The Household Risk Perception instrument and the Self‐Efficacy in Environmental Risk Reduction instrument: psychometric testing using principal component analysis

Abstract

Aim This paper is a report of psychometric testing of the Household Risk Perception and Self-Efficacy in Environmental Risk Reduction Instruments using principle components analysis. Background There are limited instruments available to test household risk perception and self-efficacy related to environmental health behaviors. The Household Risk Perception Instrument was developed to measure personal perceptions of household environmental health risks. The Self-Efficacy in Environmental Risk Reduction Instrument was designed to measure caregivers’ confidence in taking steps to reduce household risks. Method Baseline data from 235 caregivers enrolled in a randomized clinical trial testing a healthy housing intervention were collected between 2006 and 2009. Principal components analysis was used to determine principal components from measured responses to each instrument. Results Components were explored and compared to constructs used to design the original instruments. A five component structure showed the simplest solution and explained 65% of variance in the Household Risk Perception analysis. Cronbach’s alpha values indicated satisfactory internal consistency for four of five identified components. Risk perception varied according to available sensory input of the specific risk. A four component structure explained 64% of the variance in the Self-Efficacy in Environmental Risk Reduction analysis. Cronbach’s alpha values were satisfactory. Items mapped to steps in an action-oriented process versus agent-specific actions. Results from both analyses suggest that Environmental Tobacco Smoke is perceived differently than other household risks. Conclusion Previously, both instruments relied on item reliability and content validity testing. This study provides a basis for further instrument revision and theoretical testing.

Retest of a Principal Components Analysis of Two Household Environmental Risk Instruments

“…A four‐component solution was chosen that explained 70% of the variance, had the fewest cross‐loadings, and contained all items (Table ). This structure aligned theoretically with our previous work on risk perception and was closest to the component structure from the ERRNIE sample (Oneal et al, ). Fair to good internal consistency of each component was shown by Cronbach alpha.…”

“…Structures using three, five, and six components had multiple cross loadings in every component. The four‐component structure was the cleanest structure, paralleled the structure from the ERRNIE study, and made the most sense for the self‐efficacy theory used to develop this instrument (Oneal et al, ). Cronbach alpha showed fair to good internal consistency.…”

“…While these findings are positive, the research team noted that participants found the instruments burdensome. Using data from the ERRNIE sample, psychometric testing using principal component analysis (PCA), was completed for both instruments to explore ways to address the instrument burden (Oneal, Odom‐Maryon, Postma, Hill, & Butterfield, ). Findings provided direction for restructuring and reduction of instrument items.…”

An Investigation on Cynicism and Environmental Self-Efficacy as Predictors of Pro-Environmental Behavior

“…In addition, they found that environmental self-efficacy beliefs related to environmental concerns. Oneal et al (2012) found that no measurement research related to environmental self-efficacy, and therefore the results of their psychometric research to be important in the field of environmental psychology. This present study utilized environmental self-efficacy as a predictor variable of pro-environmental behavior, and confirmed the robustness of self-efficacy in a specific field as a classic predictor of behavior in that field.…”

How does living with a disability affect resident worry about environmental contamination? A study of a long-term pervasive hazard

“…Low self-efficacy is associated with low adaptive capacity and greater fatalistic perceptions (Butterfield et al, 2011), while high self-efficacy is associated with greater perceived ability to undertake positive behaviour change to respond to the source of worry (Butterfield et al, 2011). Therefore, while high levels of worry may positively influence the desire to undertake health protective behaviour, low self-efficacy may have a negative effect on whether an individual can make behavioural changes in order to respond to threats (Butterfield et al, 2011;Oneal, Odom-Maryon, Postma, Hill, & Butterfield, 2013). The combination of heightened recognition of exposure and perceived inability to act may also lead to perceptions of loss of control, increased pessimism, or unhelpful defence mechanisms such as denial (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).…”