| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
Toward the assessment of psychological empowerment in health promotion: initial tests of validity and reliabilityMPH Epidemiologist Public Health Unit and Needs Assessment & Health Outcomes Unit Central Sydney Area Health Service L6 W Queen Mary Building, RPAH Grose Street Camperdown, NSW Australia
MPH Epidemiologist Public Health Unit and Needs Assessment & Health Outcomes Unit Central Sydney Area Health Service L6 W Queen Mary Building, RPAH Grose Street Camperdown, NSW Australia
Division of Epidemiology School of Public Health University of Minnesota 1300 South Second Street Suite 300 Minneapolis MN 55454-1015 USA Because of the importance of empowerment in health promotion, the measure ment of empowerment is a priority for health promotion research. The present study sought to develop a valid and reliable instrument to assess psychological empowerment and to resolve the theoretical question of whether psychological empowerment is a topic-specific or general construct. University of Minnesota employees (n = 160) completed two different versions of empowerment questionnaires. One of the questionnaires measured general empowerment; the other was specific to alcohol use prevention. Reasonable reliability was demonstrated in a previously developed general empowerment instrument (Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.84) and for an alcohol-specific instrument (Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.78). Construct validity for the alcohol- specific instrument was demonstrated by appropriate significant correlations between sub- scales and overall scores for both instruments. Predictive validity tests partially supported the concept that psychological empowerment is topic-specific, although further testing with a more representative population may be needed to resolve this question. The results suggest that the alcohol-specific psychological empowerment instrument could be used in the evaluation of community alcohol abuse prevention programmes.
The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, Vol. 116, No. 4,
211-218 (1996) |
|||