Los incentivos económicos desde la perspectiva psicosocial

Consideration of the pilot data and input from the working party resulted in several changes to the behavior section of the survey after the pilot research. Despite the reliability coefficients for the sleep subscale being acceptable (range of 0.715 - 0.839) the mean changes were not significant over time (0.286). The four item subscale (quality of sleep, waking refreshed, energy and concentration levels) was viewed as normative, not a support priority, and removed from the survey. Reliability coefficients for the four item risk taking subscale

105

(unprotected sex, driven under influence of alcohol and drugs as well as other risky behaviours) increased slightly to 0.772 over time but mean changes were non-significant at p = 0.204. An additional complication arose during an ethics renewal application. Despite participants being a low risk group for all four behaviours and previous ethics approval, one of the two ethics committees, after the submission of a progress report, required drug use and associated risky behaviour items be removed from analysis and reporting.

The six item substance use subscale, used in the pilot phase, was also amended to address low reliability coefficients (0.516) regarding recreational drug use and sexual risk-taking behaviours. The final subscale, of eight items, retained a focus on alcohol and tobacco consumption, frequency and use, compared to the same time in the previous year. The pilot scale for mood (nine items), reported an adequate reliability coefficient (0.775) over time, but mean changes were found to be non-significant (0.06). In contrast, the well-being scale had an acceptable reliability coefficient (0.756) over time and mean changes, were significant at 0.021. Given the similar nature of the two subscales and the mixed findings, it was recommended by the GHP advisor that mood and EWB scales with higher internal consistency be utilised in the new survey distribution.

The new mood and feelings subscale, adapted from the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (Angold et al., 1995) was suggested for its high internal reliability (α = 0.850), suitability for use with adolescents/adults and brevity. This 12 item subscale required participants to report about their mood and feelings over the past two week period to improve participant recall. The new subscale utilised a three category response system of: Not at all (N = 3), Sometimes (S = 2) and Often (O = 1). All items in this subscale were negatively phrased; less than optimal mood and feelings are reflected in a lower score while a higher score is representative of enhanced mood and feelings. The emotional well-being (EWB) scale adapted from (Veit & Ware, 1993) included 13 positively stated items and participants were required to state their outlook over the past month, since arriving at university. The new subscale was accepted for its higher internal consistency of (0.92), compared to the EWB scale used (0.79) in the pilot. The scale utilised a six category response system of: All (A = 6), Most (M = 5), Good Bit (G = 4), Some (S = 3), Little (L = 2) and None (N = 1). A high score was taken as being representative of heightened EWB and a lower score indicating low/poor EWB.

106

The final subscale in section B measured a range of academic behaviours, in and outside the classroom; some of which include help-seeking behaviours, attendance, preparation, and understanding of content, academic ability and the use of e-resources. While the pilot data reported significant changes in academic behaviours over time (p = 0.03) the reliability coefficients were in the poor-to-low range (0.570 and 0.669). As a result, changes to the subscale were undertaken; one of the reasons being that the working party realised that all initial academic behaviours were negatively stated and lacked any reference to the use of technology and out-of-class interactions. Only four of the initial questions were retained (3, 8, 11 and 13) with slight rephrasing and 16 additional questions were included, increasing the subscale to 20 items to enable better alignment with existing national first year and engagement data collections. Responses in this section were reduced from four to three categories to keep reporting similar across the behaviour subscales and included the following choices: Frequently (F = 3), Sometimes (S = 2), Never (N = 1). Items 7-16 were negatively phrased and, later, reverse-coded to ensure that a higher score represented positive academic behaviours and a low score indicated reduced academic behaviours.

Section C, the final section of the survey, contains demographic and personal questions. Although this section was lengthy (39 items), the answers are easy to recall at the end of the survey. The availability of data regarding age, school completion dates and first in family, was deemed as essential to determine if certain variables are associated with connectedness levels and behaviour patterns for different student groups.

Minor changes to this section involved two deletions (#13 scholarship support and #22 daily distance travelled) and the repositioning of two questions (#4 when you finished secondary school and #34 help seeking behaviour). An additional 11 questions, as shown in Table 6.8, were included in the next version of the survey (Appendix C). The content was informed from a literature update and requests from members of the working party to assist them in their university roles.

Initially, these modifications were perceived as problematic but they represent reasonable adjustments to help build capacity across university sectors. While the number of subscales was reduced from six to three, the process of item inclusion revealed what universities were willing to collect. Following these amendments, the final survey remained unchanged over the next 12 month period. These changes are noted in the intervention survey (Appendix C).

107 Table 6.8

Additional Survey Questions Post Pilot (sourced from working party and literature review)

Item Question

#5 What is your marital status? #10 Are you the FIF to university?

#11 Did you attend the pre-semester Tertiary Preparation Program? (Working party) #19 Did you pass first assignment this semester?

#21 Number of failed units since starting your program? #22 What is your GPA?

#33 Do you like being a university student?

#35 What are the three biggest support since starting university (working party) #36 What are the three biggest hurdles since starting university (working party) #37 Does at least one staff member knows your name?

#38 How many staff know your name?

6.5. Chapter Summary

Table 6.9, which provides a comparison of reliability coefficients, means, standard deviations and significance of change for the large and paired samples over time, enables the reader to follow the decision-making process as aligned to the purposes of the pilot chapter.

The connectedness reliability coefficients (alphas), for subscales and overall scale, increased over time; they were in the high to excellent range of 0.898 - 0.916. As such, all items could be retained for future collections, with the latter part of first semester being a better data collection point. Over time, the overall connectedness scale means and subscale means decreased and deviations increased; the exception being family with a non-significant mean increase and an increased standard deviation, for the 45 pairs at Time 2. Of the five connectedness subscale means, personal and other student decreases were significant for both populations over time; in addition, significant decreases in lecturer connectedness were also revealed in the 45 pairs at Time 2. A uniform decrease in connectedness means indicate decreases occur over time and increases in standard deviations in overtime indicate diversity

108

of responses continue to occur during first semester. The exception being the family with an increased mean and standard deviation indicate family connectedness is high and stable overtime while responses are grouped slightly closer.

Given that one purpose of the pilot chapter was to measure the internal consistency of the survey, all connectedness items were found to consistently measured the construct. As such, all connectedness items can be retained for future collections. The availability of baseline data also offers evidence that significant mean decreases in perceived personal, other student and lecturers connectedness provide a focus to develop and evaluate a support initiative to enhance these areas.

The behaviour reliability coefficients (alphas), as shown in Table 6.9, fluctuated over time. The overall scale decreased for the independent sample, and increased for the 45 student pairs, and both remained in the low range of 0.649 and 0.669 at Time 2. Over time the subscale alphas for the positive health behaviours of mood, sleep and well-being were found to be acceptable as they were in in the range of 0.756 – 0.839. This finding indicates these subscales adequately measure the constructs and can be retained in future collections. In contrast, the alphas for the substance use and risk taking scales decreased over time for the independent sample but increased for the 45 student-pairs. Despite this inconsistency, the alphas for both subscales remained below the acceptable level of 0.070 over time and did not measure the said constructs. With regard to the internal consistency of the behaviour scale, further development or item deletion from the risk and substance use subscales is warranted, to ensure the items achieve acceptable alphas for both subscales, before the next collection. The final subscale alpha measuring academic behaviours uniformly decreased over time for both populations. However, this low and declining alpha was interpreted differently than the adverse health behaviour subscales; there was concern that some of the items were not yet experienced by the majority of the students and therefore, the scale was retained.

109

Table 6.9

Comparison of Reliability Coefficients (Chronbach’s alpha), Means, Standard Deviations and Significance of Change for the Large and Paired Samples over Time Connectedness Subscales (items) Time 1 n =94 Time 2 n =66 p sig .at .05 Time 1 n = 45 pairs Time 2 n = 45pairs p sig .at 0.05 α x̅ s α x̅ s α x̅ s α x̅ s Personal (10) 0.805 42.49 3.92 0.840 40.02 4.51 0.000* 0.723 43.18 3.34 0.780 40.29 3.83 0.000 ** Family (10) 0.878 44.10 4.87 0.919 43.55 5.34 0.898 0.851 43.81 4.82 0.891 43.87 4.66 0.929 Students (10) 0.913 39.98 5.81 0.933 37.47 6.14 0.000* 0.894 41.31 4.62 0.933 38.51 5.31 0.000 ** Lecturers (10 0.871 41.63 4.74 0.905 39.27 5.58 0.002* 0.878 42.32 4.88 0.922 39.76 5.41 0.002 ** Community (10) 0.908 41.96 4.97 0.955 40.73 6.32 0.131 0.880 42.46 4.96 0.958 40.87 5.86 0.137 Overall Connectedness 0.875 42.03 4.86 0.916 40.21 5.58 0.845 42.61 4.52 0.896 40.66 5.01 Behaviour Subscales (items) Mood (9) 0.775 29.40 3.99 0.816 27.98 4.44 0.676 0.743 30.09 3.66 0.775 28.92 3.67 0.060 Sleep (4) 0.742 10.89 2.29 0.840 10.21 2.62 0.286 0.715. 11.00 2.17 0.839 10.64 2.47 0.286 Well-being (7) 0.685 21.21 3.23 0.719 20.35 3.31 0.028 0.792 21.91 3.76 0.756 20.93 3.51 0.021 Substance Use (6) 0.642 21.74 2.28 0.526 22.26 1.69 0.868 0.437 22.12 1.63 0.581 22.16 1.76 0.894 Risk Taking (6) 0.674 15.62 1.13 0.510 15.70 0.803 0.204 0.091 15.78 0.517 0.516 15.64 0.772 0.204 Academic (14) 0.677 47.92 3.80 0.486 47.03 2.96 0.578 0.647 48.61 3.63 0.548 47.00 3.07 0.003 Overall Behaviour 0.699 24.46 2.78 0.649 24.07 2.61 0.570 24.91 2.56 0.669 24.21 2.54 Note. ** p<0.001

110

Unlike the connectedness means, the overall behaviour scale means decreased over time, as did the subscale means for mood, sleep and well-being. Mean decreases indicate reduced mood and sleep while increased standard deviations are occurring during the first semester at university; this to be expected when settling into an unfamiliar setting and routines are harder for some students. However a significant mean decrease in well-being for all groups, over time offers evidence of need and signals an opportunity to enhance well-being during first semester. Increased means for the less desirable behaviours of substance use and risk taking, for the independent sample, although small, represent reduced participation in substance while increased standard deviations represent diversity of responses over time. Increased means for the 45 pairs and a slight decrease in substance use represents more risk taking; neither is significant and both subscales show slight increased standard deviations. Academic means dropped over time as did standard deviations for both samples, indicating reduced engagement with academic behaviours which appears to be normative but only significantly (0.003) for the student pairs at Time 2. This behaviour subscale warrants further investigation as to what distinguishes the two populations and whether or not intervention can reveal different outcomes for varying populations.

Overall, the availability of pilot data, which did not involve an intervention, helped to advance cross-campus understanding of connectedness sources, behaviours and changes involving students in their commencing semester at university. This was essential to address the second research question: How does the availability of connectedness and behaviour data

inform a cross-campus initiative designed to assist with student support improvements, including the type, timing and evaluation of interventions, and influence how campus personnel work to support student success?

The activities detailed in this chapter represent Phase 2 of the research process, as shown in Table 4.21. In addition, they represent significant steps forward for the working party; the sharing of expertise and data created capacity to support more students and have underpinned the rationale for the support intervention as detailed in Chapter 7. Guided by the pilot findings and activities, the working party focused on the design of the intervention as detailed in the next chapter.

111