Despite this optimistic view, Harrison, Mullen and Green (1992) went further and tested the
HBM with adults using meta-analysis but with much stricter criteria for inclusion of studies
than Janz and Becker (1984). From 147 research studies, Harrison et al.excluded all but six-teen on various criteria, including lack of a behavioural dependent variable, not measuring
susceptibility, severity, benefits and costs in the same study, and lack of information about
scale reliability. Overall, small but significant effect sizes were found for all four dimensions
of the model but effect sizes varied greatly across the dimensions. In addition, they reported
that prospective studies had significantly smaller effect sizes than retrospective ones, thus
further weakening the case in favour of the HBM.
Despite this optimistic view, Harrison, Mullen and Green (1992) went further and tested the
HBM with adults using meta-analysis but with much stricter criteria for inclusion of studies
than Janz and Becker (1984). From 147 research studies, Harrison et al.excluded all but six-teen on various criteria, including lack of a behavioural dependent variable, not measuring
susceptibility, severity, benefits and costs in the same study, and lack of information about
scale reliability. Overall, small but significant effect sizes were found for all four dimensions
of the model but effect sizes varied greatly across the dimensions. In addition, they reported
that prospective studies had significantly smaller effect sizes than retrospective ones, thus
further weakening the case in favour of the HBM.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
