This paper focuses on methodological innovations used in the National Health Educator Competencies Update Project (CUP) in the United States. The CUP was a six-year research study designed to delineate the role of the health educator in the USA. Individuals who self-identified as health educators were included in the study. To provide context, the background for the research is presented, followed by a brief overview of the research process. Some of the key methodological innovations discussed are: selecting a representative sample when the total population of those working as health educators was not easily identified or readily accessible; assessing response methodology preferences through pilot studies; enhancing the response rate through accurate, up-to-date mailing lists and incentives; and exploring new approaches to large-scale data analyses. Insights gained are included for other researchers who may wish to undertake similar studies or draw from the CUP dataset for secondary analyses. (Promot Educ, 2008; 15 (4): 38-43)
Henderson AC, McIntosh DVRole refinement and verification for entry-level health educator: final report (CHRPS-0904273). Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service;1981.
Gilmore GD, Olsen LK, Taub A., Connell D.Overview of the national health educator competencies update project, 1998-2004 . Health Educ Behav. 2005;32(6):725-37.
4.
NCHECA framework for the development of competency-based curricula for entry-level health educators. New York: National Commission for HealthEducation Credentialing, Inc.; 1985.
5.
Cleary HPThe credentialing of health educators: an historical account, 1970-1990. New York: National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, Inc.; 1995.
6.
NCHECA competency-based framework for professional development of certified health education specialists. Allentown, PA: National Commission for HealthEducation Credentialing, Inc.; 1996.
7.
NCHEC,AAHE ,SOPHE.A competency-based framework for graduate-level health educatorsAllentown, PA: NCHEC;1999.
8.
Gilmore GD, Olsen LK, Taub A., Connell D.National health educator competencies update project: research process and methodological innovations/insights. Silver Spring, MD : Report prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Department of Health & Human Services; 2004.
9.
National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, Inc. , Society for Public Health Education, American Association for Health Education. A competency-based framework for health educators - 2006. Whitehall, PA: National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, Inc., Society for Public Health Education, American Association for Health Education; 2006.
10.
Gilmore GD, Olsen, LK, Taub A.Applying the national health educator competencies update project model to health education. California J Health Promot. 2007;5(2):103-11.
11.
Howat P., Maycock B., Jackson L., Lower T., Cross D., Collins J., et al. Development of competency-based university health promotion courses. Promot Educ. 2000;7(1):33-8.
12.
Shilton T., Howat P., James R., Lower T.Health promotion development and health promotion workforce competence in Australia. Health Promot J Austr. 2002;12(2):117-23.
13.
Shilton T., Howat P., James R., Lower T.Review of competencies for Australian health promotion. Promot Educ. 2003;10(4):162-71, 197, 209.
14.
Hyndman B.Towards the development of Canadian health promotion competencies: where we've been, where we are, and where we're going. [Internet] Ontario Health Promotion E-Bulletin [serial online] 2007 October [cited 2008 Feb 21]. Available from: http://www.ohpe.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9068&Itemid=78
15.
Melville L. , Howat P., Shilton T., Weinstein R.Competencies for health promotion practitioners in Israel. Promot Educ. 2006;13(3):178-84.
16.
Anderson SE , Gansneder BMUsing electronic mail surveys and computer-monitored data for studying computer mediated communication systems. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 1995;13(1):33-46.
17.
Bachmann D. , Elfrink J., Vazzana G.Tracking the progress of e-mail vs. snail mail. J Mark Res.1996 Summer;8(2):30-5.
18.
Bachmann D. , Elfrink J., Vazzana G.E-mail and snail mail face off in rematch . J Mark Res.1999 Winter, 2000 Spring;11(4): 10-15.
19.
Cook C., Heath F., Thompson RLA meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas.2000 Dec;60(6):821-36.
20.
Kenyon P.Skills package: how to put questionnaires on the internet: part I. [Internet]. 1997 [cited 2008 Feb 21]. Available from: http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk~mscprm/forms.htm
21.
Kittleson MJDetermining effective follow-up of e-mail surveys . Am J Health Behav.1997 May/Jun;21(3):193-6.
22.
Mehta R., Sivadas E.Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. J Mark Res Soc. 1995;37(4):429-39.
23.
Oppermann M.E-mail surveys: potentials and pitfalls. J Mark Res.1995;7(3):28-33.
24.
Sheehan KB, McMillan SJResponse variation in e-mail surveys: an exploration. J Advert Res. 1999;39(4):45-54.
25.
Tse ACB , Tse KC, Yin CH, Ting CB, Yi KW, Yee KP, et al. Comparing two methods of sending out questionnaires: e-mail versus mail. J Mark Res Soc. 1995;37(4):441-6.
26.
Gilmore GD, Taub A., Olsen L.Competencies update project: a progress report. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association ; 2001 Oct; Atlanta, GA.
