Trends in higher education professionals’ use and perceptions of structured professional judgment instruments for threat assessment purposes
Snyder, Katherine
This item is only available for download by members of the University of Illinois community. Students, faculty, and staff at the U of I may log in with your NetID and password to view the item. If you are trying to access an Illinois-restricted dissertation or thesis, you can request a copy through your library's Inter-Library Loan office or purchase a copy directly from ProQuest.
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2142/122121
Description
Title
Trends in higher education professionals’ use and perceptions of structured professional judgment instruments for threat assessment purposes
Author(s)
Snyder, Katherine
Issue Date
2023-11-26
Director of Research (if dissertation) or Advisor (if thesis)
Ward Hood, Denice
Doctoral Committee Chair(s)
Ward Hood, Denice
Committee Member(s)
Cromley, Jennifer
Huang, Wenhao David
Delaney, Jennifer
Department of Study
Educ Policy, Orgzn & Leadrshp
Discipline
Educ Policy, Orgzn & Leadrshp
Degree Granting Institution
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Degree Name
Ph.D.
Degree Level
Dissertation
Keyword(s)
threat assessment
structured professional judgment instrument
behavioral intervention
higher education
threat assessment team
Abstract
Research indicates that most institutions of higher education in the United States have a threat assessment team (Randazzo & Cameron, 2012). The development and validation of threat assessment instruments has had a profound impact on the field of threat assessment, but despite widespread implementation of threat assessment in higher education, the use of such tools in higher education settings has remained under-researched (Pedersen et al., 2010, p. 74).
Using Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Theory (2003) and Davis’ (1989) Technology Acceptance Model as frameworks, this cross-sectional survey research had five main aims, to: (a) provide current rates of use of structured professional judgment (SPJ) instruments by higher education threat assessment professionals, (b) identify the most commonly use SPJ instruments in this setting, (c) explore the relationship between institutional characteristics and the use of an instrument, (d) assess higher education professionals’ perceptions of the instruments’ usefulness and ease of use and compare between instruments, and (e) use Davis’ Technology Acceptance model to investigate the relationship between perceived usefulness and ease of use and frequency of use.
The final sample included 244 respondents who were members of threat assessment teams in higher education. Data analysis included descriptives, frequencies, Cramér’s V correlations, the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA of Ranks, and Ordinary Least Squares Regression using ranked variables. There were no statistically significant relationships between institutional characteristics and use of an instrument, or between instruments on perceived usefulness. There was a statistically significant difference between two instruments on perceived ease of use and a statistically significant relationship between perceived usefulness and frequency of use. This research has implications for tool developers, and trainers, higher education team members who use SPJ instruments, higher education decision makers with the power and resources to decide on an instrument, and policy and practice.
Use this login method if you
don't
have an
@illinois.edu
email address.
(Oops, I do have one)
IDEALS migrated to a new platform on June 23, 2022. If you created
your account prior to this date, you will have to reset your password
using the forgot-password link below.
