Korean J Women Health Nurs.  2021 Jun;27(2):153-165. 10.4069/kjwhn.2021.06.21.

Development and validation of women’s environmental health scales in Korea: severity, susceptibility, response efficacy, self-efficacy, benefit, barrier, personal health behavior, and community health behavior scales

• Kim HK
• Kim HK

• KMID: 2517572
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2021.06.21

Abstract

Purpose
This study aimed to develop the following scales on women’s environmental health and to examine their validity and reliability: severity, susceptibility, response efficacy, self-efficacy, benefit, barrier, personal health behavior, and community health behavior scales.
Methods
The item pool was generated based on related scales, a wide literature review, and in-depth interviews on women’s environmental health according to the revised Rogers’ protection motivation theory model. Content validity was verified by three nursing professionals. Exploratory factor analysis, convergent validity, and internal consistency reliability were examined.
Results
The scales included 10 items on severity, 11 on susceptibility, 10 on response efficacy, 14 on self-efficacy, 8 on benefits, 10 on barriers, 17 on personal health behavior, and 16 on community health behavior. Convergent validity with the environmental behavior scale for female adolescents was supported. The Cronbach’s α values for internal consistency were good for all scales: severity, .84; susceptibility, .92; response efficacy, .88; self-efficacy, .90; benefits, .91; barriers, .85; personal health behavior, .90; and community health behavior, .91.
Conclusion
The evaluation of the psychometric properties shows that these scales are valid and reliable measures of women’s environmental health awareness and behaviors. These scales may be helpful for assessing women’s environmental health behaviors, thereby contributing to efforts to promote environmental health.

Keyword

Environmental health; Health behavior; Psychometrics; Women’s health

Figure

• 

  Figure 1. Conceptual framework of environmental health awareness and behavior scales for women.

Reference

References

1. Gore AC, Chappell VA, Fenton SE, Flaws JA, Nadal A, Prins GS, et al. Executive Summary to EDC-2: The Endocrine Society's Second Scientific Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals. Endocr Rev. 2015; 36(6):593–602. https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2015-1093.

2. Vabre P, Gatimel N, Moreau J, Gayrard V, Picard-Hagen N, Parinaud J, et al. Environmental pollutants, a possible etiology for premature ovarian insufficiency: a narrative review of animal and human data. Environ Health. 2017; 16(1):37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-017-0242-4.

3. Grossman DS, Slusky DJ. The effect of an increase in lead in the water system on fertility and birth outcomes: the case of Flint, Michigan. Economics Faculty Working Papers Series, 20 [Internet]. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University;2017. [cited 2021 Jun 21]. Available from: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=econ_working-papers.

4. Hunt PA, Sathyanarayana S, Fowler PA, Trasande L. Female reproductive disorders, diseases, and costs of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016; 101(4):1562–1570. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2015-2873.

5. Liu R, Nelson DO, Hurley S, Hertz A, Reynolds P. Residential exposure to estrogen disrupting hazardous air pollutants and breast cancer risk: the California Teachers Study. Epidemiology. 2015; 26(3):365–373. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000277.

6. Park S, Chung C. Health behaviors related to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and the associated factors of adolescent Korean girls. Women Health. 2018; 58(8):915–929. https://doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2017.1363124.

7. Mackendric N. More work for mother: chemical body burdens as a maternal responsibility. Gender Soc. 2014; 28(5):705–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243214529842.

8. Kim H. Development and validation of the pro-environmental behaviour scale for women's health. J Adv Nurs. 2017; 73(5):1235–1244. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13233.

9. Kim HK. Development and assessment of an instrument measuring environmental health perception and behavior toward reproductive health of female adolescents. Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2020; 17(3):e12347. https://doi.org/10.1111/jjns.12347.

10. Kim MR, Kim HC. Analysis of adult behaviors to decrease exposure to endocrine disruptors in dietary life. J East Asian Soc Diet Life. 2011; 21(3):451–462.

11. Rogers RW. Cognitive and physiological processes in attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In : Cacioppo JT, editor. Social psychophysiology: a sourcebook. New York, NY: Guilford Press;1983. p. 153–176.

12. Salazar LF, Crosby RA, Noar SM, Schipani-McLaughlin AM, DiClemente RJ. Models based on perceived threat and fear appeals. In : DiClemente RJ, Salazar LF, Crosby RA, editors. Health behavior theory for public health: principles, foundations, and applications. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning;2019. p. 73–93.

13. Brooks SP, Bubela T. Application of protection motivation theory to clinical trial enrolment for pediatric chronic conditions. BMC Pediatr. 2020; 20(1):123. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-020-2014-5.

14. Mccullock SP, Perrault EK. Exploring the effects of source credibility and message framing on STI Screening intentions: an application of prospect and protection motivation theory. J Health Commun. 2020; 25(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2019.1692262.

15. DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications;2017. p. 39–203.

16. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007; 30(4):459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199.

17. Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. J Psychol. 1975; 91(1):93–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803.

18. MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, Hong S. Sample size in factor analysis. Psychol Methods. 1999; 4(1):84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84.

19. Pett MA, Lackey NR, Sullivan JJ. Making sense of factor analysis: the use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications;2003. p. 85–166.

20. Iacobucci D, Duhachek A. Advancing alpha: measuring reliability with confidence. J Consumer Psychol. 2003; 13(4):478–487. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_14.

21. Durrheim K, Tredoux C. Numbers, hypotheses & conclusions: a course in statistics for the social sciences. Cape Town: Juta and Company Ltd;2004. p. 181–200.

22. Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Case studies in environmental medicine taking an exposure history: taking and exposure history [Internet]. Atlanta: Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry;2015. [cited 2019 April 23]. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/exphistory/docs/exposure_history.pdf.

23. Giulivo M, Lopez de Alda M, Capri E, Barceló D. Human exposure to endocrine disrupting compounds: their role in reproductive systems, metabolic syndrome and breast cancer. A review. Environ Res. 2016; 151:251–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.07.011.

24. Vrijheid M. The exposome: a new paradigm to study the impact of environment on health. Thorax. 2014; 69(9):876–878. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-204949.

25. Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass;2008. p. 175–176.

26. Kim HK. Pro-environmental health behavior: a concept analysis. Korean J Adult Nurs. 2011; 23(6):527–542.