Methodological limitations

Whilst undertaking the research, a few participants commented on the length of the questionnaire, stating that it was repetitive and confusing. Due to the number of variables being measured and the need for multiple-item scales to ensure internal reliability, the questionnaire had a total of 76 items. Furthermore, to reduce demand characteristics, items were randomised as opposed to being presented as individual scales. Although these factors increased reliability, they may have also increased the likelihood of fatigue effects, something which is noted by Cape (2010) as having the potential to reduce data quality. Nevertheless, the final scales used for analysis had internal reliability. Furthermore, several items were removed during reliability testing, thus reducing the length of the questionnaire for future use.

Although participation was completely anonymous, it was impossible to completely account for all social desirability biases. The exploration of perceptions regarding a sensitive—and perhaps somewhat contentious—area such as child and adolescent mental health will inevitably be effected to some degree by levels of discomfort or unease in terms of providing answers that are not socially desirable within a given context. The current study utilised a ‘pen and paper’ survey method, however, future research could utilise online survey techniques, which may make participants feel even more anonymous in order to encourage more open and honest answers.

The current study looked at willingness, as it is seen as a positive behavioural intention and thus more solution focused than exploring resistance. However, in only exploring positive intention, it may be that the level of variance was limited. That is, in looking at

108

intention as an alternative to willingness, ranging from no intent to very intent, data collection may have elicited a broader spectrum of responses from participants.

The current study could also be criticised for using an overly broad target behaviour (supporting pupil mental health needs). This is something highlighted by Lee et al. (2010) as a common flaw of research exploring applications of the TPB with teachers, and proposed that the use of overly broad target behaviours can yield inconsistent results. In developing questionnaires based on the TPB, it is suggested that the target behaviour should be clearly defined in terms of its targets, action, context and time (Francis et al., 2004). Although this was considered during questionnaire development, the questionnaire may have produced more accurate results if the research had used a more tangible and specific scenario as its target behaviour. Future research could consider using a vignette in order to provide a definitive and clear target behaviour.

It was necessary to omit three scales as they did not meet assumptions for multivariate statistical analysis. The questionnaire in the current study requested participants to state the approximate number of pupils with mental health difficulties which they had experience of. In hindsight, this was a very difficult question for participants to respond to, and is the likely reason that nearly a quarter of participants left the item blank thus leading to the scale being excluded from the study. The questionnaire may be improved by asking participants to rate their ‘level of perceived experience of pupils with mental health difficulties’ on a five point scale. Both the aetiological belief and desired social distance scales had to be omitted due to a low internal reliability. Internal reliability in relation to the aetiological belief scale may be improved by simplifying it. Based on the findings of the current study, teachers appear to hold undecided or uncommitted beliefs regarding whether mental health problems are biological or environmental in nature. However, Mukolo and Heflinger (2011) identified that adults were more likely to attribute the mental health problems of children and young people to biological/genetic causes, and Phelan et al. (2006) found a link between perceiving mental health problems as being caused by genetics or biology and a tendency to recommend ‘harsh’ forms of interventions such as medical intervention. Such perceptions may lead to teachers

109

feeling powerless in terms of supporting pupil mental health. Therefore, rather than using a generic aetiological beliefs scale, which includes both environmentally and biologically weighted items, it might be better to have a more specific biological/genetic aetiological belief scale, which focuses purely on eliciting the degree to which a teacher believes that mental health problems are biological/genetic in nature, and should be treated using medical/clinical intervention. In terms of improving the internal reliability of the preferred social distance scale, having an exact scenario (e.g. a vignette) may help in controlling for the consistency of item interpretation and response.

Although the current study presents many interesting associations between the variables, it is important to appreciate that causal relationships cannot be inferred with confidence. For instance, there is no telling whether the teachers in the current study were more willing because of their personal experience of mental health, or whether they were more aware of mental health problems within their personal domain because of a willingness and interest in the area.

The current study could be criticised for not exploring the mediating effects amongst variables. Although this may have proved insightful, unfortunately it was beyond the scope of this thesis. Furthermore, the research did not ascertain longitudinal data, which are most appropriate for meaningful and rigorous analyses of mediational models (Cole & Maxwell, 2003).