Welcome to Open Science
Contact Us
Home Books Journals Submission Open Science Join Us News
Guidelines for Construct Measurement Yielding Unexpected Higher-Order Constructs: An Application for the Theory of Planned Behavior Applied to Condom Use
Current Issue
Volume 3, 2016
Issue 5 (October)
Pages: 25-33   |   Vol. 3, No. 5, October 2016   |   Follow on         
Paper in PDF Downloads: 110   Since Oct. 15, 2016 Views: 1779   Since Oct. 15, 2016
Authors
[1]
Chakema C. Carmack, Department of Psychological, Health, & Learning Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
[2]
Rhonda K. Lewis, Department of Psychology, Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas, USA.
[3]
Angelica M. Roncancio, Center for Health Promotion & Prevention Research, The University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
[4]
Lena T. Gerecht, Department of Psychological, Health, & Learning Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is useful theory in social science for explaining how people arrive at an intention to act. Previously, distinctions were found among the global theoretical constructs (attitudes, subjective norms, and volition). As such, six higher-order constructs, or differentiated constructs, were identified. The research investigation intended to validate the use of the TPB differentiated constructs for construct measurement, which is useful for latent variable models. Results based on studies using latent variable methodologies are at fault for improper measurement specification which may call into question the implications of the research. Using Bollen and Lennox’s conventional guidelines for construct measurement, survey data obtained from 446 African American adolescents about their condom use beliefs was used to explore the applicability of the first conventional guideline for construct measurement: establishing linear combinations of construct items with the use of principal axis factoring. Secondary analyses examined the four remaining guidelines. The six hypothesized constructs identified were: affective and instrumental attitude, descriptive and injunctive norms, perceived controllability, and self-efficacy. Surprisingly, results indicated three additional constructs, not previously explained by the theory: negative affective attitude, corollary condom use attitude, and partnership self-efficacy. These findings highlight not only the need to apply such guidelines to all research analyses involving construct measurement where appropriate, but also illustrate how unexpected findings through analytical best practices can expand and modify existing theoretical conceptualizations.
Keywords
Theory of Planned Behavior, Higher-Order Constructs, Condom Use, Self-Efficacy
Reference
[1]
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior Springer.
[2]
Glanz, K., Rimer, B., & Lewis, F. (2002). Theory, research, and practice in health behavior and education. Health Behavior and Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, 22-39.
[3]
Chevance, G., Caudroit, J., Romain A., & Boiché, J. (2016). The adoption of physical activity and eating behaviors among persons with obesity and in the general population: The role of implicit attitudes within the theory of planned behavior. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 7, 1-6.
[4]
Fila, S. A. & Smith, C. (2006). Applying the theory of planned behavior to healthy eating behaviors in urban Native American youth. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 3, 11. doi: 1479-5868-3-11.
[5]
Roncancio, A. M., Ward, K. K., & Fernandez, M. E. (2014). The influence of time perspective on cervical cancer screening among Latinas in the United States. Journal of Health Psychology, 19(12), 1547-1553.
[6]
Guo et al. (2015). Prevention of illicit drug use through a school-based program: results of a longitudinal, cluster-randomized controlled trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(3), 314-22.
[7]
Carmack, C., Lewis, R. K., & Roncancio, A. (2015). Get the message: Targeting beliefs to develop risk reduction intervention messages for African American adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55(3-4), 396-410.
[8]
Simms, D. C. & Byers, E. S. (2013). Heterosexual daters’ sexual initiation behaviors: Use of the theory of planned behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(1), 105-116.
[9]
Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1429-1464.
[10]
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 27-58.
[11]
Rhodes, R. E. & Courneya, K. S. (2003). Investigating multiple components of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived control: An examination of the theory of planned behaviour in the exercise domain. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 129-146.
[12]
Hagger, M. S. & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2005). First-and higher-order models of attitudes, normative influence, and perceived behavioural control in the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 513-535.
[13]
Albarracin, D. et al. (2001). Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 142.
[14]
Manstead, A. S. & Eekelen, S. A. (1998). Distinguishing between perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy in the domain of academic achievement intentions and behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1375-1392.
[15]
Armitage, C. J. & Conner, M. (1999). Distinguishing perceptions of control from Self-Efficacy: Predicting consumption of a Low-Fat diet using the theory of planned Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(1), 72-90.
[16]
Povey, R. et al. (2000). Application of the theory of planned behaviour to two dietary behaviours: Roles of perceived control and self‐efficacy. British Journal of Health Psychology, 5(2), 121-139.
[17]
Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L., & Biddle, S. J. (2002). A meta-analytic review of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior in physical activity: Predictive validity and the contribution of additional variables. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24(1).
[18]
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
[19]
Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations.
[20]
Bagozzi, R. P., Lee, K., & Van Loo, M. F. (2001). Decisions to donate bone marrow: The role of attitudes and subjective norms across cultures. Psychology and Health, 16(1), 29-56.
[21]
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293-334.
[22]
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305.
[23]
Asare, M. (2015). Using the theory of planned behavior to determine the condom use behavior among college students. American Journal of Health Studies, 30(1), 43-50.
[24]
DiClemente et al. (2004). Efficacy of an HIV prevention intervention for African American adolescent girls: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 292(2), 171-179.
[25]
DiIorio, C., Van Marter, D. F., & Dudley, W. N. (2002). An assessment of the HIV/AIDS knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of adolescents living in a large metropolitan area. Ethnicity and Disease, 12(2), 178-185.
[26]
Jemmott, J. B., III, Jemmott, L. S., & Fong, G. T. (1998). Abstinence and safer sex HIV risk-reduction interventions for African American adolescents: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(19), 1529-36.
[27]
Jemmott, J. B., III, Jemmott, L. S., & Fong, G. T. (1992). Reductions in HIV risk-associated sexual behaviors among black male adolescents: Effects of an AIDS prevention intervention. American Journal of Public Health, 82(3), 372-377.
[28]
Hatcher, L. (1994). Developing measurement models with confirmatory factor analysis. A step-by-step approach to using the SAS® System for factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling (ed.), 249-342.
[29]
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. Springer Science & Business Media.
[30]
Epstein, S. D. (1984) Quantifier-pro and the LF representation of \rmPRO_\rmarb. Linguistic Inquiry, 15(3), 499-505.
[31]
DiStefano, C., Zhu, M., and Mindrila, D. (2009). Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14(20), accessed 14 Feb 2014.
[32]
Cattell, R. B. (1965). Factor analysis: An introduction to essentials I. the purpose and underlying models. Biometrics, 21(1), 190-215.
[33]
Bandura A. (1977). Social learning theory. Oxford England: Prentice-Hall.
[34]
Fishbein M. & Yzer, M. C. (2003). Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Communication Theory, 13(2), 164–183.
[35]
Breckler, S. J. & Wiggins, E. C. (1992). On defining attitude and attitude theory: Once more with feeling. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J., Breckler, & A. C. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude Structure and Function. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 407–427.
[36]
Cochran, J. K. & Beeghley, L. (1991). The influence of religion on attitudes toward non-marital sexuality: A preliminary assessment of reference group theory. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30(1), 45-62.
[37]
Kashima, Y., Gallois, C., & McCamish, M. (1993). The theory of reasoned action and cooperative behaviour: It takes two to use a condom. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(3), 227-239.
Open Science Scholarly Journals
Open Science is a peer-reviewed platform, the journals of which cover a wide range of academic disciplines and serve the world's research and scholarly communities. Upon acceptance, Open Science Journals will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download.
CONTACT US
Office Address:
228 Park Ave., S#45956, New York, NY 10003
Phone: +(001)(347)535 0661
E-mail:
LET'S GET IN TOUCH
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message
SEND MASSAGE
Copyright © 2013-, Open Science Publishers - All Rights Reserved