This article reports on the development and evaluation of a mail survey measuring population attitudes toward substance use and potential receptivity of communities to different prevention efforts. The Community Readiness Survey was designed through a series of prevention practitioner and consultant meetings and focus groups. Psychometric evaluation revealed five distinct domains: perception of alcohol, tobacco, or other drug problem; support for prevention; permissive attitudes toward teen substance use; perception of adolescent access; and perception of community commitment. Evidence of construct validity was demonstrated by the small but significant relationships between selected scale scores and community readiness as evaluated by prevention planners.
References
1.
Carmines, E. G.
, and R. A. Zeller. 1979. Reliability and validity assessment. Sage University Paper Series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, no. 07-017. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2.
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
. 1993a. A discussion paper on preventing alcohol, tobacco, and other drug problems. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration.
3.
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
. 1993b. Prevention strategies based on individual risk factors for alcohol and other drug abuse. CSAP technical report no. 7. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
4.
Cronbach, L.1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika44:373-393.
5.
Dillman, D. A.1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley.
6.
Donnermeyer, J. F.
, B. A. Plested, R. W. Edwards, E. R. Oettting, and L. Littlethunder. 1997. Community readiness and prevention programs. Journal of the Community Development Society28:65-83.
7.
Fitzpatrick, J. L.
, and K. Gerard. 1993. Community attitudes toward drug use: The need to assess community norms. International Journal of Addictions28:947-957.
8.
Groves, R. M.1989. Survey errors and survey costs. New York: John Wiley.
9.
Kim, J.
, and C. Mueller. 1978. Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. Sage University Paper Series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, no. 07-014. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
10.
National Committee for Quality Assurance
. 1999. HEDIS—The health plan employer data and information set: Vol. 3. Protocol for administering the CAHPS 2.0H Survey. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance.
11.
Nunnally, J.
, and H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric theory. 3d ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
Oetting, E. R.
, J. F. Donnermeyer, B. A. Plested, R. W. Edwards, K. Kelly, and F. Beauvals. 1995. Assessing community readiness for prevention. International Journal of the Addictions30:659-683.
13.
Perry, C. L.
, C. L. Williams, K. A. Komro, S. Veblen-Mortenson, J. Forster, R. Bernstein-Lachter, L. K. Pratt, B. Dudovitz, K. A. Munson, K. Farbakhsh, J. Finnegan, and P. McGovern. 2000. Project Northland high school interventions: Community action to reduce adolescent alcohol use. Health Education & Behavior27:29-49.
14.
Perry, C. L.
, C. L. Williams, S. Veblen-Mortenson, T. Toomey, K. A. Komro, P. S. Anstine, P. G. McGovern, J. R. Finnegan, J. L. Forster, A. C. Wagenaar, and M. Wolfson. 1996. Project Northland: Outcomes of a community-wide alcohol use prevention program during early adolescence. American Journal of Public Health86:956-965.
15.
Stewart, A.
, R. Hays, and J. Ware. 1992. Methods of constructing health measures. In Measuring functioning, and well-being: The medical outcomes study approach, edited by A. Stewart and J. Ware, 67-85. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
16.
Streiner, R.
, and G. Norman. 1995. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. 2d ed.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
Tobler, N. S.1992. Drug prevention programs can work: Research findings. Journal of Addictive Diseases11:1-28.
18.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1996. Assessing state and community readiness for prevention (draft). National Center for the Advancement of Prevention technical report.
