Community readiness as a multidimensional construct

Abstract

Both the organizational studies literature and the community psychology literature discuss the importance of readiness when implementing change. Although each area emphasizes different characteristics, several common themes are present within the literature. The current study integrates and applies organizational and community psychology literature in evaluating community readiness in the context of a school-community-university collaborative prevention model. Results demonstrate (a) that there is substantial agreement between members of community prevention teams on the level of readiness of a community; (b) that readiness is a cohesive, but multidimensional, construct related to hypothesized community and individual characteristics; and (c) that there is small to moderate agreement between members of prevention teams and their "agency directors." These results support the notion that clear "theories of change" need to be formulated before deciding how to assess community readiness, as assessments will vary due to several factors: the type of respondent, the level in which analyses are conducted, and the specific community domain (i.e., school, workplace collaboration, collaboration experience) investigated.

Community Readiness for Childhood Obesity Prevention

“…Community readiness is described as the characteristics of a community that influence its capacity for change (Chilenski, Greenberg, & Feinberg, 2007;Sliwa et al, 2011). In this study, the concept of readiness will be understood through the Community Readiness Model (CRM).…”

A Multidimensional model for child maltreatment prevention readiness in low- and middle-income countries

“…Many authors of the models and approaches reviewed emphasize that it is equally important to think of readiness and capacity in terms of social interactions and social bonds as it is in terms of accumulation of assets (e.g., Chilenski et al, 2007;Chinman et al, 2005;Edwards, Jumper-Thurman, Plested, Oetting, & Swanson, 2000;Goodman et al, 1998;Labonte & Laverack, 2001a;Putnam, 1993;Raeburn, Akerman, Chuengsatiansup, Mejia, & Oladepo, 2007;Sabol, Coulton, & Korbin, 2004;Smith, Baugh Littlejohns, & Roy, 2003). The locus of these social interactions and bonds is usually seen to be the community.…”

“…Theories underlying the constructs, and models and approaches associated with them, that were considered included Prochaska and DiClemente's (1983) and Prochaska, DiClemente, and Norcross' (1992) model for personal readiness for change (Plested, Edwards, & Jumper-Thurman's, 2006, community readiness model), organizational and community psychology theories (Chilenski, Greenberg, & Feinberg's, 2007, community readiness model), rural sociological theory (Cock, Keele, Cheers, Kruger, & Trigg's, 2006, community capacity model), and theories of organizational change and diffusion of innovations and the health belief model (Green & Krauter's, 2005, program planning model).…”

Assessing the Role of Faith-Based Organizations in Health Promotion

“…By addressing the aforementioned components, this model, unlike the CRM and RCC goes beyond intentions to more thoroughly understand community buy-in and its degree of involvement. CSM utilizes ordinal "subscales" to measure beliefs and opinions for each of the aforementioned model domains; therefore, it is easily "quantifiable" and requires less time from administration (Chilenski, Greenberg, & Feinberg, 2007). However, the data may not be as rich.…”

“…In line with Likert Scales, the CSM data collection method may not truly measure attitudes because respondents may be influenced by previous questions. However, this model can be more useful than the aforementioned models when employing "large-scale change" that requires input from many community collaborators (Chilenski, Greenberg, & Feinberg, 2007).…”