Skip Navigation


Health Education Research Advance Access originally published online on August 2, 2006
Health Education Research 2007 22(2):272-284; doi:10.1093/her/cyl076
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/2/272    most recent
cyl076v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McClenahan, C.
Right arrow Articles by O'Neill, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McClenahan, C.
Right arrow Articles by O'Neill, B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Testicular self-examination: a test of the health belief model and the theory of planned behaviour

Carol McClenahan, Mark Shevlin, Gary Adamson, Cara Bennett and Brenda O'Neill

University of Ulster, Magee Campus, Northland Road, Londonderry, Northern Ireland BT48 7JL, UK

Correspondence to: C. McClenahan. E-mail: ca.mcclenahan{at}ulster.ac.uk.

The aim of this study was to test the utility and efficiency of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and the health belief model (HBM) in predicting testicular self-examination (TSE) behaviour. A questionnaire was administered to an opportunistic sample of 195 undergraduates aged 18–39 years. Structural equation modelling indicated that, on the basis of all the fit indices, the TPB model was the better model, however, the quality of the models was very similar. The TPB explained 50% of the variance in intention and 22% in behaviour while the HBM (with self-efficacy) accounted for 56 and 21%, respectively. Self-efficacy was the most important predictor of TSE behavioural intention across both models. These findings contribute to the growing literature on the testing of multiple models in the health psychology domain.

Received on May 23, 2006; accepted on June 6, 2006


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.