Abstract
Teachers play an important role in improving the emotional and behavioral problems of students. Intervention characteristics (e.g., frequency of student intervention) and teacher characteristics (e.g., mental health literacy) may influence teacher preferences for an intervention and impact service uptake. Conjoint analysis, a trade-off technique borrowed from marketing research, can authentically assess preferences by quantifying the compromises respondents make when selecting a product or a service and has been used to measure service preferences in the mental health field. A conjoint analysis technique called a “discrete choice experiment” was used to systematically arrange intervention components and subcomponents to assess teachers’ preferences for the intensity of three common intervention attributes (i.e., frequency of student intervention, frequency of teacher consultation, and level of parental involvement). The sample consisted of 229 elementary school teachers recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Simulation analyses estimated teachers’ preferences for a low-intensity intervention, medium-intensity intervention, high-intensity intervention or none of these. Differences in teacher characteristics (i.e., beliefs, mental health literacy, stress) were examined between teachers preferring each type of intensity. Results indicated that preferences for intervention intensity varied, with more teachers preferring a medium-intensity intervention than any other intervention. Mental health literacy was significantly greater among teachers preferring a medium-intensity intervention than teachers preferring no intervention. Interventions consisting of weekly options for teacher consultation and parental involvement may appeal to teachers with strong mental health literacy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We included two attention check questions on the MTurk survey and excluded 30 participants who provided inaccurate information on either of these attention check questions.
We used Dunnett’s C test to control for experiment-wise error. Dunnett’s C test is a multiple comparison test used to determine whether the mean of a control condition differs from that of two or more other means of experimental conditions. We then used Brown–Forsythe test to the assumption of equal variances in each ANOVA.
References
Andersen, M., & Daly, E. J. (2013). An experimental examination of the impact of choice of treatment components on treatment integrity. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 23(4), 231–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2013.845493.
Anyon, Y., Nicotera, N., & Veeh, C. A. (2016). Contextual influences on the implementation of a schoolwide intervention to promote students’ social, emotional, and academic learning. Children & Schools, 38(2), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdw008.
August, G. J., Piehler, T. F., & Miller, F. G. (2018). Getting “SMART” about implementing multi-tiered systems of support to promote school mental health. Journal of School Psychology, 66, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.10.001.
Benner, G. J., Kutash, K. J., Nelson, R., & Fisher, M. B. (2013). Closing the achievement gap of youth with emotional and behavioral disorders through multi-tiered systems of support. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(3), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2013.0018.
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980.
Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009.
Coles, E. K., Owens, J. S., Serrano, V. J., Slavec, J., & Evans, S. W. (2015). From consultation to student outcomes: The role of teacher knowledge, skills, and beliefs in increasing integrity in classroom management strategies. School Mental Health, 7(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-015-9143-2.
Cunningham, C. E., Chen, Y., Deal, K., Rimas, H., McGrath, P., Reid, G., et al. (2013). The interim service preferences of parents waiting for children’s mental health treatment: A discrete choice conjoint experiment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(6), 865–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9728-x.
Cunningham, C. E., Vaillancourt, T., Rimas, H., Deal, K., Cunningham, L., Short, K., et al. (2009). Modeling the bullying prevention program preferences of educators: A discrete choice conjoint experiment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(7), 929–943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9324-2.
Cunningham, C. E., Walker, J. R., Eastwood, J. D., Westra, H., Rimas, H., Chen, Y., et al. (2014). Modeling mental health information preferences during the early adult years: A discrete choice conjoint experiment. Journal of Health Communication, 19(4), 413–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.811324.
Donnell, L. A., & Gettinger, M. (2015). Elementary school teachers’ acceptability of school reform: Contribution of belief congruence, self-efficacy, and professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.06.003.
Eagle, J. W., Dowd-Eagle, S. E., Snyder, A., & Holtzman, E. G. (2015). Implementing a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS): Collaboration between school psychologists and administrators to promote systems-level change. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(2–3), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929960.
Egan, T. E., Wymbs, F. A., Owens, J. S., Evans, S. W., Hustus, C., & Allan, D. M. (2019). Elementary school teachers’ preferences for school-based interventions for students with emotional and behavioral problems. Psychology in the Schools, 56(10), 1633–1653. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22294.
Ennis, C. R., Cho Blair, K. S., & George, H. P. (2016). An evaluation of group contingency interventions: The role of teacher preference. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715577663.
Fabiano, G. A., & Evans, S. W. (2019). Introduction to the special issues of School Mental Health on best practices in effective multi-tiered intervention frameworks. School Mental Health, 11, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-018-9283-2.
Fabiano, G. A., & Pyle, K. (2019). Best practices in school mental health for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A framework for intervention. School Mental Health, 11(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-018-9267-2.
Fimian, M. J. (1988). Teacher stress inventory. Brandon: Clinical Psychology Publishing Company.
Girio-Herrera, E., & Owens, J. S. (2017). A pilot study examining a school-based parent engagement intervention following a school mental health screening. School Mental Health, 9, 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-017-9208-5.
Gulliver, A., Farrer, L., Bennett, K., & Griffiths, K. M. (2019). University staff mental health literacy, stigma and their experience of students with mental health problems. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(3), 434–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1367370.
Herman, K. C., Hickmon-Rosa, J. E., & Reinke, W. M. (2018). Empirically derived profiles of teacher stress, burnout, self-efficacy, and coping and associated student outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717732066.
Howard, S. K. (2011). Affect and acceptability: Exploring teachers’ technology-related risk perceptions. Educational Media International, 48(4), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2011.632275.
Huber, J., Orme, B. K., & 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). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71404-0.
Johnson, L. D., Wehby, J. H., Symons, F. J., Moore, T. C., Maggin, D. M., & Sutherland, K. S. (2014). An analysis of preference relative to teacher implementation of intervention. The Journal of Special Education, 48(3), 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466913475872.
Jones, A. M., West, K. B., & Suveg, C. (2019). Anxiety in the school setting: A framework for evidence-based practice. School Mental Health, 11(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-017-9235-2.
Jorm, A. F., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, P. A., Christensen, H., Rodgers, B., & Pollitt, P. (1997). “Mental health literacy”: A survey of the public’s ability to recognise mental disorders and their beliefs about the effectiveness of treatment. Medical Journal of Australia, 166(4), 182–186. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1997.tb140071.x.
Long, A. C. J., Hagermoser Sanetti, L. M., Collier-Meek, M. A., Gallucci, J., Altschaefl, M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2016). An exploratory investigation of teachers’ intervention planning and perceived implementation barriers. Journal of School Psychology, 55, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.12.002.
Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Characteristics of Public School Teachers. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clr.asp.
O’Connor, M., & Casey, L. (2015). The Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS): A new scale-based measure of mental health literacy. Psychiatry Research, 229(1–2), 511–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.05.064.
Orme, B. K. (2013). Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strategies for product design and pricing research (3rd ed.). Madison: Research Publishers.
Owens, J. S., Allan, D. M., Hustus, C., & Erchul, W. P. (2018). Examining correlates of teacher receptivity to social influence strategies within a school consultation relationship. Psychology in the Schools, 55(9), 1041–1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22163.
Owens, J. S., McLennan, J. D., Hustus, C. L., Haines-Saah, R., Mitchell, S., Mixon, C. S., et al. (2019). Leveraging technology to facilitate teachers’ use of a targeted classroom intervention: Evaluation of the daily report card. Online (DRC.O) System. School Mental Health, 11(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-019-09320-6.
Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Stormont, M. (2013). Classroom-level positive behavior supports in schools implementing SW-PBIS: Identifying areas for enhancement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300712459079.
Reinke, W. M., Stormont, M., Herman, K. C., Puri, R., & Goel, N. (2011). Supporting children’s mental health in schools: Teacher perceptions of needs, roles, and barriers. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022714.
Reisberg, D. (2006). Cognition: Exploring the science of the mind. New York: Norton.
Sawtooth Software. (2013). The CBC System for Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis. Version 8, Sawtooth Software. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/cbctech.pdf.
Singer, J. B., Erbacher, T. A., & Rosen, P. (2019). School-based suicide prevention: A framework for evidence-based practice. School Mental Health, 11(1), 54–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-018-9245-8.
Tully, L. A., Hawes, D. J., Doyle, F. L., Sawyer, M. G., & Dadds, M. R. (2019). A national child mental health literacy initiative is needed to reduce childhood mental health disorders. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 53(4), 286–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867418821440.
Waschbusch, D. A., Cunningham, C. E., Pelham, W. E., Rimas, H. L., Greiner, A. R., Gnagy, E. M., et al. (2011). A discrete choice conjoint experiment to evaluate parent preferences for treatment of young, medication naive children with ADHD. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40(4), 546–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.581617.
Weisz, J., Weiss, B., Han, S., Granger, D., & Morton, T. (1995). Effects of psychotherapy and adolescents revisited: A meta-analysis of treatment outcome studies. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 450–468.
Williams, J. H., Horvath, V. E., Wei, H., Van Dorn, R. A., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2007). Teachers’ perspectives of children’s mental health service needs in urban elementary schools. Children and Schools, 29(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/29.2.95.
Wood, C. L., Goodnight, C. I., Bethune, K. S., Preston, A. I., & Cleaver, S. L. (2016). Role of professional development and multi-level coaching in promoting evidence-based practice in education. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 14(2), 159–170.
Wymbs, F. A. (2018). Parents’ preferences for school- and community-based services for children at risk for ADHD. School Mental Health, 10(4), 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-018-9258-3.
Wymbs, F. A., Cunningham, C. E., Chen, Y., Rimas, H. M., Deal, K., Waschbusch, D. A., et al. (2015). Examining parents’ preferences for group and individual parent training for children with ADHD symptoms. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 45(5), 614–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1004678.
Funding
Funding was provided by National Science Foundation (Grant No. 1659455).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Delgadillo, A.A., Wymbs, F.A., Margherio, S.M. et al. Using Conjoint Analysis to Predict Teachers’ Preferences for Intervention Intensity. School Mental Health 12, 743–756 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-020-09385-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-020-09385-8