Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A survey instrument to isolate effectiveness of a novel risk communication intervention

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Risk communications can be used to inform, persuade and facilitate public support for hazard risk mitigation and preparedness. Some common risk communications practices, such as the use of fear-based appeals, may inadvertently trigger maladaptive behavior. A brochure, film or advertisement may be just one part of a larger campaign to promote hazard readiness, and these items can and should be tested separately for efficacy and effectiveness prior to broad deployment. The purpose of this article is to show the development of a survey instrument, the 25-item earthquake-resistant construction knowledge and opinions (EKO) scale. This scale was created to test a non-emergency communications intervention designed to encourage earthquake-resistant school construction. It was utilized in a randomized controlled trial measuring change in outcomes after viewing a 20-minute film (trial results are reported elsewhere). The intervention film featured community members in Nepal who had worked toward making their school buildings earthquake safe. Study participants were 761 adult community members at schools with buildings in need of seismic work. Factor analysis yielded four questionnaire subscales labeled knowledge, feasibility, would-help-school and would-recommend-to-others, accounting for 55.7 % of the variance. Internal consistency was acceptable, with Cronbach’s α of 0.78–0.93 for all but the knowledge factor (α = 0.48). The EKO scale may be adapted to measure risk communications in other settings. Research on further development and application of the EKO scale and other similar questionnaires may facilitate the evaluation of risk communication interventions and help improve understanding of factors that contribute to intervention effectiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aday LA, Cornelius LJ (2011) Designing and conducting health surveys: a comprehensive guide. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amatya G, Ghimari S, Khadka P, Pradhan P, Shrestha B (2004) School effectiveness: headteachers’ leadership. Formative Research Project, CERID. Retrieved from www.cerid.org

  • Bamberger M (2006) Conducting quality impact evaluations under budget, time and data constraints. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, DC

  • Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall Inc, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Behling O, Law KS (2000) Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions, vol 133. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Bland JM, Altman DG (1997) Statistics notes: cronbach’s alpha. Br Med J 314:572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley DT, McFarland M, Clarke M (2014) The effectiveness of disaster risk communication: a systematic review of intervention studies. PLoS Curr 6:17–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Brager G, Specht H, Torczyner JL (eds) (1987) Community organizing. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brislin RW, Lonner WJ, Thorndike RM (1973) Cross-cultural research methods. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Corby NH, Enguídanos SM, Kay LS (1996) Development and use of role model stories in a community level HIV risk reduction intervention. Public Health Rep 111:54–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis RF (2012) Scale development: theory and applications, vol 26. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Duflo E, Glennerster R, Kremer M (2007) Using randomization in development economics research: a toolkit. Handb Dev Econ 4:3895–3962

    Google Scholar 

  • Flay BR (1986) Efficacy and effectiveness trials (and other phases of research) in the development of health promotion programs. Prev Med 15(5):451–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE (2008) How to design and evaluate research in education, vol 7. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller SD, Ware JE, Gandek B, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Apolone G, Kaasa S, Leplege A, Sanson-Fisher RW, Sullivan M, Wood-Dauphinee S (1998) Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: results from the IQOLA project. J Clin Epidemiol 51(11):933–944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohrt BA, Jordans MJ, Tol WA, Luitel NP, Maharjan SM, Upadhaya N (2011) Validation of cross-cultural child mental health and psychosocial research instruments: adapting the depression self-rating scale and child PTSD symptom scale in Nepal. BMC Psychiatry 11(1):127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middlestadt SE, Bhattacharyya K, Rosenbaum J, Fishbein M, Shepherd M (1996) The use of theory based semistructured elicitation questionnaires: formative research for CDC’s prevention marketing initiative. Public Health Rep 111(1):18–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulilis JP, Duval TS, Lippa R (1990) The effects of a large destructive local earthquake on earthquake preparedness as assessed by the earthquake preparedness scale. Nat Hazards 3:357–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paton D, Smith L, Johnston D (2005) When good intentions turn bad: promoting natural hazard preparedness. Aust J Emerg Manag 20(1):25–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Paton D, Burgelt P, Prior T (2008) Living with bushfire risk: social and environmental influences on preparedness. Aust J Emerg Manag 23(3):41–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (2010) Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell LA, Goltz JD, Bourque LB (1995) Preparedness and hazard mitigation actions before and after two earthquakes. Environ Behav 27(6):744–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanquini AM (2014) The earthquake-resistant-construction knowledge and opinions (EKO) questionnaire. Available at http://purl.stanford.edu/ry685fs3812

  • Spittal MJ, Walkey FH, McClure J, Siegert RJ, Ballantyne KE (2006) The earthquake readiness scale: the development of a valid and reliable unifactorial measure. Nat Hazards 39(1):15–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2010) Natural hazards, unnatural disasters: the economics of effective prevention. The World Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2013) Retrieved from www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology

  • Willis GB (2004) Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood MM, Mileti DS, Kano M, Kelley MM, Regan R, Bourque LB (2012) Communicating actionable risk for terrorism and other hazards. Risk Anal 32(4):601–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by a Geological Society of America Student Research Grant, $2125 (2013); a grant from the United Parcel Service Endowment at Stanford, $48,173, (2013); and by two McGee Research Grants, $4000 (2013) and $2000 (2014). The funding agencies played no role in this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stanford University, Stanford, USA

    Anne M. Sanquini & Sundar M. Thapaliya

  2. GeoHazards International, Menlo Park, USA

    Anne M. Sanquini

  3. California State University, Fullerton, USA

    Michele M. Wood

Authors
  1. Anne M. Sanquini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sundar M. Thapaliya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michele M. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne M. Sanquini.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Institutional review

The protocol for this research, “Accelerating Natural Hazard Mitigation,” Protocol ID 28476, IRB Number 349 (Panel: 2), received approval from the Stanford University Institutional Review Board on August 12, 2013; the Stanford IRB approved a modification for the same protocol on October 28, 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary materials.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 4454 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (PDF 2102 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sanquini, A.M., Thapaliya, S.M. & Wood, M.M. A survey instrument to isolate effectiveness of a novel risk communication intervention. Nat Hazards 82, 59–72 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2179-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2179-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation