No abstract

Parental toy selection and responses to toy play are important factors in children’s gender socialization. Reinforcing play with same-gender-typed toys guides children’s activities and limits their action repertoires in accordance with gender stereotypes. A survey of 324 Austrian parents of three- to six-year-old children was conducted to investigate parents’ judgments about the desirability of different types of toys for their children and how these judgements relate to parents’ gender-typing of toys, gender role attitudes, and demographics (age, education, gender). Results show that parents rated same-gender-typed and gender-neutral toys as more desirable for their children than cross-gender-typed toys. The traditionalism of parents’ gender role attitudes was not associated with their desirability judgments of same-gender-typed toys, but was negatively related to their desirability judgments of cross-gender-typed toys. This indicates that egalitarian parents permit a greater range of interests and behaviors in their children than traditional parents do. Younger parents, parents with lower educational levels, and fathers reported more traditional gender role attitudes than did older parents, parents with higher educational levels, and mothers. However, no differences based on age, educational level or gender were found in parents’ judgments of toy desirability. The present study demonstrates that parents’ judgments about the desirability of toys for their children do not accurately reflect their gender role attitudes. This finding highlights the importance of simultaneously investigating different aspects of parents’ gender-related attitudes in order to gain a better understanding of parental transmission of gender stereotypes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s11199-017-0882-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Education in implementation science, which involves the training of health professionals in how to implement evidence-based findings into health practice systematically, has become a highly relevant topic in health sciences education. The present study advances education in implementation science by compiling a competence profile for implementation practice and research and by exploring implementation experts’ sources of expertise. The competence profile is theoretically based on educational psychology, which implies the definition of improvable and teachable competences. In an online-survey, an international, multidisciplinary sample of 82 implementation experts named competences that they considered most helpful for conducting implementation practice and implementation research. For these competences, they also indicated whether they had acquired them in their professional education, additional training, or by self-study and on-the-job experience. Data were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach that combined qualitative content analyses with descriptive statistics. The participants deemed collaboration knowledge and skills most helpful for implementation practice. For implementation research, they named research methodology knowledge and skills as the most important ones. The participants had acquired most of the competences that they found helpful for implementation practice in self-study or by on-the-job experience. However, participants had learned most of their competences for implementation research in their professional education. The present results inform education and training activities in implementation science and serve as a starting point for a fluid set of interdisciplinary implementation science competences that will be updated continuously. Implications for curriculum development and the design of educational activities are discussed.

Despite formally equal educational opportunities for women and men, educational and occupational careers are still characterized by gender disparities rather than gender equality. Men are overrepresented in STEM fields and higher positions, while women are frequently working in low-status jobs in the health and social sector. These differences already emerge during school time, when girls report lower academic self-concepts in STEM subjects than boys even after achievement is controlled for while the same is true for boys' self-concepts in reading and languages. Gender stereotypes that are conveyed by socializing agents are assumed to play an important role in maintaining gender differences in education. Teachers are important starting points for promoting gender equality in education as their attitudes and instructional practices are known to influence students' motivation and performance substantially. To promote girls and boys equally in coeducational settings, teachers have to reflect on their own gender stereotypes. Moreover, they require knowledge about gender differences in education and about teaching methods to foster the motivation of all students regardless of their gender. However, gender stereotypes are rarely dealt with in general teacher education and training programs that build teachers' competences for reflective coeducation are sparse. Against this backdrop, we present the teacher training program REFLECT that was developed to foster secondary school teachers' competences for supporting students in developing their individual potentials without being restricted by gender stereotypes. REFLECT is theoretically based on the systemic actiotope model and aims to expand teachers' objective action repertoire (knowledge, teaching methods) as well as their subjective action space (self-efficacy beliefs, implicit theories). The results of a pilot study show the effectiveness of REFLECT. Teachers' objective action repertoire and subjective action space for promoting boys and girls equally increased, as did students' knowledge of gender differences and perception of diversity fairness in the classroom. Implementing the contents of REFLECT in general teacher education could contribute to sustainably achieving gender equality in education.

BackgroundOver the past years, implementation science has gained more and more importance in German-speaking countries. Reliable and valid questionnaires are needed for evaluating the implementation of evidence-based practices. On an international level, several initiatives focused on the identification of questionnaires used in English-speaking countries but limited their search processes to mental health and public health settings. Our aim was to identify questionnaires used in German-speaking countries measuring the implementation of interventions in public health and health care settings in general and to assess their psychometric properties.MethodsWe searched five different bibliographic databases (from 1985 to August 2017) and used several other search strategies (e.g., reference lists, forward citation) to obtain our data. We assessed the instruments, which were identified in an independent dual review process, using 12 psychometric rating criteria. Finally, we mapped the instruments’ scales and subscales in regard to the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Implementation Outcome Framework (IOF).ResultsWe identified 31 unique instruments available for the assessment of implementation science constructs. Hospitals and other health care settings were the ones most often investigated (23 instruments), while education and childcare settings, workplace settings, and community settings lacked published instruments. Internal consistency, face and content validity, usability, and structural validity were the aspects most often described. However, most studies did not report on test-retest reliability, known-groups validity, predictive criterion validity, or responsiveness. Overall, the majority of studies did not reveal high-quality instruments, especially regarding the psychometric criteria internal consistency, structural validity, and criterion validity. In addition, we seldom detected instruments operationalizing the CFIR domains intervention characteristics, outer setting, and process, and the IOF constructs adoption, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability.ConclusionsOverall, a sustained and continuous effort is needed to improve the reliability and validity of existing instruments to new ones. Instruments applicable to the assessment of implementation constructs in public health and community settings are urgently needed.Trial registrationThe systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO on October 19, 2017, under the following number: CRD42017075208.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0837-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Internationally comparable assessments of implementation outcomes are a prerequisite for the accurate and useful exchange of implementation science results. We translated the English versions of the acceptability of intervention measure (AIM), the intervention appropriateness measure (IAM), and the feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) into German following recent guidelines. We tested the structural validity, the internal consistency (Cronbach’s α), and the construct validity (known-groups validity) in a hypothetical situation study of secondary school teachers (n1 = 142) and the structural validity and the internal consistency in a pilot field study of primary school teachers participating in a school health promotion project (n2 = 61). The hypothesized three-factor solution (acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility) revealed the best model fit in the hypothetical situation study (CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.08). The second study tended to support these results (CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.05) only when the error terms of two items from different constructs were allowed to correlate with each other (“seems like a good match” [IAM] and “seems possible” [FIM]). Furthermore, the intercorrelations between the three factors were higher in the pilot field study than in the hypothetical vignette study (0.71–0.86 vs. 0.06–0.35). The instruments’ internal consistency proved to be high in both studies (Cronbach’s α: 0.91–0.97). We gathered positive evidence for the known-groups validity, as participants who received different stimuli before answering the instruments rated them statistically significantly different. Our study showed that the German versions of the instruments could successfully be applied in health promotion research. We suggest using the four items per instrument rather than an abbreviated version and discuss recommendations for the instruments’ application.

No abstract

In line with gender stereotypes, girls are expected to take on communal roles and boys to take on agentic roles. Based on gender intensification theory, the present cross-sectional study investigated girls' and boys' gender role identity and corresponding age differences across adolescence using the spontaneous self-description method. In total, 3423 adolescents aged between 11 and 15 years were asked to describe themselves with three attributes later coded in terms of agency and communion. ANOVA results showed expected but small gender differences in agency and communion, and no evidence for gender intensification. Moreover, significant gender differences were found in only 17% of the named attributes. The results thus indicate greater gender similarities than gender differences in adolescents' self-descriptions.