Modeling the Mental Health Practice Change Preferences of Educators: A Discrete-Choice Conjoint Experiment

Abstract

Schools are sometimes slow to adopt evidence-based strategies for improving the mental health outcomes of students. This study used a discrete-choice conjoint experiment to model factors influencing the decision of educators to adopt strategies for improving children’s mental health outcomes. A sample of 1,010 educators made choices between hypothetical mental health practice change strategies composed by systematically varying the four levels of 16 practice change attributes. Latent class analysis yielded two segments with different practice change preferences. Both segments preferred small-group workshops, conducted by engaging experts, teaching skills applicable to all students. Participants expressed little interest in Internet options. The support of colleagues, administrators, and unions exerted a strong influence on the practice change choices of both segments. The Change Ready segment, 77.1 % of the sample, was more intent on adopting new strategies to improve the mental health of students. They preferred that schools, rather than the provincial ministry of education, make practice change decisions, coaching was provided to all participants, and participants received post-training follow-up sessions. The Demand Sensitive segment (22.9 %) was less intent on practice change. They preferred that individual teachers make practice change decisions, recommended discretionary coaching, and chose no post-training follow-up support. This study emphasizes the complex social, organizational, and policy context within which educators make practice change decisions. Efforts to disseminate strategies to improve the mental health outcomes of students need to be informed by the preferences of segments of educators who are sensitive to different dimensions of the practice change process. In the absence of a broad consensus of educators, administrators, and unions, potentially successful practice changes are unlikely to be adopted.

Discrete Choice Modeling in Education: An Innovative Method to Assess Teaching Practices

“…It seems that through this self-assessment procedure, the DCM method managed to avoid overrated responses and to overcome traditional limitations that self-report methods have. The findings of this study are in accordance with other studies (Aubusson et al, 2014;Cunningham et al, 2014), revealing the efficiency of DCM application in education. Yet, as these studies are the first steps of applying the DCM method in the educational context, further research is considered essential.…”

“…Although this study's sampling method was based on probability sampling and extended previous studies using DCM in education (Aubusson et al., ; Cunningham et al., ), it is not without limitations. First, this study was conducted in Greece, thus, the findings also require replication in different cultural settings as well.…”

“…The methodology and the advantages of using DCM over statistical methods of stated preference data have been thoroughly discussed in the literature (Hensher, Rose, & Greene, 2005;Louviere, Hensher, & Swait, 2000;Louviere & Islam, 2008;Train, 2003). To our knowledge, only a few recent studies in education have employed a similar methodology (Aubusson, Burke, Schuck, Kearney, & Frischknecht, 2014;Cunningham et al, 2014).…”

Methods to Improve the Selection and Tailoring of Implementation Strategies

“…While it is just beginning to be applied in implementation research, 8,46,69 conjoint analysis can enhance the rigor of implementation strategy selection and tailoring processes. The examples provided below demonstrate the utility of two types of conjoint analysis: menu-based choice 70 and discrete choice experiments.…”

“…It may be helpful if modifications to these elements are informed by clinicians' preferences. Cunningham and colleagues 69 used a discrete choice experiment to determine the relative influence of 16 different attributes of practice changes and implementation strategies on the preferences of 1,010 educators (see Figure 3 for a sample survey question). The attributes included contextual and social attributes (e.g., presenter's qualities, colleague support, compatibility with practice), content attributes (e.g., supporting evidence, focus on knowledge vs. skills, universal vs. targeted), and practice change process attributes (coaching to improve skills, workshop size, training time demands, internet options).…”