Six Criteria for One Model: Evaluating Pender's Health Promotion Model Before Using It for a Physical Activity Program for Adults With Prediabetes
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
DNP/705: Philosophy, Theory, and Science for Nursing Practice
Week 3 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The clinic and scenario are composites written for a model paper.
Our family practice has 610 adults with prediabetes, identified from laboratory results in the prediabetic range. Physical activity reduces their risk of progressing to diabetes, yet most report little regular activity. I plan a DNP project offering a structured walking program with coaching. Before choosing Pender's Health Promotion Model to guide it, I need to evaluate the model. This paper describes its structure and applies Fawcett's criteria.
Structure of the Model
The model reads from left to right. On the left sit what a person brings: past habits with the behavior and fixed traits such as age, mood and culture. In the middle sit the thoughts and feelings tied to this specific behavior: what the person expects to gain, what stands in the way, how confident they feel, how the activity makes them feel and what family, peers, clinicians and surroundings signal. On the right, these converge in a commitment to a plan, which competing demands of the moment can still derail, and finally in the behavior itself. Srof and Velsor-Friedrich (2006) note that the model is grounded in social cognitive theory, particularly its emphasis on self-efficacy.
Propositions
The model proposes, among other things, that prior behavior and inherited and acquired characteristics influence beliefs, affect and enactment; that people commit to behaviors from which they anticipate personal value; that perceived barriers constrain commitment; that perceived competence or self-efficacy increases the likelihood of commitment and action; and that families, peers and health care providers are important sources of interpersonal influence.
Fawcett's Criteria
Fawcett (2005) sets out six questions for judging a nursing theory, covering its importance, its logical coherence, its economy of statement, whether it can be tested, whether research supports it and whether it works in practice. Some criteria are differentiated for grand and middle-range theories. I apply each in turn.
A theory earns its place in a project the same way evidence does: by being examined, not by being familiar.
Significance
Significance concerns whether the theory addresses a phenomenon of importance to the discipline and states its philosophical and conceptual origins. Health promotion is central to nursing, and the model's roots in social cognitive theory are explicit (Srof & Velsor-Friedrich, 2006). The model meets this criterion.
Internal Consistency
Internal consistency asks whether concepts are defined clearly and used consistently and whether propositions follow logically. The concepts are well defined, though some overlap, such as activity-related affect and perceived barriers, since negative feelings about exercise can function as a barrier. This overlap is a minor weakness.
Parsimony
Parsimony asks whether the theory is stated as simply as possible without oversimplifying. The model has many concepts and paths. For a walking program, not all will matter equally. The model is moderately parsimonious; its breadth is useful for exploration but can make testing difficult.
Testability
For a middle-range theory, testability requires that concepts can be measured and propositions tested. Validated questionnaires exist for confidence, expected gains, obstacles and overall health-promoting lifestyle. Many propositions have been tested, though rarely all together, and the full model is difficult to test in a single study.
Empirical Adequacy
Empirical adequacy concerns whether research supports the theory. Srof and Velsor-Friedrich (2006), reviewing research in adolescents, found support for relationships among several concepts and health behaviors, particularly self-efficacy, perceived barriers and interpersonal support, while noting that not all concepts have been equally supported and that more research was needed. Self-efficacy has the strongest support across populations.
Pragmatic Adequacy
Pragmatic adequacy asks whether the theory can be used in practice, whether nurses can apply it within their scope and resources, and whether it leads to favorable outcomes. The model guides assessment and intervention in ways that fit primary care: identifying barriers, building self-efficacy through small successes and involving family. It is pragmatically adequate for my setting.
Is It Middle-Range?
The model is often treated as a middle-range theory because it addresses a defined phenomenon, health-promoting behavior, with concepts concrete enough to measure. Fawcett (2005) differentiates some criteria for middle-range theories, particularly testability and empirical adequacy, which should be judged by whether specific propositions have been tested, a standard the model partly meets.
Middle-Range Considerations
Liehr and Smith (1999) reviewed 22 middle-range theories and recommended clear articulation of concept linkages with diagrammed models, deliberate attention to research-practice connections and movement of theories to the front lines of practice. Pender's model has a clear diagram and explicit practice applications, which fits these recommendations.
Applying the Structure to One Patient
Ms. L., 52, a school bus driver with an A1c of 6.1%, illustrates the model. Her prior behavior includes a failed gym membership. Her perceived benefit is avoiding the insulin her mother needed; her barriers are split shifts and an unlit neighborhood. Her confidence is low after the gym experience. Her daughter offers to walk with her, an interpersonal influence. A plan to walk 15 minutes during her midday break, in the lit school parking lot, addresses her barriers and builds confidence through a goal she can meet.
Comparing an Alternative
The transtheoretical model, with its stages of readiness for change, could also guide the program. It is useful for tailoring messages to readiness but gives less attention to interpersonal and situational influences, which matter in our population. Pender's model fits better, though I may use stage of readiness as an additional assessment.
Judgment for My Project
The model is significant, reasonably consistent, testable and pragmatically useful, with empirical support strongest for self-efficacy, barriers and interpersonal influences. For my walking program, I will focus on these concepts: building self-efficacy through graded goals, addressing barriers such as safety and time and enlisting walking partners. I will measure self-efficacy and barriers before and after the program.
What Evaluation Adds
Evaluating the model before using it forces me to decide which concepts to measure and which to leave aside. Without the evaluation, I might have tried to measure every concept, burdening patients with long surveys, or chosen none and used the model as decoration in my proposal.
Measurement Plan
Based on the evaluation, I will measure three concepts before and after the program: exercise self-efficacy, perceived barriers and social support for exercise, plus the behavior itself through step counts. This keeps the survey short while testing the propositions with the strongest support.
Limitations of the Model
The model focuses on individual cognition and gives less attention to structural conditions such as neighborhood safety, work schedules and income. In our population, these conditions matter. I will supplement the model's situational influences with explicit attention to environmental barriers.
Conclusion
Evaluated against Fawcett's six criteria, Pender's Health Promotion Model is significant, largely internally consistent, moderately parsimonious, testable, empirically supported in its core concepts and pragmatically adequate for primary care. Its focus on self-efficacy, barriers and interpersonal influence fits a walking program for adults with prediabetes, provided I attend to structural barriers the model underemphasizes.
References
Fawcett, J. (2005). Criteria for evaluation of theory. Nursing Science Quarterly, 18(2), 131-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318405274823
Liehr, P., & Smith, M. J. (1999). Middle range theory: Spinning research and practice to create knowledge for the new millennium. Advances in Nursing Science, 21(4), 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-199906000-00011
Srof, B. J., & Velsor-Friedrich, B. (2006). Health promotion in adolescents: A review of Pender's health promotion model. Nursing Science Quarterly, 19(4), 366-373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318406292831
How this DNP 705 Week 3 example is structured
The DNP/705 Week 3 work usually covers the structure and evaluation of nursing theory. This paper describes a theory's concepts and propositions, then applies published evaluation criteria one at a time, ending with a judgment about whether and how to use it for a specific project. Students search this week as DNP 705 Week 3, DNP705 Wk 3 or DNP/705 Wk 3; all three are the same assignment.
DNP/705 Week 3 questions, answered
What does DNP/705 Week 3 usually ask for?
Many sections ask students to analyze a nursing theory's structure and evaluate it with established criteria, often considering its fit for a practice problem.
What are Fawcett's criteria for evaluating theory?
Six criteria that ask whether a theory matters to the discipline, holds together logically, is stated economically, can be tested, is supported by research and can be used in practice.
What is Pender's Health Promotion Model?
A model grounded in social cognitive theory that explains health-promoting behavior through individual characteristics and experiences, behavior-specific cognitions and affect and the commitment to a plan of action.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.