For pregnant teens in HS parenting programs, do attitudes, social norms, perceived control predict continuation in high school? P: Pregnant teens,15-17, currently attending a teen parent high school I: Attitudes, perceived control, social norms and intention O: Continuation in HS after birth of child

Theory of Planned Behavior Demographics TBP Constructs Intention predicts behavior Outcome AgeSN School successPCIntentionBehavior SES GPA Fx Hx Attitude

Theory: Developmental Decision- making Framework Cognitive & psychosocial development impact the decisions adolescents make Adolescents are making decisions during a time of physiologic and cognitive changes Environment influences the diversity of options she perceives

Literature review What is its purpose? What do we know? Where are the gaps? Developmental perspective Education for pregnant teens

Research Design Qualitative Questionnaire Development Prospective, Descriptive Correlational 7 sites (urban, rural, ethnic mix) Convenience sample: 65 pregnant teens Administered a written questionnaire between weeks Measured school attendance from 4-6 weeks postpartum

IV and DV Variables Independent variables: Demographics Attitude, social norms, perceived control, intention Dependent variable: Continuation in school: # of days from 4- 6 weeks

Participants: 65 Pregnant Adolescents in Teen Parent Programs Means: age: 16.12, GPA: 2.04, age/grade lag:.17, Grade: 10.8, FOB/MOB age difference: 3.17 year Percentage: AA (13%), Hispanic (42%), Caucasian (45%). Refusal rate: 2% Attrition: 6% (fetal demise, diagnosis of CA) 7 Sites: Relationship of demographics to school attendance: site, ethnicity, SES, age, grade, GPA P values: Was I happy?

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: In a teen parent HS program 1 st baby Aged Going to keep baby Speaks and reads English Won’t graduate in next 6 months

Psychometrics: Development of Questionnaire: Validity 48 adolescent mothers: 32 in school, 16 had dropped out Themes developed Feedback from participants on questions Face validity: “experts” Content validity: Used TPB constructs based on interviews written mothers

Questionnaire Reliability 72 items on questionnaire Likert scale: evenly spaced Response set bias: Some positive, some negative; Took minutes to complete Test-Retest: Okay 4 practice questions related to eating at McDonald’s Paper and pencil 6 questions on a page 5 th grade reading level

Questionnaire Reliability Stability: test-retest Homogeneity: Cronbach’s alpha: Perceived Control, Attitude, Social Norm, Intention subscales r = Interrater reliability: 2 data collectors No inconsistencies in data collection instruments

Internal Validity: Controlling It! History? Took place over 9 months Maturation? Selection? convenience sample. Refusal rate: 2%; demographics the same among sites. Mortality: 6% attrition for unforeseen reasons

External Validity: Who can I generalize to? Refusal rates? 2% Interactive effect of setting & IV? Interaction of history & IV? Hawthorne effect? I can generalize to…? Who were the participants?

Statistical tests: Were the right ones used? Demographics: 7 groups: ANOVA used.. not 42 T-Tests Linear Regression: Not single order correlations DV: school attendance: interval data: 1-21 days. Variables entered into the computer in a step-wise manner based on the TPB: 1 st : Demographics then TPB concepts

DV: C = School attendance: IV: A= Attitude: r = AC + ABC R2= AC beta = AC IV: B= Social Norm r = BC+ABC beta= BC

Single order correlations can be deceiving! IVsbetaFp Attitude Perceived Control Social Norm Intention Full Model APCSNI School (DV).06 (.67).25 (.09).29 (.04).33 (.01) A.10 (.52).00 (.99).06 (.69) PC.28 (.05).38 (.00) SN.22 (.10)

Did the theory (model) work? How do you know? Why are the R2 and Adjusted R2 different (think sample size!) R2Adjusted R2FP (.05)

Does the TBP help us understand school attendance? IVs: Demographics: Did not predict school attendance: P = IVs: Attitude + Social Norm + Perceived Control + Intention Predicted DV: School Attendance Why is this a helpful thing to know?