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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Students with good information literacy tend to be better at recognizing threats and making informed decisions when facing disasters (Goddard et al., 2018;Zhang et al., 2021).”
From The Mediating Role of Risk Perception in the Effect of Information Literacy on Students’ Disaster Preparedness (2026) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“Risk perception was measured using a scale adapted from (Mızrak & Aslan, 2020), while disaster preparedness is measured using indicators from UNDRR 2015 (Goddard et al., 2018).”
From The Mediating Role of Risk Perception in the Effect of Information Literacy on Students’ Disaster Preparedness (2026) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“Regular training programs, effective risk communication, and participation in simulations have been shown to improve rapid response during emergencies (Doumi et al., 2024;Goddard et al., 2018).”
From The Mediating Role of Risk Perception in the Effect of Information Literacy on Students’ Disaster Preparedness (2026) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2018
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
- Paul BK, Stimers M (2015) Safety measures after the 2011 Joplin, Missouri, tornado. Geographical Review 105: 199-215. View
- Smith DJ, Sutter D (2013) Response and recovery after the Joplin Tornado: Lessons applied and lessons learned. Independent Review 18: 165-188.
Cited by
Exploring disaster preparedness of students at university in Bangladesh
Hasan, M. K., Moriom, M., Shuprio, S. I. M., Younos, T. B., & Chowdhury, M. A. (2022) · Natural Hazards · doi:10.1007/s11069-021-05080-2 · Cited by 48
Andini, N. F., Putra, R. W., & Aldebaran, M. F. (2026) · JURNAL GEOGRAFI · doi:10.24114/jg.v18i1.72188
Metadata
- Authors
- Goddard, S., Sheppard, M., Thompson, K., & Konecny, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Health Issues and Practices
- Publisher
- Gexinonline Publications
- 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
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.