Baseline data on coordinated school health programs in the state of Ohio

American Journal of Health Studies, Wntr, 2001 by Jann Greenberg, Randall Cottrell, Amy L. Bernard

Questions on the initial instrument were developed from the results of a Delphi study completed in Ohio (Cottrell et al., 1995). The Delphi study asked 30 experts in coordinated school health education from the state of Ohio to identify "key indicators" of a coordinated school health education program. After three rounds of review, the items above the mean in importance were appropriately worded and included on the initial instrument. The use of Ohio's coordinated school health experts to establish content for the instrument was important in establishing validity of the instrument.

To further establish content validity, ninety-six questions on the initial instrument were cross-referenced to at least one other instrument previously developed to measure coordinated school health efforts. These instruments included the Texas Instrument, Idaho State

Comprehensive School Health Programs Assessment, School Health Policies and Programs Study, Maryland's Public School Health Education Specialist Study, and the Ohio Department of Health/Ohio Department of Education Survey (Survey of Attitudes, 1991; Girvin, J., personal communication, January 12, 1995; Journal of School Health, October, 1995; Mansky, 1991; Cottrell, R.R., personal communication, January, 1999). The remaining 13 questions were selected solely on the results of the Delphi study.

To further establish content validity, the initial instrument was then submitted to a panel of experts including two representatives from the Ohio Department of Health, two faculty members from the Health Promotion and Education Program at the University of Cincinnati, and one public school health education teacher. The panel was asked to modify existing questions, suggest additional questions, and eliminate unnecessary questions. Input from the panel was incorporated into the instrument.

A test/retest procedure was used with four Ohio public school districts to establish reliability of the instrument. School districts for the test/retest were randomly selected from the same sampling frame from which participants for the final survey were selected. None of the pilot districts were included in the final sample. After the initial test was administered, a second test was administered to the same district two weeks later. A correlation coefficient was run comparing the total score on both sets of tests. Three of the four randomly selected districts returned both sets of surveys. The correlation coefficient for the test/retest was .9685. This high degree of correlation indicated that the instrument was stable and reliable.

SAMPLE

The target audience for this project were the superintendents or their designees in the 612 public school districts in the state of Ohio. Two hundred and twenty-five surveys were mailed to randomly selected Ohio public school districts. This number represented 37% of the total number of districts in the state at the time of the survey.

Of the 225 surveys mailed out, 116 surveys were returned. The 116 surveys returned represented a 52% response rate or 20% of the total number of districts in the state. The districts were asked to provide information regarding the size of their district, their per pupil expenditure, and whether they would describe their district as rural, urban, or suburban. They were also asked to identify who in the district completed the survey.