige artikel Emotional Triggers and Psychopathology Associated with Suicidal Ideation in Urban Children with Elevated Aggressive-Disruptive Behavior

volgende artikel Executive Functions in Children: Associations with Aggressive Behavior and Appraisal Processing

Sometimes referred to by market researchers as part-worth utility values (Orme 2006)

Allenby, G. M., Arora, N., & Gintner, J. L. (1995). Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 152–162. doi:10.2307/3152044.CrossRef

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499. doi:10.1348/014466601164939.PubMedCrossRef

Arseneault, L., Walsh, E., Trzesniewski, K., Newcombe, R., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Bullying victimization uniquely contributes to adjustment problems in young children: a nationally representative cohort study. Pediatrics, 118(1), 130–138. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-2388.PubMedCrossRef

Barbour, R. S. (1999). The case for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 4(1), 39–43.

Caruso, E. M., Rahnev, D. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Using conjoint analysis to detect discrimination: revealing covert preferences from overt choices. Social Cognition, 27(1), 128–137. doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.1.128.CrossRef

Coast, J. (1999). The appropriate uses of qualitative methods in health economics. Health Economics, 8(4), 345–353. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199906)8:4<345::AID-HEC432>3.0.CO;2-Q.PubMedCrossRef

Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International, 21(1), 22–36. doi:10.1177/0143034300211002.CrossRef

Cunningham, C. E., Deal, K., Rimas, H., Buchanan, D. H., Gold, M., Sdao-Jarvie, K., et al. (2008). Modeling the information preferences of parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 7(36), 1128–1138.

Cunningham, C. E., Vaillancourt, T., Cunningham, L. J., & Short, K. (2009). The bullying prevention attitudes scale. Unpublished manuscript.

Cunningham, C. E., Cunningham, L. J., Martorelli, V., Tran, A., Young, J., & Zacharias, R. (1998). The effects of primary division, student-mediated conflict resolution programs on playground aggression. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 39(5), 653–662. doi:10.1017/S0021963098002558.PubMedCrossRef

Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom, D., et al. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: a longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 377–392. doi:10.1348/096317902321119637.CrossRef

DeSarbo, W. S., Ramaswamy, V., & Cohen, S. H. (1995). Market segmentation with choice-based conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 6(2), 137–147. doi:10.1007/BF00994929.CrossRef

Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2003). Implementation, sustainability, and scaling up of social-emotional and academic innovations in public schools. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 303–320.

Fagan, A. A., & Mihalic, S. (2003). Strategies for enhancing the adoption of school-based prevention programs: lessons learned from the blueprints for violence prevention replications of the life skills training program. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3), 235–253. doi:10.1002/jcop.10045.CrossRef

Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2006). Effects of antibullying school program on bullying and health complaints. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160(6), 638–644. doi:10.1001/archpedi.160.6.638.CrossRef

Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Snell, J. L., Edstrom, L. V., MacKenzie, E. P., & Broderick, C. J. (2005). Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs: an experimental trial of the steps to respect program. Developmental Psychology, 41(3), 479–490. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.3.479.PubMedCrossRef

Gamage, J., & Weerahandi, S. (1998). Size performance of some tests in one-way anova. Communications in Statistics Simulation and Computation, 27(3), 625–640. doi:10.1080/03610919808813500.CrossRef

Greenberg, M. T. (2004). Current and future challenges in school-based prevention: the researcher perspective. Prevention Science, 5(1), 5–13. doi:10.1023/B:PREV.0000013976.84939.55.PubMedCrossRef

Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., et al. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. The American Psychologist, 58(6–7), 466–474. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466.PubMedCrossRef

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629. doi:10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x.PubMedCrossRef

Gregory, A., Henry, D. B., & Schoeny, M. E. (2007). School climate and implementation of a preventive intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40(3–4), 250–260. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9142-z.PubMedCrossRef

Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (2007). Conjoint analysis as an instrument of market research practice. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement (pp. 3–34). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRef

Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied choice analysis A primer. New York-U.S.A.: Cambridge University Press.

Hoagwood, K., & Johnson, J. (2003). School psychology: a public health framework I. From evidence-based practices to evidence-based policies. Journal of School Psychology, 41(1), 3–21. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(02)00141-3.CrossRef

Huber, J., Orme, B., & Miller, R. (2007). Dealing with product similarity in conjoint simulations. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement: methods and applications (4th ed., pp. 347–362). New York: Springer.

Kallestad, J. H. (2003). Predicting teachers’ and schools’ implementation of the olweus bullying prevention program: a multilevel study. Prevention & Treatment, 6, 3–21.CrossRef

Kim, Y. S., Leventhal, B. L., Koh, Y. J., Hubbard, A., & Boyce, W. T. (2006). School bullying and youth violence: causes or consequences of psychopathologic behavior? Archives of General Psychiatry, 63(9), 1035–1041. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.63.9.1035.PubMedCrossRef

Lenk, P. J., DeSarbo, W. S., Green, P. E., & Young, M. R. (1996). Hierarchical bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Marketing Science, 15(2), 173–192. doi:10.1287/mksc.15.2.173.CrossRef

Lochman, J. E. (2003). Commentary: school contextual influences on the dissemination of interventions. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 174–178.

Louviere, J., Hensher, D., & Swait, J. (2007). Conjoint preference elicitation methods in the broader context of random utility theory preference elicitation methods. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement-methods and applications (4th ed., pp. 167–197). New York: Springer.

Luce, R. D., & Tukey, J. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 1–27. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(64)90015-X.CrossRef

Merrell, K. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 26–42. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26.CrossRef

Midthassel, U. V. (2008). Is the sustainability of reduction in bullying related to follow-up procedures? Educational Psychology, 28(1), 1–13. doi:10.1080/01443410701449278.CrossRef

Mytton, J., DiGuiseppi, C., Gough, D., Taylor, R., & Logan, S. (2006). School-based secondary prevention programmes for preventing violence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online), 3. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004606.pub2.

Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 35(7), 1171–1190. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01229.x.PubMedCrossRef

Orme, B. K. (2006). Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. Madison: Research Publishers.

Patterson, M., & Chrzan, K. (2004). Partial profile discrete choice: what’s the optimal number of attributes? (pp. 173–185). San Antonio, TX: 2003 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings.

Payne, A. A., Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2006). School predictors of the intensity of implementation of school-based prevention programs: results from a national study. Prevention Science, 7(2), 225–237. doi:10.1007/s11121-006-0029-2.PubMedCrossRef

Perkins, M. B., Jensen, P. S., Jaccard, J., Gollwitzer, P., Oettingen, G., Pappadopulos, E., et al. (2007). Applying theory-driven approaches to understanding and modifying clinicians’ behavior: what do we know? Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.), 58(3), 342–348. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.58.3.342.

Phillips, K. A., Johnson, F. R., & Maddala, T. (2002). Measuring what people value: a comparison of “attitude” and “preference” surveys. Health Services Research, 37(6), 1659–1679. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.01116.PubMedCrossRef

Ramaswamy, V., & Cohen, S. H. (2007). Latent class models for conjoint analysis. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmanm & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement methods and applications (4th ed., pp. 295–320). Heidelberg: Springer.

Ringeisen, H., Henderson, K., & Hoagwood, K. (2003). Context matters: schools and the “research to practice gap” in children’s mental health. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 153–169.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free.

Rones, M., & Hoagwood, K. (2000). School-based mental health services: a research review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3(4), 223–241. doi:10.1023/A:1026425104386.PubMedCrossRef

Ryan, M., Gerard, K., & Amaya-Amaya, M. (2007). Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Netherlands: Springer.CrossRef

Ryan, M., Scott, D. A., Reeves, C., Bate, A., van Teijlingen, E. R., Russell, E. M., et al. (2001). Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment, 5(5), 1–186.PubMed

Sawtooth Software Inc. (2004a). The CBC/HB system for hierarchical bayes estimation version 4.0 technical paper. Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series. Retrieved from http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/hbtech.pdf

Sawtooth Software Inc. (2004b). The CBC latent class technical paper (version 3). Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series. Retrieved from http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/lctech.pdf

Schoenwald, S. K., & Hoagwood, K. (2001). Effectiveness, transportability, and dissemination of interventions: what matters when? Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.), 52(9), 1190. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.52.9.1190.

Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 207. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.207.PubMedCrossRef

Shapiro, D., & Brett, J. (2005). What is the role of control in organizational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 155–178). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shinn, M. (2003). Understanding implementation of programs in multilevel systems. Prevention & Treatment, 6(1), 22. doi:10.1037/1522-3736.6.1.622c.CrossRef

Spoth, R., Greenberg, M., Bierman, K., & Redmond, C. (2004). PROSPER community-university partnership model for public education systems: capacity-building for evidence-based, competence-building prevention. Prevention Science, 5(1), 31–39. doi:10.1023/B:PREV.0000013979.52796.8b.PubMedCrossRef

Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (1993). Identifying program preferences through conjoint analysis: illustrative results from a parent sample. American Journal of Health Promotion, 8(2), 124–133.PubMed

Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(1), 78–88. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.1.78.CrossRef

Vriens, M., Wedel, M., & Wilms, T. (1996). Metric conjoint segmentation methods: a Monte Carlo comparison. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 33(1), 73–85. doi:10.2307/3152014.CrossRef

Titel: Modeling the Bullying Prevention Program Preferences of Educators: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment
Auteurs: Charles E. Cunningham
Tracy Vaillancourt
Heather Rimas
Ken Deal
Lesley Cunningham
Kathy Short
Yvonne Chen
Publicatiedatum: 01-10-2009
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology / Uitgave 7/2009
Print ISSN: 2730-7166
Elektronisch ISSN: 2730-7174
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9324-2

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2009

Patterns of Growth in Adaptive Social Abilities Among Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

Childhood Predictors of Desistance and Level of Persistence in Offending in Early Onset Offenders

Executive Functions in Children: Associations with Aggressive Behavior and Appraisal Processing

How Distinctive are ADHD and RD? Results of a Double Dissociation Study

Neuroticism, Life Events and Negative Thoughts in the Development of Depression in Adolescent Girls

Executive Function in Very Preterm Children at Early School Age