Cited by 7Digital Mental Health InterventionsTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourMobile Learning in Education

Mental Health Mobile Apps’ Instruction: Technology Adoption Theories Applied in a Mixed Methods Study of Counseling Faculty

East, Marlene L., Havard, Byron, Hastings, Nancy B.·2016·Journal of Technology in Human Services

Abstract

This objective of this research was to determine factors influencing counselor educators’ behavioral intentions to teach counseling students about mental health mobile applications (MHMAs), factors influencing values of MHMAs as therapeutic tools, and to what extent counselor education programs are contributing to future counselors’ technological competence with regard to evaluating and integrating MHMAs. The conceptual basis was a theory triangulation approach using theories of technology use and acceptance and diffusion of innovations. Nine quantitative, two qualitative, and two mixed methods research questions served to guide the study. Participants were 132 faculty members from 99 university counseling programs. Participants completed an initial survey, an evaluation of an evidence-based mental health mobile application (app), and a postmeasure. Hierarchical multiple regression, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), independent samples t-tests, and paired samples t-tests were used to analyze quantitative data. Results indicated that unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) variables along with anxiety/apprehension and ethical concerns are related to behavioral intentions to teach students about MHMAs. Semistructured video interviews were conducted and analyzed in the qualitative phase to add depth and explain quantitative findings. This study has implications for graduate counselor education programs and related accrediting agencies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15228835.2016.1233842

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Even if people acknowledged a perceived need for help and were willing to seek help, engagement with a particular intervention was affected by a person's preconceived belief about whether a digital intervention would be effective.

    “However, even if people acknowledged a perceived need for help and were willing to seek help, engagement with a particular intervention was then affected by a person’s preconceived belief about whether a digital intervention would be effective [79,104,110-112].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
East, M. L., Havard, B., & Hastings, N. B.
Affiliations
University of West Florida (US)
Corresponding author
East, Marlene L.
Venue
Journal of Technology in Human Services
Published
2016-10
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
301-325
ISSN
  • 0740-445X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-8835
  • 1522-8991
OpenAlex
W2535615232
Cited by
7
References
56
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Technology in Human Services (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile Learning in Education
Keywords
counselor educators, technology acceptance, UTAUT, diffusion of innovations, behavioral intention, ethical considerations, technological competence, graduate counseling education, app evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review