An Examination of Education Professionals’ Beliefs About Causes of Autism and Their Perceptions of Practices

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Veronica P. Fleury, Talya Kemper
{"title":"An Examination of Education Professionals’ Beliefs About Causes of Autism and Their Perceptions of Practices","authors":"Veronica P. Fleury, Talya Kemper","doi":"10.1177/10883576211073685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The quantity and quality of research focused on autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have grown over the past several decades. Ensuring that research findings are accessible and understood by education professionals is essential for improving outcomes for individuals with ASD. In this study, we evaluated education professionals’ knowledge about ASD, specifically (a) beliefs about causes of ASD, (b) their familiarity with evidence-based practices (EBPs) and non-EBPs, (c) the likelihood of using or recommending EBPs compared with non-EBPs, and (d) the extent to which source credibility influenced the likelihood of using or recommending different types of practices. Education professionals (N = 62) completed a paper survey. Responses on a modified version of the Illness Perception Questionnaire–Revised (Moss-Morris et al., 2002) were used to evaluate participants’ beliefs regarding causal attributes of ASD. Educators were also asked to read texts describing four EBPs and four non-EBPs. The text presentation was based on a 2 × 2 within-subjects factorial design with practice status (EBP or non-EBP) and source credibility (credible or not credible) as the independent variables. After reading each text, participants reported on whether they were (a) familiar with the practice and (b) the extent to which they would use or recommend the practice. Results indicate that school personnel were highly confident that neurobiological factors were a causal attribute of ASD. In addition, respondents were more familiar with, and more likely to recommend or use, EBPs as compared with non-EBPs. Source credibility did not significantly affect participants’ likelihood of using or recommending practices.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576211073685","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The quantity and quality of research focused on autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have grown over the past several decades. Ensuring that research findings are accessible and understood by education professionals is essential for improving outcomes for individuals with ASD. In this study, we evaluated education professionals’ knowledge about ASD, specifically (a) beliefs about causes of ASD, (b) their familiarity with evidence-based practices (EBPs) and non-EBPs, (c) the likelihood of using or recommending EBPs compared with non-EBPs, and (d) the extent to which source credibility influenced the likelihood of using or recommending different types of practices. Education professionals (N = 62) completed a paper survey. Responses on a modified version of the Illness Perception Questionnaire–Revised (Moss-Morris et al., 2002) were used to evaluate participants’ beliefs regarding causal attributes of ASD. Educators were also asked to read texts describing four EBPs and four non-EBPs. The text presentation was based on a 2 × 2 within-subjects factorial design with practice status (EBP or non-EBP) and source credibility (credible or not credible) as the independent variables. After reading each text, participants reported on whether they were (a) familiar with the practice and (b) the extent to which they would use or recommend the practice. Results indicate that school personnel were highly confident that neurobiological factors were a causal attribute of ASD. In addition, respondents were more familiar with, and more likely to recommend or use, EBPs as compared with non-EBPs. Source credibility did not significantly affect participants’ likelihood of using or recommending practices.
教育专业人员对自闭症病因的信念及其实践感知
在过去的几十年里,专注于自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)的研究数量和质量都在增长。确保教育专业人员能够获得和理解研究结果,对于改善ASD患者的结果至关重要。在这项研究中,我们评估了教育专业人员对ASD的了解,特别是(a)对ASD病因的信念,(b)他们对循证实践(EBP)和非EBP的熟悉程度,(c)与非EBP相比使用或推荐EBP的可能性,以及(d)来源可信度在多大程度上影响使用或推荐不同类型实践的可能性。教育专业人员(N=62)完成了一项论文调查。对修订版疾病感知问卷(Moss-Morris et al.,2002)的回答用于评估参与者对ASD因果属性的信念。教育工作者还被要求阅读描述四个EBP和四个非EBP的文本。文本呈现基于2×2的受试者内部析因设计,以实践状态(EBP或非EBP)和来源可信度(可信或不可信)为自变量。在阅读每一篇文章后,参与者报告他们是否(a)熟悉这种做法,以及(b)他们将在多大程度上使用或推荐这种做法。结果表明,学校工作人员高度相信神经生物学因素是ASD的一个原因。此外,与非EBP相比,受访者更熟悉EBP,也更有可能推荐或使用EBP。来源可信度并没有显著影响参与者使用或推荐实践的可能性。
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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