ERIC EJ833235: The Impact of Middle School Principals on Adoption of Abstinence-Only-until-Marriage Programs in Their School's Curriculum

2008·0.17 MB·English

by  ERIC

Research Article
The Impact of Middle School Principals on Adoption
of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs
in their School’s Curriculum
Kelly Wilson, B.E. Pruitt, and P. Goodson
ABSTRACT
Background: Diffusion of Innovations theory has been used to predict rates of adoption for a variety of programs.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess indicators that influence adoption of abstinence-only-until-marriage
education as an innovation by middle school principals in Texas (N=433) as well as their likelihood of adopting such
programs. Methods: This study utilized a paper survey that was mailed to principals. Results: Findings regarding
characteristics of abstinence-only-until-marriage education: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trial-
ability, and observability are analyzed and discussed. In addition, a series of multiple regression models to predict
the likelihood of adoption are presented. Discussion: Findings indicated that middle school principals most willing
to adopt abstinence-only-until-marriage education programs strongly believed that abstinence education provided
important advantages, and perceived abstinence-only-until-marriage education to be consistent with his or her beliefs
and values. Controlling for demographics, religious preferences and behavior, and the perceptions of the attributes
of abstinence-only-until-marriage education, the principals’ religious beliefs/practices, complexity and trialability
remained significantly associated with the likelihood to adopt. Translation to Health Education Practice: Rates of
adoption by school administrators should be considered when implementing a new health curriculum or health-related
educational program, especially when it is a sensitive subject such as sexuality.
BACKGROUND jority of public secondary schools, which is However, due to the lack of carefully de-
The most recent controversy surround- also reflected in curricula and teaching strat- signed evaluation studies, the impact of
ing sexuality education is not concerned egies.3, 6 Thirty-four percent of the principals sexuality education programs,12 and more
with whether to teach sexuality education, surveyed by the Kaiser Foundation indicated
but what kind of sexuality education to support for abstinence-only education and
teach.1-2 Abstinence-only-until-marriage, 58% indicated that their sexuality education Kelly Wilson is an assistant professor in the
abstinence-based education, comprehensive programs were comprehensive.6 Department of Health, Physical Education and
sexuality education, and youth development Teachers provide students with a broad Recreation, Texas State University, A174 Jowers
programs offer a variety of educational ap- range of content crucial to their personal Center, San Marcos, TX 78666; E-mail: kw25@
proaches.3-4 Controversy is compounded development and sexual health.7-8 Curri- txstate.edu. B. E. Pruitt is a professor in the De-
by school administrators refraining from cula also may cover contraceptive methods, partment of Health and Kinesiology, Texas A&M
expressing their opinions related to beliefs adolescent pregnancy, HIV infection, and University, MS 4243, College Station, TX 77843.
and practices about sexuality education.5 other STIs.9-10 Educators may focus on effec- P. Goodson is a professor in the Department of
Principals have identified that some form tive communication, coping and decision- Health and Kinesiology, Texas A&M University,
of sexuality education is taught in a vast ma- making skills to prevent risky behaviors.8, 11 MS 4243, College Station, TX 77843.
258 American Journal of Health Education — September/October 2008, Volume 39, No. 5
Kelly Wilson, B.E. Pruitt, and P. Goodson
specifically abstinence education programs, school-aged youth.15, 18 tion as an innovation by a sample of middle
is unclear.13 One of the factors that influence the school principals in the state of Texas. This
Abstinence-only-until-marriage educa- adoption of abstinence education programs study also assessed school principals’ likeli-
tion became popular with Social Services by local schools is support of school admin- hood of adopting such programs.
Block Grant, Title V monies from the Wel- istrators. Little is known about principals’ Theoretical Framework
fare Reform Act of 1996.2, 14 The provisions influence and support for abstinence-only- The Diffusion of Innovations theory,20
also required states to spend funds on ser- until-marriage programs; therefore, research along with a review of the literature, helped
vices for children or families whose income is needed to help educators understand the to guide this study. This theory proposes that
was at or below 200 percent of the federal influence of administrators’ adoption of diffusion occurs within a social system and
poverty level.15 Additionally, services are abstinence education. However, principal that several factors influence the process.
expected to adhere to the (a)-(h) definition support can greatly influence the decision Diffusion is a process in which an innovation
of abstinence education (Table 1).16 Spe- to adopt and implement a curriculum. (new idea, practice or object) is imparted
cifically, in Texas, Title V monies have been Principal support is an important first step through specific channels over time. For
distributed through the Texas Department in establishing priorities and commitment Rogers, there are four main elements in the
of State Health Services. to program implementation.10, 19 Further, diffusion of innovations: the innovation, the
Health educators tend not to support principals are adopting and implementing communications channels, time and a social
exclusive abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula or programs that take a first step in system. In this study authors looked at how
education programs, without providing establishing practices to enhance protective the following characteristics of abstinence
appropriate prevention information and factors for youth and to reduce their risk for education influence its rate of adoption:
skills, and identify a variety of reasons for unwanted outcomes.19 relative advantage, compatibility with per-
non-support, including few rigorous evalu- sonal and professional beliefs, complexity,
ations of abstinence education programs.17 PURPOSE trialability, and observability.20
Some professionals also discredit abstinence The primary purpose of this study was to According to Rogers20, there are five per-
education because they feel it withholds ap- assess indicators that influence the adoption ceived attributes of an innovation important
propriate and life-saving information from of abstinence-only-until-marriage educa- in adoption rate. These are perceptions of
Table 1. Title V Definition of “Abstinence Education”
“Abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program which—
(A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from
sexual activity;
(B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;
(C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted
diseases, and other associated health problems;
(D) teaches that mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human
sexual activity;
(E) teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
(F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents,
and society;
(G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual
advances; and
(H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.
Source: Welfare Reform Law, 1996.
American Journal of Health Education — September/October 2008, Volume 39, No. 5 259
Kelly Wilson, B.E. Pruitt, and P. Goodson
the degree to which an innovation is: better principals from the 20 Education Service cilitators for abstinence-only-until-marriage
than the idea it supersedes (relative advan- Center Regions (geographical subsections program implementation. This led to the
tage), consistent with existing values and of the state of Texas) was randomly selected. interviews of supportive and non-supportive
past experiences, needs of potential adopters In Texas, a middle school’s target popula- school administrators. The purpose of the
(compatibility), difficult to understand and tion is typically 6th through 8th grade. The interview was to learn about the administra-
use (complexity), able to be experimented sample received a pre-notice letter notifying tor’s beliefs regarding abstinence-only-until-
with on a limited basis (trialability), and participants of their selection for the study; marriage education and its role in the public
visible to others (observability).20 first round of survey distribution; a thank school.24 Drafts of the survey instrument for
Diffusion of Innovations is a general you/reminder postcard; and a second wave this study were reviewed for content valid-
model that has been applied to school pro- of survey distribution that was only sent to ity by an expert panel consisting of health
grams concerning public health, technology non-respondents. educators, principals and professionals in
and education. Research has been conducted Any questionnaires that were 50% abstinence education. Based on the content
in school management concerning the value incomplete were deleted from the study. review and pilot-test of the instrument, mi-
of the innovation, the cost of adoption, Because the missing data were few (less than nor changes were made to the final version
and the influence of accountability and 5%) and seemed not to be a problem, the of the instrument.
standardized testing.21 Given the complex items with missing data were left as “missing” For the scaled variables, a scale with
nature of school-based programs, as well as because they would affect the final sample Cronbach alpha above 0.70 was considered
the complexity involved in their adoption, size substantially. good reliability. The scaled variables rela-
understanding the diffusion characteristics Instrument tive advantage (α=0.87), personal compat-
of abstinence education within a middle The instrument used in this study was ibility (α=0.92), professional compatibility
school environment will help address the constructed to measure the characteristics (α=0.94), complexity (α=0.86), trialability
potential needs of sexuality education, of abstinence-only-until-marriage educa- (α=0.81), and observability (α=0.82). The
health education or youth development, as tion as an innovation. Questions were scaled likelihood of adoption scale had an alpha
abstinence education is integrated into U.S. together for the following variables: relative level of 0.82. Additionally, a factor analysis
school’s curricula. advantage (14 questions); compatibility was conducted for the final study to deter-
(32 questions); complexity (10 questions); mine if the perceived attribute items were
METHODS
trialability (4 questions); and observability measuring the items as expected.
Sampling and Procedure (8 questions). The survey also assessed the The factor analysis for relative advantage
Texas has a large population of middle likelihood of adoption of these programs revealed two factors within the attribute. The
schools, as well as large dollar amounts for (7 questions). Fifteen additional questions items developed to measure relative advan-
funding abstinence-only-until-marriage were asked related to demographics and tage were based on goals and objectives for
education efforts. In 2005, Texas received the abstinence education funding. abstinence-only-until-marriage programs
highest funding amount for any state receiv- The adopters’ “perceptions” of an inno- reported by abstinence education program
ing total federal funds for abstinence-only- vation were operationalized and measured directors in the state of Texas. Factor one
until-marriage education.22 Middle school in this study as “attitudes.” An individual’s items assessed relative advantage from a
principals in Texas were the sample selection attitude consisted of two dimensions: his/her population-based standpoint (i.e., advan-
based on the purpose of the study. beliefs, or outcome expectations, and his/her tages related to effects at a population level
The survey instrument was pre-tested values, or outcome expectancies, regarding such as reduction rates for unwanted preg-
in a pilot study. The sample consisted of a the characteristics of the innovation of ab- nancies or STI/STDs). Factor two assessed
random sample of public junior high school stinence education.23 The attitudes regard- relative advantage from an individual-level
principals (typically serving 7th through 9th ing each of the five characteristics, relative perspective (i.e., advantages related to ef-
grade) in Texas schools. Two-hundred names advantage, compatibility, complexity, trial- fects on individual youth, such as increasing
were randomly selected from junior high ability and observability, were assessed by decision-making skills).
school principals. measuring respondents’ expectations and Compatibility was proposed as a latent
In August 2003, a confidential survey was expectancies regarding that characteristic. variable, measured by asking the respond
mailed to a random sample of middle school Items for the survey instrument were about personal and professional beliefs.
principals (N=904), following approval from generated using findings from a qualitative The compatibility questions utilized a
the Institutional Review Board for the Pro- study, a review of the literature, and the Dif- five-point Likert scales. A higher score
tection of Human Subjects. There were 1,105 fusion of Innovations theory. The qualitative on these scale items indicated a stronger
middle school principals in Texas, and a ran- study included interviews with program di- perception of the compatibility of abstinence-
dom proportional sample of public school rectors that revealed several barriers and fa- only-until-marriage education with profes-
260 American Journal of Health Education — September/October 2008, Volume 39, No. 5
Kelly Wilson, B.E. Pruitt, and P. Goodson
sional and personal beliefs of the middle
school principals. Table 2. Frequency Distribution of Selected Demographic
Responses to survey questions consisted Characteristics of Final Study Participants
of a 5-point Likert scale. Agreement on
Variable N %
belief questions ranged from “strongly
agree” to “strongly disagree” for four of the Gender
attributes (complexity ranged from “very Male 245 57.4%
easy” to “very difficult”). Outcome expec- Female 182 42.6%
tancy (likelihood of adoption) responses
ranged from “extremely important” to “not
Current Age
important at all.” The dependent variable, 29 years and under 4 1.0%
likelihood of adopting abstinence-only- 30 years – 39 years 75 17.8%
until-marriage education, was operation- 40 years – 54 years 273 64.8%
alized with seven questions and included 55 years and over 69 16.4%
an ‘I already do’ response option. The Mean Age 46.54 (Standard Deviation=8.18)
questions asked about how the likely was
the respondent to apply for grant funding, Ethnicity
purchase curricula, hire staff, and allow an White 312 73.1%
outside-of-school program to be presented African American/Black 40 9.4%
in the school to support abstinence-only- Hispanic 65 15.2%
until-marriage education. Asian, Oriental, or Pacific Islander 4 0.9%
American Indian 5 1.2%
RESULTS
Sample Characteristics Years of Principalship at any School
7 years or less 265 63.7%
Principals from the 20 Texas Education
8 or more years 151 36.3%
Service Center Regions responded to the

questionnaires mailed out (N=903). The
response rate from within each Educa- Year Current Principalship Started
tion Service Center Region ranged from 1973-1989 16 4.0%
36%-70%. The state (total responses) 1990-1999 147 36.5%
yielded a response rate of 48% (N=433). 2000-2003 239 59.5%
One-hundred-five (20.8%) respondents
were from rural counties and 398 (79.1%)
were from urban counties. There was a
almost 12% of the sample. The Prevalence of Abstinence
significant difference between responders
Sixty-three percent reported having been Education Programs
and non-responders from rural or urban
principals for seven years or less. Some start- Participants were asked about the preva-
areas [F=9.156, p=.003]. Principals in urban
ed their current principalship as recently as lence of abstinence-only-until-marriage
counties were more likely to respond than
principals in rural counties. 2003, while one respondent started in 1958. education programs in their school’s geo-
The age range for respondents was 25 Eighty-five percent identified themselves graphic area (Table 3). Thirty-one (7%)
to 68 years (Mean Age= 46.54, SD=8.18). as middle school principals and 4% were principals reported receiving Title V funds
Almost 65% of the principals were between assistant principals. Some surveys were for abstinence education. Forty-eight percent
the ages of 40-54. There were 245 (57.4%) distributed to other professionals (once the (n=205) of respondents were not receiving
males and 182 (42.6%) females who re- survey was received by a principal), and they funds and forty-four (n=187) did not know
turned completed surveys (Table 2). included school counselors (n=4), principals if their school received funding. Monies
Table 2 also shows the respondents’ iden- of another grade/school level (n=17) and other than Title V funds were reported in
tified ethnicity. The majority (73%, n=312) one assistant superintendent (n=1). For 60 (14%) schools, and 145 (34%) principals
of the respondents were “white.” Hispanics the participants who did not identify them- did not know if they had access to other
(15.2%, n=65) comprised the next highest selves as middle school principals, their data funds for abstinence education. Thirty-three
ethnic group. African Americans, Asian and were aggregated with the middle school principals (7.8%) indicated they had a Title
American Indians, combined, represented principal respondents. V or Texas Department of State Health Ser-
American Journal of Health Education — September/October 2008, Volume 39, No. 5 261
Kelly Wilson, B.E. Pruitt, and P. Goodson
sonal beliefs expectation items. Ninety-two
Table 3. Distribution of Responses Indicating the Existence percent of the respondents felt the personal
of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs in the Participants belief expectancy items were “extremely
School or Local Area important” or “important.” Almost half of
the respondents “strongly agreed” to items
Question n %
that were compatible with their professional
Does your school receive Title V beliefs and values and felt they were “very
abstinence-only-until-marriage education important” (Table 4).
funding from the Texas Department of Health? The items respondents found least impor-
Yes 31 7.3 tant in terms of being compatible with per-
No 205 48.5 sonal beliefs were “sexual activity outside the
I don’t know 187 44.2
context of marriage is likely to have harmful

psychological and physical effects” (6%)
Does your school receive any other
and “bearing children out-of-wedlock is
abstinence-only-until-marriage education funding?
likely to have harmful consequences for the
Yes 60 14.2
child, the child’s parents, and society” (4%).
No 218 51.4
Five percent of principals “disagreed” that
I don’t know 145 34.2
the statements “sexual activity outside the
Do you know if there is a Title V or Texas Department context of marriage is likely to have harm-
of Health funded abstinence-only-until-marriage ful psychological and physical effects” and
education program close to you? “attaining self-sufficiency before engaging
Yes, utilize services 33 7.8 in sexual activity is important” (4%) were
Yes, don’t utilize services 10 2.4 compatible with their professional beliefs/
No 23 5.5 values. The expectancy items “sexual activ-
I don’t know 355 84.3
ity outside the context of marriage is likely
to have harmful psychological and physical
effects” and “attaining self-sufficiency before
vices sponsored program they considered agreed self-efficacy, communication skills, engaging in sexual activity is important”
geographically close to them and they used and leadership skills were advantages of had similar responses (5%, 4% respectively)
their services. Ten principals (2.4%) indi- abstinence-only-until-marriage education (Table 4).
cated they had such a program “close” to (Table 4). Perceptions of Abstinence Education as a
them, but they did not utilize their services. Identified relative advantages of absti- Complex Innovation
Many participants (n=205, 48.5%) denoted nence-only-until-marriage education were Complexity was measured to find out
not having a Title V or Texas Department of “extremely important” or “important” for 98% how abstinence-only-until-marriage educa-
Health sponsored program “close” to them, of respondents. For one potential outcome of tion is seen as difficult to understand and to
and 355 (84%) did not know if there was a abstinence-only-until-marriage education, use. Over 90% of principals felt that it was
program in the area (Table 3). reducing pregnancy, all (100%) respondents important to locate a variety of sources to
Perceived Relative Advantage of Absti- agreed that it was an “extremely important” implement abstinence-only-until-marriage
nence Education or “important” advantage (Table 4). education and 80% found it easy to under-
A majority of middle school principals Perceived Compatibility with Personal stand policies regarding abstinence-only-
agreed that abstinence-only-until-marriage and Professional Beliefs until-marriage education. However, 15% of
education provided a relative advantage The degree to which abstinence-only- respondents felt it was “somewhat difficult”
reflective of the items provided on the until-marriage education is consistent with or “very difficult” for them to find resources,
and about 20% felt it was “somewhat dif-
survey. Over 98% of respondents agreed current values, experiences, and beliefs
ficult” or “very difficult” to find funding or
that reducing the number of unwanted of adopters measured compatibility. The
acquire curricula to promote the abstinence
pregnancies and sexually transmitted infec- majority (over 90% for each component)
message. (Table 4).
tions among youth were relative advantages. of the middle school principals agreed that
At least 90% of the principals also agreed the (a)-(h) definition was consistent with Perceptions of Abstinence Education’s
that other advantages included increasing their professional and personal beliefs. Most Trialability
youth self-esteem and decision-making respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” Eighty percent (80%) of the principals
skills. Approximately 80% of the principals with the standards identified by the per- agreed that abstinence-only-until-marriage
262 American Journal of Health Education — September/October 2008, Volume 39, No. 5
Kelly Wilson, B.E. Pruitt, and P. Goodson
education could easily be incorporated into Prediction of Likelihood of Middle In Model 4, relative advantage, from the
their school’s curriculum (Table 4), while School Principals Adopting Abstinence population perspective, was associated with
90% believed “easily” incorporating absti- Education the likelihood to adopt abstinence education
nence education was “extremely important” Multiple regression analysis was per- (β=.200), p=.000). Relative advantage, from
or “important.” formed to analyze the data and search for the individual level, was a predictor in Model
predictive associations. The likelihood of 5 (β=.262, p=.000) and maintained its pre-
Perceptions of Abstinence Education’s
adoption of abstinence-only-until-marriage diction through Model 8 (β=.121, p=.042).
Observability
education by middle school principals Complexity maintained its prediction in
Respondent’s perceptions of the observ-
was the dependent variable. Demographic Model 7 (β=.407, p=.000) through Model 9
ability of abstinence-only-until-marriage
variables, the interaction of rural/urban (β=.178, p=.004). In Models 8 and 9, trial-
education programs are presented. Over
counties, age, and religion, as well as the ability was a predictor ([β=.395, p=.000];
two-thirds of the respondents observed their
perceived relative advantage, compatibility, [β=.376, p=.000], respectively) of the likeli-
colleagues at the state level were adopting
complexity, trialability and observability hood to adopt abstinence education.
abstinence-only-until-marriage education
were independent variables. In the final model, Model 9, religion
into their school’s curriculum. However,
A series of multiple regression models is (β=.152, p=.002), complexity (β=.178,
approximately 25% of principals disagreed
presented. The models estimated the effects p=.004), and trialability (β=.376, p=.000)
that other principals were incorporating
of the perceived characteristics of abstinence were shown as predictors for principals’
abstinence education at the district, region,
education on the likelihood of adoption. likelihood of adopting abstinence education.
state and national levels. With over 60% of
Model 1 showed the likelihood of adop- Therefore, when controlling for demograph-
principals observing the abstinence-only-
tion as a function of demographic factors, ics, religious preferences and behavior, and
until marriage education being adopted,
exclusively. In Model 2, the interaction of the perceptions of the attributes of abstinence
many (80%) felt it was “important” to ob-
rural/urban counties and age was added as a as an innovation, only the respondents’
serve what other colleagues were accepting
predictor. Religion was added as a predictor religious beliefs/practices, complexity and
and adopting into their school’s curricula
in Model 3. Models 4 and 5 contained rela- trialability remained significantly associated
(Table 4).
tive advantage as predictor variables, from with the dependent variable, likelihood to
Likelihood of Adopting Abstinence the population and individual perspective. adopt abstinence education.
Education Model 6 included compatibility, and Model
Table 4 shows the likelihood of principals 7 added complexity as a predictors. Trial- DISCUSSION
adopting abstinence-only-until-marriage ability and observability were included as The typical participant in this study was a
education into their school’s curriculum predictors in Models 8 and 9, respectively Texas public middle school principal whose
and elements of abstinence education that (Table 5). school was located in an urban county.
principals already incorporated into their Two of the demographic variables, age The “average” respondent was not pres-
school. This table indicates 3% of principals and rural/urban counties, were significant ently receiving, or did not know if his school
applied for a grant, purchased abstinence predictors of the likelihood to adopt absti- was receiving, Title V funds to promote
curricula (without additional funding), nence education in Model 1. People between abstinence-only-until-marriage education.
and hired staff capable of promoting the ages of 30 and 39 years and 55 years or Additionally, the typical respondent did
abstinence message. Most respondents older (β=-.124, p=.022), and living in rural not know if there was a Texas Department
were not likely to do these things. For those areas (β=-.162, p=.005) were most likely to of State Health Services or federally funded
who have not already received grant sup- adopt. When variables entered Model 2, age abstinence-only-until-marriage education
port for abstinence-only-until-marriage (β=-.074, p=.629) and rural/urban counties program close to his school.
education, respondents indicated that if (β=-.217, p=.198) they lost their statistical Findings from this study indicated that
they had funding (54%) they were more association with the dependent variable. In the middle school principal who was most
likely to purchase curricula than without Model 3, religion was added as a predictor willing to adopt abstinence-only-until-
grant funding (33%). For the likelihood of variable (β=.233, p=.000). Throughout the marriage education programs into his or her
adoption items, principals were most likely remaining five Models, religion maintained school’s curriculum strongly believed that
to allow state or federally funded programs its significant association with likelihood abstinence education provided important
to be offered and presented in their schools to adopt abstinence education. However, advantages (at the population-level and
(72.3%, n=301). On the other hand, almost as each perceived characteristic was added individual-level) for youth, and strongly
70% were not likely to hire staff without to the regression, religion’s significance was perceived abstinence-only-until-marriage
additional funding or allow a faith-based slightly affected by other variables (Model 9 education to be consistent with his or her
program to present in their school. [β=.152, p=.002]). professional and personal beliefs and val-
American Journal of Health Education — September/October 2008, Volume 39, No. 5 263
Kelly Wilson, B.E. Pruitt, and P. Goodson
Table 4. Percent Distribution of Middle School Principal’s Responses
to Perceptions of the Characteristic of Abstinence Education
I believe one of the advantages of
abstinence-only-until-marriage educa- How important is it for you to be able to…
tion is to…
Relative Advantage
Not
Strongly Strongly Extremely Impor- Not Very
Agree Disagree Important
Agree Disagree Important tant Important
At All
Reduce the number of unwant-
61.6 37.0 1.4 0.0 77.5 22.5 0.0 0.0
ed pregnancies among youth.
Reduce the number of sexually
transmitted infections/diseases 66.0 32.6 0.7 0.0 82.6 16.7 0.5 0.0
among youth.
Increase youth’s self esteem. 39.3 52.5 7.5 0.0 71.8 28.0 0.2 0.0
Increase youth’s self-efficacy. 31.8 57.4 10.3 0.0 63.6 34.5 1.7 0.0
Increase youth’s communica-
19.0 63.9 15.0 0.0 60.2 38.4 0.7 0.0
tion skills.
Increase youth’s decision- mak-
45.9 46.6 6.1 0.0 79.8 20.0 0.0 0.0
ing skills.
Increase youth’s leadership
27.4 56.9 13.6 0.0 65.7 32.9 0.9 0.0
skills.
How compatible is the following statement How important is it for the following statement to
Compatibility
with your personal standards? be consistent with your personal standards?
Not
Strongly Strongly Extremely Impor- Not Very
Personal Agree Disagree Important
Agree Disagree Important tant Important
At All
Social, psychological, and
health gains are realized when
53.7 42.6 3.5 0.0 50.5 46.7 2.1 0.0
youth abstain from sexual
activity.
Abstinence from sexual activity
outside marriage should be
63.3 35.0 0.9 0.0 60.0 38.1 0.9 0.0
the expected standard for all
school age children.
Abstinence from sexual activ-
ity is the only certain way to
avoid out-of-wedlock preg-
65.9 30.9 1.6 0.0 61.3 35.1 2.6 0.0
nancy, sexually transmitted
diseases, and other associated
health problems.
A mutually faithful monoga-
mous relationship in the
context of marriage is the 60.9 36.3 1.6 0.0 57.2 39.1 2.6 0.0
expected standard of human
sexual activity.
264 American Journal of Health Education — September/October 2008, Volume 39, No. 5
Kelly Wilson, B.E. Pruitt, and P. Goodson
Table 4. Percent Distribution of Middle School Principal’s Responses Table 4. Percent Distribution of Middle School Principal’s Responses
to Perceptions of the Characteristic of Abstinence Education to Perceptions of the Characteristic of Abstinence Education (con’t)
Sexual activity outside the
I believe one of the advantages of
context of marriage is likely to
abstinence-only-until-marriage educa- How important is it for you to be able to… 43.5 46.7 7.7 0.0 49.4 43.0 5.9 0.0
have harmful psychological
tion is to…
Relative Advantage and physical effects.
Not
Strongly Strongly Extremely Impor- Not Very
Agree Disagree Important
Agree Disagree Important tant Important Bearing children out-of-wed-
At All
lock is likely to have harmful
53.2 42.1 4.4 0.0 58.3 37.0 3.8 0.0
Reduce the number of unwant- consequences for the child,
61.6 37.0 1.4 0.0 77.5 22.5 0.0 0.0
ed pregnancies among youth. the child’s parents, and society.
Reduce the number of sexually Young people should reject
transmitted infections/diseases 66.0 32.6 0.7 0.0 82.6 16.7 0.5 0.0 sexual advances and know
among youth. how alcohol and drug use in- 67.5 32.3 0.2 0.0 64.5 34.6 0.7 0.0
creases vulnerability to sexual
Increase youth’s self esteem. 39.3 52.5 7.5 0.0 71.8 28.0 0.2 0.0
advances.
Increase youth’s self-efficacy. 31.8 57.4 10.3 0.0 63.6 34.5 1.7 0.0
Attaining self-sufficiency before
Increase youth’s communica-
19.0 63.9 15.0 0.0 60.2 38.4 0.7 0.0 engaging in sexual activity is 54.2 41.2 4.4 0.0 53.4 41.4 4.7 0.0
tion skills.
important.
Increase youth’s decision- mak-
45.9 46.6 6.1 0.0 79.8 20.0 0.0 0.0 How consistent is the following statement How important is it for the following statement to
ing skills. Professional
with your professional standards? be consistent with your professional standards?
Increase youth’s leadership
27.4 56.9 13.6 0.0 65.7 32.9 0.9 0.0
skills. Social, psychological, and
health gains are realized when
How compatible is the following statement How important is it for the following statement to 59.5 38.2 2.1 0.0 55.4 41.5 2.1 0.0
Compatibility youth abstain from sexual
with your personal standards? be consistent with your personal standards?
activity.
Not
Strongly Strongly Extremely Impor- Not Very
Personal Agree Disagree Important Abstinence from sexual activity
Agree Disagree Important tant Important
At All outside marriage should be
65.9 31.1 2.3 0.0 60.6 36.1 2.4 0.0
Social, psychological, and the expected standard for all
health gains are realized when school age children.
53.7 42.6 3.5 0.0 50.5 46.7 2.1 0.0
youth abstain from sexual
Abstinence from sexual activ-
activity.
ity is the only certain way to
Abstinence from sexual activity avoid out-of-wedlock preg-
66.8 30.2 1.9 0.0 61.5 34.3 3.3 0.0
outside marriage should be nancy, sexually transmitted
63.3 35.0 0.9 0.0 60.0 38.1 0.9 0.0
the expected standard for all diseases, and other associated
school age children. health problems.
A mutually faithful monoga-
Abstinence from sexual activ-
mous relationship in the
ity is the only certain way to
context of marriage is the 57.4 39.1 2.6 0.0 55.9 40.4 2.6 0.0
avoid out-of-wedlock preg-
65.9 30.9 1.6 0.0 61.3 35.1 2.6 0.0 expected standard of human
nancy, sexually transmitted
sexual activity.
diseases, and other associated
health problems. Sexual activity outside the
context of marriage is likely to
A mutually faithful monoga- 49.0 44.5 4.9 0.0 48.9 44.4 5.2 0.0
have harmful psychological
mous relationship in the
and physical effects.
context of marriage is the 60.9 36.3 1.6 0.0 57.2 39.1 2.6 0.0
expected standard of human
Bearing children out-of-wed-
sexual activity.
lock is likely to have harmful
60.2 36.8 2.8 0.0 57.1 38.2 4.0 0.0
consequences for the child,
the child’s parents, and society.
American Journal of Health Education — September/October 2008, Volume 39, No. 5 265
Kelly Wilson, B.E. Pruitt, and P. Goodson
Table 4. Percent Distribution of Middle School Principals’ Responses
to Perceptions of the Characteristic of Abstinence Education (con’t)
Young people should reject
sexual advances and know how
71.5 27.6 0.9 0.0 65.6 32.7 1.2 0.0
alcohol and drug use increases
vulnerability to sexual advances.
Attaining self-sufficiency before
engaging in sexual activity is 58.0 37.6 4.2 0.0 54.8 39.8 4.5 0.0
important.
How easy or difficult is it for you to… How important is it for you to be able to…
Some- Some- Not
Complexity Very Very Dif- Extremely Impor- Not Very
what what Important
Easy ficult Important tant Important
Easy Difficult At All
Find resources to deliver the
abstinence-only-until-marriage 17.7 58.3 14.6 0.0 38.4 53.6 4.5 0.0
education message?
Find funding to support the
abstinence-only-until-marriage 7.3 54.8 20.1 0.0 39.2 50.8 6.4 0.0
message?
Acquire curriculum to teach
abstinence-only-until-marriage 13.9 58.5 18.2 0.0 36.9 53.7 5.7 0.0
education?
Find people skilled and
capable of promoting the
15.6 56.7 13.5 0.0 44.5 47.2 4.7 0.0
abstinence-only-until-marriage
message?
Understand policies regarding
abstinence-only-until-marriage 22.6 57.5 14.5 0.0 45.5 46.7 4.5 0.0
education?
How easy or difficult is it for you to… How important is it for you to be able to…
Not
Trialability Strongly Strongly Extremely Impor- Not Very
Agree Disagree Important
Agree Disagree Important tant Important
At All
Abstinence-only-until-marriage
education can easily be incorpo- 21.3 58.6 14.0 0.0 34.7 56.1 7.3 0.0
rated into your school’s curriculum.
Your school’s curriculum
cannot easily incorporate ele-
7.3 20.9 14.4 36.2) 17.5 32.8 17.3 21.0
ments of abstinence-only-until-
marriage education.
How much do you agree with the following… How important is it that….
Not
Observability Strongly Strongly Extremely Impor- Not Very
Agree Disagree Important
Agree Disagree Important tant Important
At All
I have seen or heard of other
principals in my district adopt-
ing abstinence-only-until- 13.4 51.6 23.3 0.0 19.8 64.5 6.8 0.0
marriage education into their
school’s curriculum.
266 American Journal of Health Education — September/October 2008, Volume 39, No. 5
Kelly Wilson, B.E. Pruitt, and P. Goodson
Table 4. Percent Distribution of Middle School Principals’ Responses
to Perceptions of the Characteristic of Abstinence Education (con’t)
I have seen or heard of other
principals in my region adopt-
ing abstinence-only-until- 10.5 53.2 26.5 0.0 13.3 68.4 8.0 0.0
marriage education into their
school’s curriculum.
I have seen or heard of other
principals across Texas adopt-
ing abstinence-only-until- 8.6 57.8 26.1 0.0 11.9 68.5 8.5 0.0
marriage education into their
school’s curriculum.
I have seen or heard of other
principals across the nation
adopting abstinence-only- 8.9 56.5 27.2 0.0 11.4 67.6 8.3 0.0
until-marriage education into
their school’s curriculum.
How likely are you to…
Ex- Some- Not
Likelihood of Adoption Not I Already
tremely what Likely At
Likely Do
Likely Likely All
Apply for a grant to fund ab-
stinence-only-until-marriage 8.1 37.7 36.5 14.8 2.9
education in your school.
Purchase curricula to teach
abstinence-only-until-mar-
16.6 38.0 28.5 13.8 3.1
riage education with grant
funding.
Purchase curricula to teach
abstinence-only-until-mar-
5.2 27.3 43.2 19.5 4.8
riage education without
grant funding.
Hire staff/teachers skilled and
capable of promoting the
abstinence-only-until-mar- 16.2 30.4 31.8 19.0 2.6
riage message with grant
funding.
Hire staff/teachers skilled
and capable of promoting
the abstinence-only-until- 6.9 19.1 39.9 27.9 6.2
marriage message without
grant funding.
Allow a state or federally
funded abstinence-only-until-
29.8 42.5 12.5 8.4 6.7
marriage education program
be presented in your school.
Allow a faith based absti-
nence-only-until-marriage
9.0 22.5 39.0 28.1 1.5
education program be pre-
sented in your school.
American Journal of Health Education — September/October 2008, Volume 39, No. 5 267