Examining Auxiliary Verbs in a Salient Belief Elicitation

IF 0.5 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Julie Maier, K. Jozkowski, María S. Montenegro, Malachi Willis, R. Turner, Brandon L. Crawford, Wen‐Juo Lo
{"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}
引用次数: 0

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
显著信念启发中辅助动词的考察
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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信