Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 22

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Disaster Preparedness Knowledge, Beliefs, Risk-Perceptions, and Mitigating Factors of Disaster Preparedness Behaviors of Undergraduate Students at a Large Midwest University

Goddard, Stacy, Sheppard, Meg, Thompson, Kip, Konecny, Lynda·2018·Journal of Public Health Issues and Practices

Abstract

Objective: Differences were assessed in disaster preparedness levels of college students at a large Midwest university based on knowledge, risk perception, beliefs, prior enrollment in a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) or first aid class, and self-efficacy was assessed. Methods: College students between the ages of 18 and 24 years old were recruited from a general education class and from students who walked by a high-traffic area in the student union to complete a 27-item survey. A disaster preparedness score was calculated based on items each participant indicated he or she currently possessed at home. Participant responses were also dichotomized into knowledge (advanced vs. basic) risk perception (high vs. low), belief (strong vs. weak), CERT or first aid enrollment (yes vs. no), and self-efficacy (high vs. low) groups based on how the participant answered specific items on the survey. An independent samplest test was used to analyze the differences in disaster preparedness levels between each dichotomized group. Results: There was no significant difference (p=0.789) found between the strong beliefs (M=7.97, SD=3.478) and the weak beliefs group (M=7.88, SD=3.099), t(384) = -4.978. Conclusions: Based on the findings of this study, health education programs that focus on improving knowledge, self-efficacy in preparing for a disaster, and risk perception of experiencing a disaster will increase the disaster preparedness levels of college students. Universities partnering with community emergency management agencies and offering CERT or first aid classes to college students can increase the disaster preparedness levels of college students and potentially improve response and recovery after a disaster.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.33790/jphip1100115

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Paul BK, Stimers M (2015) Safety measures after the 2011 Joplin, Missouri, tornado. Geographical Review 105: 199-215. View
  2. Smith DJ, Sutter D (2013) Response and recovery after the Joplin Tornado: Lessons applied and lessons learned. Independent Review 18: 165-188.

Cited by

See all 22

Metadata

Authors
Goddard, S., Sheppard, M., Thompson, K., & Konecny, L.
Venue
Journal of Public Health Issues and Practices
Published
2018
Volume
2
Issue
2
ISSN
2581-7264
Cited by
22
References
0

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Disaster Preparedness Knowledge, Beliefs, Risk-Perceptions, and Mitigating Factors of Disaster Preparedness Behaviors of Undergraduate Students at a Large Midwest University. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.33790/jphip1100115
The paper
Goddard, S., Sheppard, M., Thompson, K., & Konecny, L. (2018). Disaster Preparedness Knowledge, Beliefs, Risk-Perceptions, and Mitigating Factors of Disaster Preparedness Behaviors of Undergraduate Students at a Large Midwest University. Journal of Public Health Issues and Practices. https://doi.org/10.33790/jphip1100115

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.