KAROLINSKA INSTITUTET
Department of Public Health Sciences
Division of Social Medicine
Understanding the barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance
in rural Alberta
Development of a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour
Mahendra Wijayasinghe, PhD
10-credit project for the degree of Master in Safety Promotion
Supervisor
Celine Farley, PhD.
Stockholm, June 2006
ABSTRACT
Background: Fire statistics for Alberta and the US indicate a high risk of fires, fire deaths and fire injuries in rural
area homes. A major deficiency in home fire safety, especially in rural areas, is a lack of both the installation and
maintenance of smoke alarms. The three maintenance functions that ensure smoke alarms are in working condition
to alert occupants in a fire emergency are monthly tests, annual replacement of batteries and avoidance of the
tendency to disable smoke alarms that are too sensitive or sound false alarms.
The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) has been widely applied to the explanation of health behaviours and to
inform behaviour change interventions. The TPB integrated within the PRECEDE-PROCEED Model was therefore
selected to understand the barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta.
Main aim and objectives: This study sought to understand the barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance
in the Town of Wainwright, a rural Alberta community, by administering a preliminary questionnaire based on the
TPB integrated in to the PRECEDE-PROCEED model.
Methods: Two questionnaires, for homes with and without smoke alarms, were developed to measure respondents’
demographic and housing characteristics, smoke alarm status, risk perception, fire drill frequency, reasons for not
performing fire safe behaviours and the sources of fire prevention and safety information. In addition, the
questionnaires carried a set of items to measure TPB constructs, enabling factors and reinforcing factors. The
questionnaires were administered to a randomly selected group of 36 homes in the Town of Wainwright, with the
assistance of the local fire department.
Results and discussion: Analysis of survey responses from homes that had at least one smoke alarm (N=35)
indicated that the internal consistency was high for TPB constructs – attitude (0.78), behavioural beliefs (0.76), and
motivation to comply (0.91) as measured by Cronbach’s alpha. Positive fire safety behaviours among the
respondents included 94% of households having smoke alarms in working condition, 70% replacing batteries once a
year and only nine percent reacting to false alarms by removing batteries. The perception of a low fire risk by 70%
of the respondents may be related to the lack of fire drills in 78% of the homes and lack of testing smoke alarms at
the recommended monthly intervals (only nine percent). Other possible reasons for the low perception of fire risk
the related behaviours and challenges to interventions are discussed.
Conclusions: Results from the survey, though preliminary, provides some understanding of the barriers to smoke
alarm maintenance. The results point to increased fire department involvement and changes in fire prevention
messaging to improve smoke alarm maintenance behaviours. Future research will focus on an elicitation study to
transform the preliminary questionnaires for large-scale application.
Key words: Smoke alarms, rural communities, Alberta, home-fires, Theory of Planned Behaviour.
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
2
CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT
2
BACKGROUND
4
Community differences in fire risk, deaths and injuries
4
Smoke alarms
4
Smoke alarm statistics in Alberta and other jurisdictions
4
Research studies on smoke alarm giveaway programs
5
Using theory to guide intervention
6
The Theory of Planned Behaviour
6
The PRECEDE-PROCEED Model
7
MAIN AIM AND OBJECTIVES
7
METHODS
7
Development of preliminary questionnaires
7
Data analysis
7
Selection of rural community and administration of the questionnaires
8
Ethical considerations
8
RESULTS
9
DISCUSSION
10
CONCLUSIONS
12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
13
APPENDICES
14
Appendix A: References
14
Appendix B: Smoke Alarms
18
Appendix C: Theory of Planned Behaviour & the PRECEDE-PROCEED Model
19
Appendix D: Preliminary Questionnaire for Homes with Smoke Alarms
22
Appendix E: Cronbach’s Alpha Values for Theory of Planned Behaviour Constructs
32
Appendix F: Town of Wainwright
34
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
3
Understanding the barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance
in rural Alberta
Development of a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour
BACKGROUND
The 2001 Annual Report of Fire Losses in Canada, published by the Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire
Commissioners (CCFM/FC), a national organization dedicated to fire protection in Canada, reported a total of 55,
323 fires associated with 338 fire deaths; 2,310 fire injuries; and a total property loss of $1.421 billion Canadian.
The "Residential Property” classification accounted for the largest number of fires. In 2001, there were 21,494 fires
in this category, 39% of the Canadian total. These incidents resulted in 273 deaths or approximately 73% of the
nation's fire fatalities. The monetary loss amounted to $632 million, which is 45% of the total loss.
Most people who die in fires in Canada and in Alberta are victims of home fire incidents (CCFM/FC, 2004; Alberta
Fire Commissioner’s Office, 2004). Homes defined as one/two family dwellings, apartments and manufactured
homes accounted for approximately 26% of all fires, 65% of all fire deaths and 60% of all fire injuries in Alberta in
2003. Seniors (65+ years), young adults and children under five years of age are at high risk of fire related injuries
and deaths in Alberta (Alberta Fire Commissioner’s Office, 2004). Home fires in the U.S., during 2004, caused 82%
of all civilian fire deaths and approximately 80% of all fire injuries (Karter, 2005). In London, UK, 86% of fire
deaths occurred in homes during 1996-2000 (Holborn, 2001).
Community differences in fire risk, deaths and injuries
A comparison of rural and urban fire losses during 1992-1996 in Alberta revealed that the risks of fire incidence, fire
death and property losses are 1.2, 2.4 and 3.4 times higher in rural compared to urban municipalities. (Wijayasinghe,
1997). Fire death rate expressed as number of deaths per 100,000 population in Aboriginal communities (6.1) is ~ 4
times higher than in rural municipalities (1.7) and ~ 9 times higher than in urban centres (0.7). Fire rate (number of
fires per 1,000 population) is ~1.5 times higher in rural communities (2.8) compared to both urban and Aboriginal
communities (Wijayasinghe, 2005). In the U.S., per capita fire death rates in rural communities (under 2,500
population) are more than twice the rates found in communities with more than 500,000 (Ahrens, 2003). The major
concern lies with the very limited fire protection resources typically available to a rural community. Rural areas are
inherently spread out and mostly protected by small, volunteer fire departments with limited resources to attack
specific fire problems. Response times of fire departments is also longer than in urban centres (Wijayasinghe, 1997).
A strong statistical correlation between the rural poverty level and rural fire death rates has been established. Being
poor, means a reduced ability to respond to fire safety initiatives. Heads of poor households are less likely to have
high school education, so they may not grasp the full import of public fire safety education messages, if they do
grasp the messages, they are more likely to lack the discretionary income to obtain smoke detectors, or safe heating
systems, or code compliant electrical service, or fire safe security measures, or anything else that involves buying a
larger measure of fire safety (National Fire Protection Association, 2002).
Smoke alarms
Functioning smoke alarms serve to provide early warning of a fire incident, and allow occupants time to evacuate
the dwelling. Appendix B provides background information on smoke alarms and show the human intervention
steps required to gain the full benefit from them in a home environment. However, human safety during a fire
emergency requires not only an early warning from smoke alarms but also successful evacuation of occupants, who
must hear and correctly interpret the alarm signal, and then be able to exit the dwelling. The latter step is critical in
surviving a fire emergency and requires householders to have planned and practiced a fire escape plan (Fire
Protection Handbook, 2003).
Smoke alarm statistics in Alberta and other jurisdictions
Smoke alarms are required by law in Alberta (Alberta Building Code, 1997; Alberta Fire Code, 1997), and their use
has been promoted by the fire service educational programs since the late seventies. The first legislated requirement
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
4
for smoke alarms in Alberta homes was introduced in 1977. The decline in fire death rate in the province has been
partly attributed to this legislation (Alberta Fire News, 2005). According to Statistics Canada (1998), in 1997, 96.2%
of all households in Alberta were installed with at least one smoke alarm, located inside the dwelling. In U.S., the
use of smoke alarms increased rapidly during 1975 to 1984, and slowly thereafter, and evidence from actual fire
stories and fire statistics showed the life-saving effectiveness of these alarms. The smoke alarm usage in the U.K.
has lagged behind that of the U.S. In 2002, surveys have shown 96% and 81% of households in the U.S. and the
U.K. had smoke alarms installed (Hall, 2005).
Fire statistics for Alberta homes, that experienced fire incidents, indicate that in spite of the legislation and
promotional activities by the fire service, 31% of urban homes were not installed with smoke alarms. In rural and
First Nation/Metis communities this figure rose to 60 and 62%, respectively (Alberta Fire Commissioner’s Office,
2005). Similarly, in 2002, smoke alarms were not present in 57% of reported home fires in the U.K. and in 38% of
reported home fires in the U.S. (Hall, 2005). Thus, it appears that homes where people have reported fires are less
likely to have smoke alarms. According to Ahrens (2004), two factors may explain this disproportionate share of
home fires occurring in U.S. homes with no smoke alarms. First, there are, proportionally, so many more smoke
alarms in homes in general than in homes with reported fires, and households that have fires tend, for a variety of
reasons, to be the kind of households that would be less likely to buy or own smoke alarms. Second, smoke alarms
discover some fires so early that the occupants can control the fires without involving or notifying the fire
department. The author elaborated further that the households that still do not have smoke alarms are more risk
prone but in ways that do not correlate strongly or neatly with the socioeconomic characteristics – poverty, race, age,
etc. – that usually correlate with the risk of having a reported fire or having a fatal fire.
A comparison of urban, rural and First Nation/Metis communities in Alberta revealed that only 39%, 25% and 7%,
respectively, of the installed smoke alarms activated during fires (Alberta Fire Commissioner’s Office, 2005). About
25% of the smoke alarms in homes that experienced fires in the U.S. did not function (Ahrens, 2004). Similarly, in
2002 in the U.K., 27% of the homes with smoke alarms present failed to operate (Hall, 2005). According to this
report, smoke alarms failed to operate in 43% of fires where the units were battery-powered but only 12% of fires
where the units were connected to main power. The majority (53%) of U.K. smoke alarms reported in home fires
were connected to main power. The major reason for non-functioning smoke alarms appears to be due to dead,
disconnected or missing batteries. People are most likely to remove or disconnect batteries because of nuisance
activations (Ahrens, 2004).
Although there are many studies on smoke alarms and related home fire risks (DiGuiseppi, 2000; CDC, 1998, Istre,
2001; Shaw, 1988), only a few systematic documented studies on actual field application are available. These have
taken the form of large-scale smoke alarm giveaway programs, the subject of the next topic.
Research studies on smoke alarm giveaway programs
Two groups of researchers have addressed the problem of increasing smoke alarm use in materially deprived
communities in Oklahoma City, U.S. and in inner London, U.K. The Oklahoma City study was a non-randomized
controlled trail in which ~10,000 free smoke alarms were distributed in targeted neighbourhoods along with written
educational pamphlets and home based follow up to test whether the alarms were functioning correctly. During the
six years following the project, the residential fire-related injury rate decreased 81% in the target population but only
7% in the rest of Oklahoma City. This dramatic decline in fire related injuries in the target area was largely
attributed to the free smoke alarm distribution as well as to educational efforts promoting awareness about
residential fire prevention (Mallonee, 1996).
The smoke alarm give away program, in two deprived multi-ethnic inner London boroughs, was conducted as a
randomized controlled trial, where ~20,000 smoke alarms, with batteries, fittings, and fire safety brochures (in
English and other local languages) were distributed door to door in randomly selected wards by a coalition of
agencies. One year later, postcards reminding that the battery should be changed were sent. Control wards received
no intervention (DiGuiseppi, 1999). The results indicated that the programme did not reduce injuries related to fire,
admissions to hospital and deaths, or fires attended by the fire brigade, mostly because few alarms had been installed
or were maintained. It was concluded that giving away smoke alarms may be a waste of resources and of little
benefit unless alarm installation and maintenance are assured (DiGuiseppi, 2002). Pless (2004) concluded that the
inner London study, although modeled after the apparently effective Oklahoma study (Mallonee, 1996) in which an
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
5
80% reduction in fire related injuries was reported, failed to replicate these results probably due to a regression
towards the mean. Another report from the same study focused on determining the prevalence of and predictors for
installed, functioning smoke alarms in public housing found that few properties in this multi-ethnic, materially
deprived urban area had any installed, functioning smoke alarms, despite a high risk of residential fires and fire
related injuries in such areas. Alarms most commonly failed because they lacked batteries (72%). Having an
installed, functioning alarm was most strongly associated with living in a house versus an apartment, having two
resident adults versus one and recognising stills from a Home Office television smoke alarm campaign. Furthermore,
the authors concluded that smoke alarms are associated with a significantly reduced risk of death in residential fires,
and are more protective in households with young children. It was concluded that effective methods to increase the
prevalence of installed and functioning alarms must be identified (DiGuiseppi, 1999).
In an effort to identify the barriers to the continued use of smoke alarms, a qualitative research study was conducted
on a sample of adults and children from the randomized controlled trial of free smoke alarm installation in the inner
city London boroughs (Roberts, 2004). This study found that the main barrier to smoke alarm use was the distress
caused by false alarms. Although trial participants considered themselves to be at high risk for fires and would
recommend smoke alarms to others, respondents’ reports on the distress caused by false alarms suggest that people
balance immediate and longer-term risks to their health and wellbeing when they disable alarms. This study
identified some of the reasons for the low level of functioning smoke alarms, and problems experienced with alarms.
Using theory as a guide to intervention
Fire deaths and injuries represent a significant public health issue in Alberta. As discussed above, the fire risk to
rural Albertans is particularly high. In rural Alberta homes that experienced fire, the percent installation of smoke
alarms was half that observed in similar homes in urban centres. Activation of installed alarms was 1.5 times less in
rural compared to urban homes. Therefore, a smoke alarm intervention program aimed at rural Albertans can be
considered beneficial.
Although many health promotion interventions are developed and implemented without any specific reference to
theory, there is much evidence in health promotion literature that an intervention theory can provide the guidance
necessary to develop an effective intervention. Theory can: help practitioners understand the nature of the problem
being addressed; explain the needs and motivations of target populations; lead practitioners on how to change health
status, health-related behaviours and their determinants; and inform the methods and measures used to monitor the
problem and the program (Nutbeam, 2004).
The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) was selected as the best choice to guide a smoke alarm
intervention program in rural Alberta, based on the criteria proposed by Glanz (2002). The TPB has been applied in
diverse settings to a variety of health behaviours, including exercise behaviour, smoking and drug use, HIV/STD
prevention behaviours, mammography use, clinical preventive services, and oral hygiene behaviours (Glanz, 2002).
Other interventions based on the TPB directed at individuals who do not currently intend to perform the desired
target behavior: to get individuals who have no intention to do so to perform testicular self-examinations (Brubaker
& Fowler, 1990), to ride the bus instead of driving the car (Bamberg, Ajzen, & Schmidt, 2003), to wear a bicycle
safety helmet (Quine, Rutter, & Arnold, 2001), to increase regular condom use (Fishbein et al., 2001), and so forth.
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
6
Behavioural beliefs
Evaluation of
behvioural outcomes
Normative beliefs
Attitude
towards behaviour
Subjective norm
Behavioural
intention
Behaviour
Motivation to comply
Control beliefs
Perceived power
Perceived
behavioural control
Theory of Planned Behaviour (adapted from Glanz, Rimer & Lewis, 2002 and Ajzen I, 1991)
A brief description of the constructs in the TPB and their measurement are provided in Appendix C.
The PRECEDE-PROCEED (Green and Kreuter 1999, Glanz et al., 2002) model has been used widely by health
promotion practitioners. This planning model follows a step-wise sequence including planning, implementation and
evaluation stages. Different theories can be made use of at each of these stages to guide and inform practitioners
(Nutbeam, 2004). The acronym PRECEDE stands for Predisposing, Reinforcing, and Enabling Constructs in
Educational/Environmental Diagnosis and Evaluation. PROCEED stands for Policy, Regulatory, and Organizational
Constructs in Educational and Environmental Development. The constructs in the Theory of Planned Behaviour fit
within the Predisposing Factors in the model.
A brief description of the PRECEDE-PROCEED model is provided in Appendix C.
MAIN AIM & OBJECTIVES
The aim of the thesis is to develop a questionnaire, based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour integrated in to the
PRECEDE-PROCEED model, in order to assess predisposing, reinforcing and enabling factors that influence the
purchase, installation and maintenance of smoke alarms in the homes of a selected rural Alberta community.
Secondary objectives:

To review literature on fire losses in Alberta, Canada as well as similar literature from the U.S. and U.K.,
with a special emphasis on home smoke alarms.

To review literature on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the PRECEDE-PROCEED Model.

To prepare and administer a preliminary questionnaire to achieve the main aim of the thesis.
METHODS
Development of preliminary questionnaires
The development of two preliminary questionnaires, designed for homes with or without at least one smoke alarm,
was the main focus of this study. The literature review guided the development of specific question content in the
two preliminary questionnaires. The questionnaire was developed according to the planning framework PRECEDE
in the comprehensive PRECEDE-PROCEED planning model. The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) was
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
7
integrated within phase 4 of this planning model to develop questions under predisposing factors. The constructs of
the TPB were measured as per detailed descriptions found in Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980, Francis, 2002, and Glanz,
2002.
The preliminary questionnaire designed for homes with no smoke alarms is not presented since only one home met
this criterion and its responses were therefore not analysed for this report. The preliminary questionnaire designed
for homes with at least one smoke alarm (Appendix D), contained four sections:
Section 1 questions focused on the respondents’ gender, age, marital status, level of education, total household
income, type of home and its year of construction and ownership status. Other questions included household
composition, number of smokers living in the home and person(s) making decisions about fire safety at home.
Section 2 questions concentrated on smoke alarms in respondents’ homes, and inquired about the number and type
of smoke alarms and whether they were in working condition. Questions on smoke alarm maintenance – frequency
of smoke alarm testing, reasons for not testing, experience with false alarms in the past 12 months and the reasons
for activation and responses that followed.
Section 3 questions were designed to find out the respondents’ knowledge of home fire causes, home safety
concerns, sources of fire safety information, and perception of the risk of a home fire. Frequency of fire drills and
reasons for not having drills were additional questions.
Section 4 contained a total of 63 items used to assess the TPB constructs – attitude (8), behavioural beliefs (14),
outcome evaluation (9), normative beliefs (7), motivation to comply (2), subjective norm (1), perceived power (6),
control beliefs (5), perceived behavioural control (2), and intention (4). In addition, four more questions in this
section attempted to find out about enabling and reinforcing factors. The questions asked the likelihood of testing
smoke alarms if the following factors were considered: an annual home inspection by the fire department; a
reduction in the cost of fire insurance; advice from the fire department on smoke alarm testing; and the legal
requirement for all Alberta homes to have smoke alarms.
Data analysis
Internal consistency of each of the TPB construct measurements from the preliminary questionnaire, was verified by
calculating the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, using the Proc CORR procedure in SAS software. The "nomiss" option
was used to handle observations with missing responses. The items related to the TPB constructs were measured on
a seven-point interval scale, except for the items under Normative Beliefs which were measured on a three-point
interval scale. Where necessary, scoring was reversed prior to analysis. Cronbach’s alpha indicated that the scales
for attitude (0.78), behavioural beliefs (0.76), and motivation to comply (0.91) possessed good internal reliability.
However, outcome evaluations (0.53), normative beliefs (0.54), control beliefs (0.63), perceived power (0.36),
perceived behavioural control (0.44) and intention (0.49) possessed moderate to low internal consistency (Appendix
E).
Selection of rural community and administration of the questionnaires
The study was conducted in the Town of Wainwright, a mid sized rural Alberta community approximately 200 km
north east of Edmonton (Appendix F). This community was selected because of the close cooperation of the Fire
Chief of the Wainwright fire department and his 24 volunteer firefighters to assist with the study. Approximately
50% of the surveys were filled out directly by householder adults and the remainder by fire department personnel on
the basis of responses provided by householder adults. A total of 36 surveys were completed by visiting randomly
selected homes.
Ethical considerations
The following steps were taken in order to meet ethical considerations: The participants were explained the purpose
and potential value of the study; participation was voluntary and not coerced; the participants had the freedom to
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
8
quit any time they wish to prior to completing the questionnaire; no names were collected, hence confidentiality was
respected; income was requested as a range; everyone was treated with equal respect and fairness, irrespective of
gender, age, race, colour, education, employment, etc.
RESULTS
Survey responses
Limitations of survey data
The survey data presented in this report must be tempered with several notes of caution. First, the data in the present
study is severely limited. Of the 36 completed surveys, 35 were from homes that had at least one smoke alarm. A
single survey from a home that had no smoke alarms was omitted from the study. This prevented an understanding
of the factors that hinder the purchase or the installation of smoke alarms. Although the survey reached a crosssection of the residents, the low number of surveys did not permit any statistically valid conclusions or broad
generalizations. Secondly, householders completed about half the number of surveys while fire department
personnel completed the other half. The responses from the latter group may therefore be biased. Thirdly, due to
lack of previous studies similar to the present, the items in the preliminary questionnaire were designed for the most
part on the basis of findings from a large-scale randomized controlled study (Roberts, 2004) of a smoke alarm giveaway program in an inner city, low-income neighbourhood in London, UK. This approach may have influenced the
outcomes of the present study as the characteristics or the people in the Town of Wainwright have very few or no
similarities to the population studied in the UK. Fourthly, due to time limitations it was not feasible to conduct an
elicitation study to develop more refined questions for a final questionnaire for large-scale application.
Social assessment
The questions related to social assessment revealed the following:
Type and age of home: Single family homes (80%); apartments (3%); mobile homes (9%); town houses (9%).
About 40% of the homes were built before 1978 and 55% were built after 1978. Six percent of respondents
were not sure of the age of their home.
Ownership status: Owner (80%); renter (17%); other (3%).
Highest education completed: High school (49%); College (23%); Trade school (11%); Technical college (6%);
Other (11%).
Total Household Income: Less than $20,000 (6%); $20,000 to $40,000 (9%); $41,000 to $60,000 (23%);
$61,000 to $80,000 (31%); $81,000 to $100,000 (11%); Over $100,000 (11%); No response (9%).
Marital status: Married (66%); single parent with children (17%); single - living alone (6%); single –living with
a partner (9%); other (3%). Decisions about fire safety are made by self and spouse (66%); self (29%) ; other
(6%).
Gender and age groups: Respondents were male (46%); female (51%); and not recorded (3%). The household
occupants were children (22%); youth (12%); adults (64%); and seniors (3%).
Top three fire-safety information sources: Newspapers (66%); radio/TV (60%); Fire department (57%);
Children (information brought from school) (42%); Friends (28%).
Behavioural and environmental assessment
Presence of smokers in the home: A total of 18 smokers identified in the responses were distributed in single
family homes (77%); apartments (5%); mobile homes (5%); town houses (11%).
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
9
Smoke alarms and fire drills:
The distribution of homes by sources of power to smoke alarms was: battery (50%); hard-wired (17%);
combination of both hard-wired and battery (31%), unknown (3%).
There were 69 smoke alarms recorded in respondents’ homes, and 94% of these were in “working
condition” at time of the survey.
The frequency of testing smoke alarms ranged from, never (26%); once a month (9%); once in 6 months
(23%); once a year (31%); other (11%).
Reasons for “Never” testing smoke alarms were: “Never thought about it” (77%) and “Forget to test”
(11%); no response (11%).
Battery replacement frequency was never (6%); once a year (70%); every 2-5 years (18%); other (6%).
False alarms within the past 12 months: Approximately 50% of the homes experienced false alarms. Causes
were cooking fumes (81%); steam, don’t know or other (6% each). The most common responses to false
alarms were fanning the alarms (46%) and disabling alarms by removing batteries (9%).
The frequency of practicing a home fire drill were, never (78%); once in 6 months (3%); once a year
(14%); other (3%). The reasons for “never” were “Have thought about it but it’s a low priority” (25%);
“Never thought about it” (47%); “No need to, house is easy to get out” (7%); “Don’t know about fire drills”
(4%); “Don’t have time/too busy” (8%); other (8%).
Educational and ecological assessment
Risk perception
Perceptions of fire risk at home were “Low risk” (69%); “High risk” (9%); “Medium risk” (6%); “No risk”
(6%); “Not sure” (11%). There were no significant differences in the perception of fire risk between the
genders.
Enabling and reinforcing factors
The four questions that sought to evaluate both enabling and reinforcing factors appeared to support the fire
safe behaviour of testing smoke alarms once a month. The most compelling factor was a possible reduction
in fire insurance cost for “having working smoke alarms.” Other factors which can motivate the behaviour
were once a year home inspections by the fire department, receiving instructions on smoke alarm testing
from the fire department, and the legal requirement for all Alberta homes to have smoke alarms.
Predisposing factors – the TPB constructs
Appendix E, presents the measured TPB constructs and the corresponding Cronbach’s Alpha values
together with the Mean ± Standard Deviation (SD) of the individual items within each construct. The
Cronbach’s Alpha values with deleted item indicates the α value when the specific item is not used in
computation.
DISCUSSION
The key findings from an analysis of survey responses are discussed below:
 Both positive and negative behaviours in relation to home fire safety and specifically to smoke alarms were
evident from the survey responses.
On the positive side,
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
10
o
Ninety-four percent of the respondents reported that their smoke alarms were in working condition. This is
very high compared to rural homes that have experienced fires, as presented previously in this report.
o
The recommended battery replacement frequency of once per year was followed by 70% of the respondents
with battery powered smoke alarms. The promotion of the 10-year Lithium battery powered smoke alarms
may be a valid solution for the remaining 30% who selected replacement at longer time intervals or
“never.”
o
Only nine percent of the responses to false alarms involved the removal of the battery, while the majority
fanned smoke/fumes/steam away from the smoke alarms. This finding is in marked contrast to the innercity London (UK) studies, which found that occupants were motivated to disable/damage smoke alarms due
to the stressful nature of false alarms (Roberts, 2004).
o
The respondents ranked “having and maintaining smoke alarms,” high, on a seven-point scale under the
attitude, behavioural beliefs, and motivation to comply constructs.
On the negative side,
o Twenty-six percent of respondents indicated that they never test their smoke alarms. Furthermore, the
recommended frequency of testing at once a month was carried out only by nine percent of respondents.
Several factors may explain these findings. First, a lack of knowledge of why smoke alarms must be tested
at all and why once a month testing is recommended. Second, the responses indicate that this activity can
easily be forgotten or may be hindered by competing demands on time. The difficulties of “active”
involvement in safety have been recognized in the literature (Rivara, 1997a; Rivara, 1997).
o
The most significant negative finding was that 78% of respondents have never planned and practiced a fire
drill. Nearly 50% of these respondents “Never thought about it,” while another 25% “Have thought about
it, but it’s a low priority.” These results are similar to findings reported from a recent Canada-wide survey
(Maritz Research, 2006). It appears that knowledge of fire growth rates, toxic gases and other effects of
fires and the corresponding need for fire drills are not well understood by the respondents and the public in
general.
 Fire risk at home was rated as “low” (69%) and as “no risk” by another 6%. This finding comes as no surprise.
Studies show that the actual fire risk is inversely related to income level (Roberts, 1993), and this may have
influenced the respondents’ perception of a low fire risk in the present study. Seventy-six percent of the
respondents can be considered to be higher income earners, if Statistics Canada definition of low wage workers is
taken as those whose composite wage rate from all jobs was lower than $10 per hour
(http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060406/d060406b.htm). The very low incidence of home fires in the Town
of Wainwright (data not presented) also may have contributed to the perception of low risk. The consequences of
the perception of low risk may translate in to the significant lack of fire drills and smoke alarm testing as well as
the high likelihood of forgetting or being drawn to other household priorities when it is time to test smoke alarms.
The latter two behaviours are also evident in the TPB constructs, control beliefs (Mean, 2.71±1.67; 3.37±2.04)
and perceived power (Mean, 2.94 ±1.91; 3.77±2.16). A disadvantage of this perception of low risk is that these
respondents may not be receptive to fire safety messages.
 In Appendix E, the attitude measurements averaged a score of 6.41, on a seven-point scale, indicating a high
positive attitude to having smoke alarms, testing them, replacing battery once a year and replacing the unit after
10 years. Behavioural belief items also were scored high except for two items – “To make sure smoke alarms are
in ‘working condition,’ they must be tested once a month” (mean ± SD = 4.64 ± 1.79) and “In homes where pets
such as dogs, cats live smoke alarms must be tested monthly” (mean ± SD = 5.14 ± 1.82). The low mean score for
the first item may mean that respondents were not very familiar with the reasons behind monthly testing. The
second low item may not have been relevant to the respondents as this question was based on anecdotal evidence
that show people with pets are more motivated to take fire safety precautions. Most outcome evaluation items
were scored high on a seven-point scale. The low score for the question on the desirability of false alarms (mean ±
SD = 3.48 ± 1.70) indicates that false alarms are bothersome to people (Roberts, 2004). The low score for the
question related to pets (mean ± SD = 4.94 ± 1.39) may relate to the explanation proposed earlier.
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
11
 Normative beliefs were measured by asking respondents to what extent they thought significant others in their
lives would support or oppose their testing of smoke alarms once a month. On a three-point scale, they
consistently scored high indicating such support for the behaviour. High scores for two questions, related to fire
department support for testing smoke alarms, under normative beliefs, may indicate that the respondents
acknowledged their local fire department as a source of support and advice. An additional question “I feel under
pressure from the people living in my home to test smoke alarms monthly,” was omitted from the analysis of
normative beliefs, as the Cronbach’s alpha value was - 0.17, when this item was included. This question was
probably confusing to respondents. The motivation to comply had the highest Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.91 and
indicated a moderately high motivation (average mean score = 5.83) to comply with both the fire department as
well as with the wishes of others living in the home with regard to smoke alarm testing. The subjective norm
measured with only one item also received a moderately high score of 5.20 ± 1.49.
 Two items under both the control beliefs and perceived power constructs which related to the perceived presence
of two factors, “a busy life” and “competing demands on time” that can impede testing of smoke alarms monthly,
received low scores on a seven-point scale. This may indicate that the behaviour is of low priority for the
respondents who may also not know the safety significance of performing this behaviour. Perceived behavioural
control refers to people’s perception of the ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour of interest, and it is
assumed to reflect past experience as well as anticipated barriers (Ajzen, 1991). Internal consistency as measured
by two items was low (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.44) for this measure and the high mean average score of 6.1 for the
two items indicate that the respondents perceive no overall difficulty in carrying out the behaviour in spite of
factors such as a “busy life” and “competing demands on time.”
 The intention to carryout testing of smoke alarms once a month, to replace batteries once a year, and to avoid
battery removal or disconnecting the electrical supply to smoke alarms received moderately high mean scores
with proportionately larger standard deviations and a low value for Cronbach’s alpha (0.49). Therefore no
reasonable conclusions can be drawn from these measures. It is interesting to note that unlike the inner-city,
London, UK residents (Roberts, 2004) the tendency to disable smoke alarms due to false alarms was low in the
respondents in the present study.
 The above analysis of responses to questions related to the TPB indicate that further refinements are required to
transform the preliminary questionnaire to improve internal consistency for all construct measures and to use
more relevant questions based on an elicitation study. Such a study was not feasible due to time constraints. The
Cronbach’s alpha value for deleted item can be used to remove or refine items. For example, under control beliefs,
the item “If I had proof that smoke alarms do save lives, then I would test them monthly,” will be omitted from
future questionnaires as the respondents had difficulty understanding the question. It was also omitted from the
analysis, as the coefficient alpha was reduced significantly when it was included.
 Enabling and reinforcing factors, especially an economic incentive from fire insurance and more support from the
local fire department were rated as motivators to maintain smoke alarms. It appears that the Wainwright fire
department is a credible community agency in the eyes of the respondents. The TPB construct, “motivation to
comply” with fire department was also fairly high (mean ± SD = 5.8 ± 1.25).
CONCLUSIONS
The three steps in a home fire safety scheme are fire prevention, early detection of smoke/fire danger with smoke
alarms and practice of fire drills to train occupants to evacuate safely in case of a future fire emergency. Fire
statistics in Alberta and the United States indicate that one of the key deficiencies in the fire safety scheme,
especially in rural homes, is the lack of installation and maintenance of smoke alarms in working condition.
A significant proportion of respondents in this study did not test their smoke alarms monthly nor carryout fire drills
as recommended by the fire service. Perceived behavioural control in the TPB suggests there are times where,
despite best intentions to act in a certain manner, individuals feel incapable of fulfilling a planned activity because of
external factors that are beyond their direct control (Ajzen, 1991). Examples of these external influences probably
include the low ranking perception of the risk of home fires, lack of clear understanding of the purpose and the
reasons for the usually recommended once a month testing of smoke alarms or the life saving potential of fire drills.
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
12
Other interfering factors include forgetting to carry out the tasks because of a busy life or competing demands,
which override performance of these fire safety tasks.
Homes represent a unique environment where safety is in the hands of the occupants and safety practices are not
under any surveillance as in an efficiently run industrial setting. The low score given for home fire risk, indicative of
the perception of the respondents in this survey, may reflect the reality of the declining frequency of fires in the
province and the random nature of the distribution of home fires that do happen. Yet, fire hazards exist in all homes,
dependent on the right combination of causal factors for their release. It is in such circumstances that smoke alarms
and fire drills serve their purpose. However, smoke alarms require the active participation of responsible adults in
the form of monthly testing and annual replacement of batteries, to derive the intended safety benefits. The difficulty
lies in getting people to carry out such “active” steps that are potentially beneficial to them. The potential of the TPB
to predict intentions, and to understand beliefs and who influences beliefs, and also what factors are perceived as
easy or difficult in performing the desired behaviours, holds out considerable promise in guiding effective smoke
alarm interventions in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank his supervisor, Dr. Celine Farley, for her guidance and advise throughout the study,
David Zayonce, Fire Chief of the Town of Wainwright and his staff of volunteer firefighters who conducted the
survey, and support from Drs. Diana Hudson-Ekman and Reza Mohammadi at the Karolinska Institute. I am also
grateful to Dr. Peter Rothe at the University of Alberta for helpful suggestions during questionnaire construction.
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
13
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: REFERENCES
Ahrens, M. (2003). The U.S. Fire Problem Overview Report: Leading Causes And Other Patterns and Trends.
NFPA, Fire Analysis And Research Division, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, Ma 02169-7471.
Http://Fire.State.Nv.Us/Nfirs%20page_Files/U.S.%20fire%20problem%20overview.Pdf (accessed, December 22,
2005).
Ahrens, M. (2004). U.S. Experience With Smoke Alarms and Other Fire Detection/Alarm Equipment. Fire Analysis
and Research Division, National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/AlarmExSum.pdf (accessed January 02, 2006).
Ajzen, I. (1991). ‘The Theory of Planned Behaviour’, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes,
50, pp. 179-211.
Alberta Building Code 1997 (1998). National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa.
Alberta Fire Code 1997 (1998). National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa.
Alberta Fire Commissioner’s Office (2003). Fire Commissioner’s Statistical Report – 2003. Alberta Municipal
Affairs, Edmonton, Alberta.
Alberta Fire Commissioner’s Office (2005). Unpublished statistical reports. Alberta Municipal Affairs. Edmonton,
Alberta.
Alberta Fire News (2005). Fire Statistics provide a window into the past. Alberta Fire News, September 2005, Vol.
26, No. 2. http://www.municipalaffairs.gov.ab.ca/fco/pdf/05-09FireNews.pdf (accessed January 10, 2006).
Alberta Regulation 200/95. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Regulation. http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Regs/1995_200.cfm?frm_isbn=0779743903
(accessed May, 2006).
Alberta Municipal Affairs (2005). Official population list. Alberta Municipal Affairs, Municipal Services Branch,
17th Floor Commerce Place, 10155 - 102 Street Edmonton, Alberta.
http://www.municipalaffairs.gov.ab.ca/ms/pdf/2005pop.pdf (accessed February, 25, 2006).
Bamberg, S., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned behavior: The roles of
past behavior, habit, and reasoned action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 175-188.
Brubaker, R. G., & Fowler, C. (1990). Encouraging college males to perform testicular self examination: Evaluation
of a persuasive message based on the revised theory of reasoned
action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1411-1422.
CDC. Deaths resulting from residential fires and the prevalence of smoke alarms - United States 1991–1995.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1998; 47(38): 803–6.
Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners (2004). 2001 Annual Report of Fire Losses in Canada.
Fire Protection Services, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
http://www.ccfmfc.ca/stats/stats_e.html (accessed, January 27, 2006).
DiGuiseppi, C., Roberts, I., Speirs, N. (1999). Smoke alarm installation and function in inner London council
housing. Arch Dis Child, 81: 400-403.
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
14
DiGuiseppi, C., Slater, S., Roberts, I., Adams, L., Sculpher, M., & Wade, A. (1999). The "Let's Get Alarmed!"
initiative: A smoke alarm giveaway programme. Injury Prevention, 5, 177-182.
DiGuiseppi, C., Edwards, P., Godward, C., Roberts, I., & Wade, A. (2000). Urban residential fire
and flame injuries. Injury Prevention, 6, 250-254.
DiGuiseppi, C., Higgins, J.P.T. (2000). Systematic review of controlled interventions to promote smoke alarms.
Arch Dis Chil, 82: 341-348).
DiGuiseppi, C., Roberts, I., Wade, A., Sculpher, M., Edwards P., Godward, C. et al. (2002). Incidence of fires and
related injuries after giving out free smoke alarms: cluster randomized controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 325:
995-997.
Dowswell, T., Towner, E. M., Simpson, G., & Jarvis, S. N. (1996). Preventing childhood unintentional injuries-what works? A literature review. Injury Prevention, 2, 140-149.
England Journal of Medicine, 337(8), 543-547.
Farley, C. (2003). The Promotion of Safe Behaviours at the Community Level. Evaluation of a Bicycle HelmetWearing Campaign among 5- to 12- Year-Old Children. Karolinska Institutet, Department of Public Health
Sciences, Division of Social Medicine, SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden.
The Fire Marshal’s Public Fire Safety Council, Ontario (2006). Smoke alarm fact sheet.
http://www.firesafetycouncil.com/english/pubsafet/safact.htm (accessed, February 10, 2006).
Fire Protection Handbook (2003). Vol. II. Edited by, Arthur E. Cote. NFPA, Quincy, MA.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. London: Prentice Hall.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2005). Theory-based behavior change interventions: Comments on Hobbis and Sutton.
Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 27-31.
Fishbein, M., Hennessy, M., Kamb, M., Bolan, G. A., Hoxworth, T., Iatesta, M., Rhodes, F., Zenilman, J. M., &
Project Respect Study Group. (2001). Using intervention theory to model factors influencing behavior change:
Project RESPECT. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 24, 363-384.
Francis, J.J., Eccles, M.P., Johnstone, M., et al (2002). Constructing Questionnaires based on the Theory of Planned
Behaviour: A Manual for Health Services Researchers. Centre for Health Services Research, University of
Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K., Lewis, F.M. (2002). Health Behaviour and Health Education: Theory, Research, and
Practice. 3rd edition. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Gorman, R.L., Charney, E., Holtzman, N.A., Roberts, K.B. (1985). A successful city-wide smoke detector giveaway
program. Pediatrics, 75(1):14-18
Green, L.W. & Kreuter, M. (1991). Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and Environmental Approach, 2nd
edition, Mayfield Publishing Co, Mountain View, CA.
Hall, J.R. Jr. (2005). Fire in the U.S. and The United Kingdom. Fire Analysis and Research Division, National Fire
Protection Association. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/os.usvsuk.pdf (accessed December 15, 2005).
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
15
Hall, J.R. Jr. (2005). Fire in the U.S. and Canada (2005). National Fire Protection Association, One-Stop Data
Shop, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471. http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/osuscanada.pdf
(accessed January 27, 2006).
Holborn, P.P.G. (2001). Fire Deaths in London, 1996-2000, London Fire Brigade, South Bank University.
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/fire_safety/media/RFL_fatal_fires_summary.pdf) (accessed, January 15, 2006).
Istre, G.R., McCoy, M.A., Osborn, L., Barnard, J.J., Bolton, A. (2001). Deaths and injuries from house fires. New
England Journal of Medicine, 344:1911–16.
Karter, M.J. Jr. (2005). Fire Loss In The United States During 2004. Full Report. Fire Analysis and Research
Division, National Fire Protection Association. One-Stop Data Shop, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 021697471.
Mallonee, S., Istre, G.R., Rosenberg M., et al. (1996). Surveillance and the prevention of residential fire injuries.
New England Journal of Medicine, 3335:27-31.
Maritz Research (2006). Results from a survey, commissioned by Duracell and the Canada Safety Council. The
survey was conducted on April 13 to 22, 2006 across Canada by telephone among a representative sample of 1,000
Canadians, eighteen years of age and older. The results are accurate to within +/- 3.10 % 19 times out of 20.
(http://www.maritzresearch.com)
National Fire Protection Association (1999). NFPA 72 – National Fire Alarm Code (1999).
National Fire Protection Association (2002). Special Data Information Package: Rural Fires Studies. One-Stop Data
Shop, Fire Analysis And Research, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, Ma 02269-9101.).
National Fire Protection Association – website (2006). www.nfpa.org.
Nutbeam, D., Harris, E. (2004). Theory in a Nutshell: A practical guide to health promotion theories. 2nd edition.
The McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd NSW.
Pless, B. (2004). Putting public health evidence into practice: increasing the prevalence of working smoke alarms in
disadvantaged inner city housing Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58:280-285.
Potvin, L. & Eisner, K. (1995). Health promotion -- a family affair. The Vanier Institute of the Family.
http://www.cfc-efc.ca/docs/vanif/00001_en.htm (accessed January 31, 2006).
Quine, L., Rutter, D., & Arnold, L. (2001). Persuading school-age cyclists to use safety helmets: Effectiveness of an
intervention based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour. BritishJournal of Health Psychology, 6, 327-345.
Rivara, F. P., Grossman, D. C., & Peter, C. (1997a). Injury prevention: First of two parts. New
England Journal of Medicine, 337(8), 543-547.
Rivara, F.P., Grossman, F.P., Cummings, P. (1997). Injury Prevention: Second of two parts. New England Journal
of Medicine, 337: 613-618.
Roberts I, Power C. (1993). Does the decline in child injury mortality vary by social class? A comparison of class
specific mortality in 1981 and 1991. BMJ ;313:784–6.
Roberts, I. (1996). Smoke alarm use: national prevalence and household predictors. Injury Prevention, 2; 263-5.
Roberts, I., and DiGuiseppi, C. (1999). Smoke alarms, fire deaths, and randomized controlled trials. Injury
Prevention;5:244-245
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
16
Roberts, H. K., Curtis, K., Liabo, K., Rowland, D., DiGuiseppi, C., and Roberts, I. (2004). Putting public health
evidence into practice: increasing the prevalence of working smoke alarms in disadvantaged inner city housing.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58:280-285.
Rowland, D, DiGuiseppi, C., Roberts, I., Curtis, K., Roberts, H., Ginnelly, L., et al. (2002). Prevalence of working
smoke alarms in local authority inner city housing: randomized controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 325: 9981001.
Runyan, C. W., Bangdiwala, S. I., Linzer, M. A., Sacks, J. J., & Butts, J. (1992). Risk factors for fatal residential
fires. New England Journal of Medicine, 327(12), 859-863.
Safety Codes Act of Alberta (1994). http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Acts/S01.cfm?frm_isbn=0779730313
(accessed May, 2006).
Shaw, K.N., McCormick, M.C., Kustra, S.L., Ruddy, R.M., Casey, R.D. (1988). Correlates of reported smoke
detector usage in an inner-city population: participants in a smoke detector give-away program. Am J Public Health,
78(6): 650-653.
Statistics Canada. (1998). Household facilities by income and other characteristics, 1997. Cat. No. 13-218-XPB.
Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Warda, L., Tenenbein, M., & Moffatt, M. E. K. (1999). House fire injury prevention update. Part 2. A review of the
effectiveness of preventive interventions. Injury Prevention, 5(3), 217-225.
Wijayasinghe, M. (1997). Rural Albertans face higher risks from fires. Alberta Fire News, November, 1997.
Vol.18., No.2.
Wijayasinghe, M. (1999). Fire losses on First Nations reserves in Alberta. Alberta Fire News, May 1998, Vol.19.
No.1.
Wijayasinghe, M. (2004). Making sense of smoke alarm data and home fire deaths. Alberta Fire News, August
2004, Vol. 25. No.2.
Wijayasinghe, M. (2005). A simplified risk assessment for the province of Alberta, with a view to identify priorities
for fire prevention and public education programs. Fire Commissioner’s Office, Alberta Municipal Affairs,
Edmonton, Alberta (unpublished).
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
17
APPENDIX B: Smoke Alarms
A smoke alarm is a battery operated or electrically connected device
that senses the presence of visible or invisible particles produced by
combustion and that is designed to sound an alarm. The installation of
smoke alarms and subsequent regular maintenance to ensure they are
functional has been recognized and recommended and as an effective
preventive strategy to reduce a high proportion of fire-related injuries
and deaths in homes (Runyan, 1992; Dowswell, 1996; Roberts, 1999;
Warda, 1999; National Fire Protection Association: NFPA 72 –
National Fire Alarm Code, 1999). According to NFPA 72, Chapter 8,
the acceptable minimum is the installation of smoke alarms on every
level of a home, including the basement, making sure that there is an
alarm outside every separate sleeping area. New homes are required to
have a smoke alarm in every sleeping room and all smoke alarms must
be inter-connected so that all units sound if one is activated.
Smoke alarms either of the ionization or photoelectric detector (smoke
sensing mechanism) type are considered to provide adequate warning
to the occupants for most residential fires. Ionization detectors respond
slightly faster to open flaming fires than photoelectric detectors.
Conversely, the photoelectric detectors respond faster to smouldering
fires. Since residential occupancies experience both flaming and
smouldering fires, an extra margin of safety might be achieved if the
home is equipped with each detector type. The power source for a
smoke alarm could be a battery, household electricity or household
electricity with a battery back up. Some of the features available in
newer smoke alarms include a hush-button feature to silence false
alarms, a lithium battery with a ten-year life span. For the hearing
impaired, a remote alarm may sound in a neighbour’s home or some
detectors connected to bed vibrators, flashing strobes or other tactile
devices (National Fire Protection Association Hand Book, 2003). A
recent development in smoke alarm technology is the alarm feature
coupled with a human-voice capability.
Purchase:
 Smoke alarms conforming to
CAN/ULC-S531 standard.
Installation:
 At least one smoke alarm on each
level of the home and outside all
sleeping areas.
Maintenance:
 Test smoke alarm monthly.
 Ensure constant power supply.
 Replace battery once/year, or
ensure connection to household
electricity.
 Install a new battery if an alarm
“chirps,” low-battery warning.
 Replace all smoke alarms when
they are 10 years old.
Installation and maintenance of a
battery operated smoke alarm.
Once a smoke alarm, approved and labeled by a recognized testing
laboratory is purchased, it needs to be installed in a proper location according to manufacturer’s instructions. For
example, locating a smoke alarm close to the kitchen may set off false alarms from cooking vapours. A common
negative behaviour, in response to such false alarms, is the removal of battery or disconnecting the power supply to
disable the smoke alarm.
Smoke alarms being electronic devices can fail over time. To reduce the period of time that a smoke alarm could be
out of service because of failure, the unit that has failed can be identified by periodic testing and then replaced.
Failure to do so can leave the occupants unprotected. The longer the testing interval, the longer is the period of
potentially no protection. As smoke alarms age and deteriorate, the potential for nuisance alarms increases. The
general recommendation is that smoke alarms be tested once a month, according to manufacturer’s instructions
(National Fire Protection Association – website, 2006). Based upon a three percent per year failure rate, NFPA 72
recommends that single station smoke alarms be replaced every 10 years from the date of installation (Fire
Protection Handbook, 2003).
The life span of a 9-volt battery commonly used to power smoke alarms is about one year. When the battery power
is low, a built-in feature of the alarm makes a "chirping" sound warning the householder to replace the battery. In an
effort to remind the public to replace smoke alarm batteries once a year, the fire service in North America has
implemented a “Change your clock: Change your battery campaign” to schedule battery replacements for the same
day that clocks are changed from daylight savings time to standard time in the fall. A ten-year non-replaceable
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
18
lithium battery, which spares people from changing a battery each year has been available on the market for some
time.
Although there is no specific recommendation for one particular type of smoke alarm, it is generally understood that
both types of smoke alarms – ionization or photoelectric and powered by battery or household electricity – are
acceptable and perform effectively provided they are installed and maintained correctly. The major requirement
across Canada is that smoke alarms must conform to the Underwriters Laboratories of Canada standard CAN/ULCS531. In addition, the hush or silence feature and the long-life lithium batteries as a power source have been noted
as desirable features (Fire Marshal’s Public Fire Safety Council, 2006; Rowland, 2002).
A tenet of injury prevention is that passive strategies (which work automatically, and provide automatic protection
independent of any individual behaviour) are most likely to result in a sustained decrease in injuries (Rivara, 1997a;
Rivara, 1997). Active strategies are those, which require people to change their behaviour, and to remember to
repeat this new behaviour every time they are exposed to risk. The basic steps in achieving the full benefit of smoke
alarms are illustrated in the above Figure. A number of “active” human intervention steps are required to ensure
smoke alarms will provide the early warning protective function for which they are designed. Thus, they can be
considered “passive” protective devices only during periods when they are maintained in a functional state. A failure
to carry out any of the “active” steps will negate the value of a smoke alarm. This lack of appropriate behaviour at
each step can be influenced by a number of personal, environmental, legislative and socio-economic factors.
APPENDIX C: Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and the PRECEDE-PROCEED model
A brief description of the constructs in the TPB and their measurement, and the PRECEDE-PROCEED model are
provided below:
Behaviour: The behaviour of interest is defined in terms of its Target, Action, Context, and Time (TACT) elements.
In relation to this study, the target is the rural Albertan, the action is the purchase, installation and maintenance of
smoke alarms, the context is the individual’s home, and the time is when the behaviour is performed.
Behavioural intention is assumed to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour, and to guide behaviour in a
controlled and deliberate fashion (Ajzen, 1980; 1991). It can be explained as the individual’s intention to perform a
given behaviour. Intentions are indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of an effort they are
planning to exert, in order to perform the behaviour Ajzen (1991). In other words, intentions are assumed to capture
the motivational factors that influence a behaviour. It is also assumed that the stronger the intention to perform a
behaviour, the more likely it will be performed. Thus, although there is not a perfect relationship between
behavioural intention and actual behaviour, intention can be used as a proximal measure of behaviour. This
observation was one of the most important contributions of the TPB model in comparison with previous models of
the attitude-behaviour relationship. Thus, the variables in this model can be used to determine the effectiveness of
implementation interventions even if there is not a readily available measure of actual behaviour (Francis, 2002).
Attitude towards behaviour is determined by the individual’s beliefs about outcomes or attributes of performing
the behaviour (behavioural beliefs) weighted by evaluations of those outcomes or attributes. A behavioural belief
can be defined as a person’s belief that the behaviour leads to certain outcomes. The evaluation is the value attached
to a behavioural outcome. Thus, a person with strong beliefs that positively valued outcomes will occur by
performing the behaviour will have a positive attitude to the behaviour, and vice versa. According to Ajzen (1991),
when attitudes towards a behaviour are examined, each belief is seen to link the behaviour to a certain outcome (or
attribute). Since the outcomes are already valued positively or negatively, an individual automatically and
simultaneously acquires an attitude toward the behaviour. In this way individuals favour behaviours believed to
yield desirable consequences and vice versa. Fishbein demonstrated that attitude toward a behaviour (for example,
maintaining a smoke alarm in a functional state) is a much better predictor of that behaviour than attitude toward the
target or object (for example, smoke alarm) at which the behaviour is directed (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). As shown
in the equation below, the strength of each salient belief (b) is multiplied by the subjective evaluation (e) of the
belief’s outcome/attribute and the resulting products are summed over the n salient beliefs to derive a person’s
attitude A:
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
19
A α ∑ biei
The subjective norm is determined by an individual’s normative beliefs, whether important people in his/her life
approve or disapprove the performance of the behaviour, weighted by his or her motivation to comply with their
expectations. For example, children can influence their parents in health-positive ways. School-based prevention
campaigns have successfully influenced parents through their children – awakening their interest in sports, for
example (Potvin and Eisner, 1995). The strength of each normative belief (n) is multiplied by the person’s
motivation to comply (m) with the referent in question, and the subjective norm (SN) is directly proportional to the
sum of the resulting products across the n salient referents, as below:
SN α ∑ nimi
Perceived behavioural control is the extent to which a person feels able to enact the behaviour. It is determined by
control beliefs regarding the presence or absence of facilitators and barriers to behavioural performance, weighted
by the perceived power or impact of each factor to facilitate or inhibit the behaviour. Therefore, perceived
behavioural control refers to people’s perception of the ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour of interest,
and it is assumed to reflect past experience as well as anticipated barriers. The perceived behavioural control has
been considered a significant construct in the TPB, so much so that the performance of a behaviour is considered a
joint function of intentions and perceived behavioural control (Ajzen I (1991). Each control belief (c) is multiplied
by the perceived power (p) of the particular control factor to facilitate or inhibit performance of the behavior, and
the resulting products are summed across the n salient control beliefs to produce the perception of behavioural
control (PBC).
PBC α ∑ pici
The TPB can predict the occurrence of a specific behaviour provided that the behaviour is intentional. The theory
postulates that although people can hold great many beliefs about a given behaviour, they can attend to only a
relatively small number at any given moment. It is these salient beliefs that are considered to be the prevailing
determinants of a person’s intentions and actions (Ajzen, 1991). The relative weights of the three factors – attitude
toward the behaviour, subjective norm and the perceived behavioural control – in determining intention can vary for
different behaviours and populations (Francis, 2002). The interventions based on the TPB can target behavioural,
normative, and / or control beliefs in an effort to produce positive intentions among participants who, prior to the
intervention, either did not contemplate performing the behavior or were disinclined to do so (Fishbein, 2005). The
TPB also makes no reference to various factors such as personality characteristics, demographic variables (age,
gender, race, etc.) and such factors as social role, status, socialization, intelligence, and kinship patterns (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1980). These “external variables” are assumed to have an effect on behaviour only to the extent that they
influence the determinants of behaviour.
The PRECEDE-PROCEED model is a way to apply theories of health behaviour so that the most suitable
intervention strategies can be identified and implemented. The model can be seen as a road map and theories as the
specific directions to a destination (Glanz et al., 2002). The acronym PRECEDE stands for Predisposing,
Reinforcing, and Enabling Constructs in Educational/Environmental Diagnosis and Evaluation. PROCEED stands
for Policy, Regulatory, and Organizational Constructs in Educational and Environmental Development. As shown in
Figure below, the model starts with the goal of quality of life and ends with the health promotion program. There are
nine phases in the model; the first five involve diagnosis or needs assessment and the last four involve
implementation and evaluation (Green and Kreuter, 1991). The framework specifies a needs assessment phase in
which the scope and nature of the behaviour is documented. Also, factors that predispose or reinforce individuals to
behave in certain ways are documented so that these can be used in the implementation phases. Once program
implementers are satisfied that they have a complete picture of the factors that influence the behaviour, they can
construct interventions to promote health.
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
20
The PRECEDE and PROCEED work together, providing a continuous series of steps in the planning,
implementation, and evaluation process. The model also proposes three types of evaluations of the intervention:
process evaluation, impact evaluation, and outcome evaluation. The PRECEDE framework takes in to account the
multiple factors that influence health status and helps program planner to select a highly focused subset of those
factors as targets for intervention (Farley, 2003). In relation to this study, phase 4 can be considered the most
relevant as it groups the factors that can influence the behaviour of interest. The three broad groupings are
predisposing factors (a person’s/population’s knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, and perceptions that help or
hinder motivation to change), reinforcing factors (rewards from others after adoption of behaviour may encourage or
discourage continuation of behaviour) and enabling factors (those skills, resources, programs or services, or barriers
that can help or hinder the behavioural/environmental changes). The predisposing factors can be related to the
constructs of the TPB identified to have the most influence on the intention to perform the desired behaviour. In
addition to the TPB, other theories can also be integrated in to one or more components of the model. The scope of
the present study does not permit further exploration of this aspect.
The PRECEDE-PROCEED Model (Source: Green and Kreuter, 1999, p. 34).
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
21
APPENDIX D: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HOMES WITH AT LEAST ONE SMOKE ALARM
Wainwright Fire Department
Fire Commissioner’s Office
UNDERSTANDING SMOKE ALARM USAGE
IN RURAL ALBERTA HOMES:
YOUR VIEWS AND BELIEFS
Questionnaire Survey
This questionnaire is for people who have at least one smoke alarm(s) in their homes
Thank you for participating and sharing your thoughts on fire safety and smoke alarms. Your
information is very important to help us understand how the fire service and others can help
Albertans have fire safe homes.





Please be assured that all information you provide will be treated as confidential. No personal information will be
revealed.
It will take about 15 minutes to half-an-hour to complete this questionnaire.
If you are uncomfortable answering any question, just ignore it and move to the next one.
If you have any questions about this questionnaire, please call the Assistant Fire
Commissioner, Mahendra Wijayasinghe by dialling 310-0000 and making a toll-free call
to (780) 415-0546 (during working hours: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.).
Please give the completed questionnaire to your fire department.
Thank you for participating in this survey.
This questionnaire was filled by (please check (√ ) one answer below):
 An adult resident of the M.D. of Wainwright
 Wainwright Fire Department (with the answers solicited from an adult resident of the
M.D. of Wainwright)
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
22
Section 1. The purpose of this section is to find out about you and your home.
Please tick the box or fill the blanks to indicate your answer.
1. My gender is:
Male
Female
2. I was born in the year:
19
3. My marital status is (please select one):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
4. The highest education I have
formally completed is (please select one):
Married:
Widowed:
Single parent with children:
Single (living alone):
Single living with a partner:
Other (please describe): _____________
5. The total income of all persons
in my household is (please select one):
1.
2.
3.
4.
Less than $20,000:
$20,000 to $40,000:
$41,000 to $60,000:
$61,000 to $80,000:
5. $81,000 to $100,000:
6. Over $100,000:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
6.
Junior high or less:
High-school:
College:
Trade school:
Technical college:
___
University:
Other (please describe): ____________
The type of home in which I live, is a
(please select one):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Single family house:
Apartment:
Mobile home:
Town house:
Condominium:
6. Other (please describe): ______________
7. The postal code for my home is: _ _ _ _ _ _
8. The home in which I live was built
(please select one):
1.
2.
3.
Before 1978:
After 1978:
Not sure:
9. In the home in which I live, I am the
(please select one):
1.
2.
3.
Owner:
Renter:
Other (please describe): _____________
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
23
10. Number of persons permanently living in my home, including myself, are (please write the number
on the line):
1. Children (0 to 11 years): ____
2. Youth (12 to 17 years): ____
3. Adults (18 to 64 years): ____
4. Seniors (65 and over): ____
11. The number of smokers living in my home, including myself, are (please write the number): ___
12. Most decisions about fire safety in my home are made by:
1. Myself:
2. Myself and my spouse or partner:
3. Other (please describe): _________________________________
Section 2. In this section, please tell us about smoke alarms in your home.
1. How many smoke alarms do you have in
your home? (select only one):
1. One:
2. Two:
3. Three or more:
2. Smoke alarms in your home are: (select only
one):
1. Battery operated:
2. Hard-wired (connected to household
electricity):
3. Both 1 and 2:
4. Not sure:
When tested the
smoke alarm beeped:
3. Are your smoke alarms in “working
condition” at the present time?
Smoke alarm #1:
Yes: ; No:
To check if they are in “working
condition,” please press the test button on
each smoke alarm and record if they
beeped or not.
Smoke alarm #2:
Yes: ; No:
Also, please find why any smoke alarm did
not beep when tested and record reason.
Smoke alarm #3:
Yes: ; No:
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
If No, what is the reason?
No battery:
Dead battery:
Electricity disconnected:
Smoke alarm too old:
Other: ____________:
No battery:
Dead battery:
Electricity disconnected:
Smoke alarm too old:
Other: ____________:
No battery:
Dead battery:
Electricity disconnected:
Smoke alarm too old:
Other: ____________:
24
4. If the smoke alarms in your home are battery operated, how often do you replace the battery?
(select only one):
1. Never:
2. Once a year or when alarm sounds “low-battery signal”:
3. Once every two to five years:
4. Other (please describe): _____________________________
5. How often do you test smoke alarms in your
home? (select only one):
1. Never:
2. Once a month:
3. Once every six-months:
4. Once a year:
5. Other (please describe): ____________
6. If answer to question 5 is “Never,” then why
don’t you test smoke alarms in your home?
(select only one):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
I don’t know why testing is needed:
It is not necessary:
Don’t want to do it:
Never thought about it:
Don’t know how to test:
Forget to test:
Testing is a stressful experience:
Physically unable to test:
Other (please describe):
____________
..______
7. In the past 12 months, did any of your smoke
alarms give false alarm(s)? (select one):
Yes:
; No:
8. If Yes, what were the reasons? (you may
select more than one)
1. Cooking fumes:
2. Steam from the bath room:
3. Smoke from a person smoking:
4. Low battery signal:
5. Candle smoke:
6. Don’t know:
7. Other cause: ___________________
..______
9. What was your first action when smoke
alarm(s) went off? (you may select more than
one)
1. Fanned the smoke away to silence alarm:
2. Removed battery from smoke alarm:
3. Disconnected electricity to smoke alarm:
4. Moved smoke alarm to another location to
reduce false alarms:
5. Called the fire department:
6. Did nothing:
7. Other: (please describe): ____________
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
25
Section 3. In this section, we want to find out your understanding about fire risk.
Please tick the box to select the answer that best describes your experience.
1. In a typical year, how often do you practice a
fire drill in your home? (please select one):
1. Never:
2. Once every six-months:
3. Once a year:
4. Other (please describe): _______
3. In your opinion, what is the risk of you
becoming involved with a dangerous fire in
your home? (please select one):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
High risk:
Medium risk:
Low risk:
No risk:
Not sure:
2. If answer to Question 1 is “Never,” what is the reason
for not practicing a fire drill (please select one):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
4. Please select, what you think are, the top 3 causes of
deadly home fires in Alberta (select only three):
1.
2.
3.
Candles:
Smoking:
Home heating (space heaters, fire places, etc.):
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Cooking:
Barbecues:
Arson:
Children playing with fire:
Electrical:
5. Please select your top 3 sources of information
about home fire safety:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Have thought about it, but it’s a low priority:
Never thought about it:
No need to, home is easy to get out:
Don’t know how to plan or practice a fire drill:
Don’t have time/too busy:
Other (please describe): _____________________
Newspapers:
Radio/TV:
Internet:
Children (information brought from school):
Family members (other than children):
Friends:
Clergy, priest, pastor, spiritual leader:
Fire department (programs, pamphlets, etc.):
Family doctor or local health unit:
Don’t receive any information:
Other: (please describe): __________________
6. Please select, what you think are, the top five
safety concerns in your home from the list
below, using numbers between 1 (highest
concern) to 5 (lowest concern):
Injury from home repair projects: __
Burns: # __
Poisoning: #__
Fires: #__
Electrocution: #__
Trips, slips and falls: #__
Choking: #__
Injury from household activities (cooking,
cleaning, etc.): #__
Other (please describe) ___________: #__
Other (please describe) ___________: #__
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
26
Section 4. The purpose of the following questions is to find out about your views and beliefs
about smoke alarms in your home. There are no right or wrong answers. Some questions and
statements are very similar.
PLEASE TICK BOX CORRESPONDING TO THE NUMBER that best describes what you
think or your experience in relation to smoke alarms in your home.
Having smoke alarms in my home is…
Strongly
Disagree
1
Strongly
Agree
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. The safe thing to do for the people
living in my home
2. A responsible action on my part
3. Doing something positive for the
people living in my home
4. Of no value for the safety of
people living in my home
5. A low priority for me
6. Stressful due to false alarms
Testing smoke alarms in my home, once a month, will…
Strongly
Disagree
1
Strongly
Agree
2
3
4
5
6
7
7. Be a good idea
8. Make people living in my home
feel safe from fires
9. Make sure that smoke alarms
are in “working condition”
10. Be a source of stress (from the
noise of the alarm)
11. Be a physically demanding task
for me to do
12. Take me away from other more
important household activities
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
27
Please read each statement below and tick a box to indicate your answer…
Strongly
Disagree
1
Strongly
Agree
2
3
4
5
6
7
13. To make sure smoke alarms are in “working
condition” they must be tested once a month
14. To make sure smoke alarms are in “working
condition” batteries must be replaced once a year
or as needed
15. In homes where the elderly (>65 years) live
smoke alarms should be tested monthly
16. In homes where young children live smoke
alarms should be tested monthly
17. In homes where smokers live smoke alarms
should be tested monthly
18. In homes where the pets such as dogs, cats live
smoke alarms should be tested monthly
19. The following people would be for, neutral or against you testing smoke alarms in your home monthly:
For
Neutral
Against
Spouse/partner
Family/household members
Fire department
Other (please describe):
Please read each statement below and tick a box to indicate your answer…
Strongly
Disagree
1
Strongly
Agree
2
3
4
5
6
7
20. Most people important to me think I should test
smoke alarms in my home monthly
21. My fire department thinks I should test smoke
alarms in my home monthly
22. People living in my home think I should test
smoke alarms monthly to check if they are in
“working condition”
23. I feel under pressure from the people living in my
home to test smoke alarms monthly
24. If I had proof that smoke alarms do save lives,
then I would test them monthly
25. Smoke alarms in “working condition” will warn
the people living in my home to escape quickly
from a dangerous fire
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
28
Please read each statement below and tick a box to indicate your answer…
Strongly
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
Strongly
Agree
7
6
Most
Likely
7
26. I may easily forget to test smoke alarms once
a month because I have a busy life
27. Other competing demands on my time at
home can prevent me from testing smoke
alarms once a month
28. Instructions on testing smoke alarms is
difficult for me to understand
29. Using a ladder or other device to test smoke
alarms on ceiling every month is very
difficult for me
Please read each statement below and tick a box to indicate your answer…
Most
Unlikely
1
2
3
4
5
30. Doing what my fire department thinks I
should do for the fire safety in my home (test
and maintain smoke alarms) is very
important to me
31. I would listen to people living in my home
and take action to test smoke alarms in my
home
32. If I have to, I can ask someone to help me
test smoke alarms in my home
33. If I have to, I can pay someone to test smoke
alarms in my home
34. Whether or not I test smoke alarms in my
home once a month is entirely up to me
35. If I want to, I can have a method to remind
myself to test smoke alarms once a month
36. I can overcome any problem that may
prevent me from testing smoke alarms in my
home once a month
37. I expect to test smoke alarms in my home
once a month to make sure they are in
working condition
38. I plan to replace smoke alarm batteries once
a year or as needed
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
29
Please read each statement below and tick a box to indicate your answer…
1
39. How likely are you to remove
battery or disconnect the
electricity from a smoke alarm,
if false alarms happen?
2
3
4
5 6
7
Very
Likely
Very
Unlikely
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Beneficial
Harmful
Very
Likely
Very
Unlikely
Very
Easy
Very
Difficult
Very
Easy
Very
Difficult
Definitely
Yes
Definitely
Not
46. For me or for my family, false
alarms from smoke alarms
are…
Extremely
Desirable
Extremely
Undesirable
47. Having to test smoke alarms in
my home once a month will be
stressful
Very
Likely
Very
Unlikely
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Wise
Foolish
40. Testing smoke alarms once a
month is a task that could be
forgotten because I have a
busy life
41. Testing smoke alarms once a
month to make sure they are in
working condition would be
42. Other competing demands on
my time at home can prevent
me from testing smoke alarms
once a month
43. For me, the testing of smoke
alarms in my home once a
month is …
44. Having to replace smoke alarm
batteries once a year is
45. I intend to test smoke alarms in
my home once a month
48. Proof that smoke alarms
protect people from dangerous
home fires, will encourage me
to test them monthly
49. Making the people living in
my home feel safe from fires is
important to me
50. Replacing smoke alarms older
than 10 years is …
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
30
Please read each statement below and tick a box to indicate your answer…
Less
Likely
(to test smoke
alarms once a
month)
1
More
Likely
(to test smoke
alarms once a
month)
2
3
4
5
6
7
51. The time spent on testing
smoke alarms makes me:
52. If I have young children at
home, I am …
53. If people over 65 years
live in my home, I am …
54. If the fire department
inspects my home once a
year, I am…
55. If my fire insurance cost is
reduced, for having smoke
alarms in “working
condition,” I am...
56. If there are smokers living
in my home, I am …
57. If I receive advice on
smoke alarm testing from
the fire department, I am…
58. If there were pets
(dogs/cats/etc.) living in
my home, I am …
59. The legal requirement for
all Alberta homes to have
smoke alarms, makes me:
If you have any comments about this questionnaire, or about any aspect of smoke alarms,
please record them here:
Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire. Your help with this survey is greatly
appreciated. Please return your completed questionnaire to the Wainwright Fire Department.
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
31
APPENDIX E: Mean, Standard Deviation and Cronbach’s Alpha values for Theory of Planned
Behaviour constructs
Attitude (N=32): Raw Cronbach’s Alpha =0.78 (scale = 1 to 7)
Having smoke alarms in my home is…

A responsible action on my part

Doing something positive for the people -living in my home

A low priority for me

Testing smoke alarms in my home, once a month, will…Be a good idea
Testing smoke alarms once a month to make sure they are in working condition would
be…Beneficial/Harmful
For me, the testing of smoke alarms in my home once a month is…Very Easy/Difficult
Mean ± SD (α)*
Having to replace smoke alarm batteries once a year is… Very Easy/Difficult
Replacing smoke alarms older than 10 years is …Very Wise/Unwise
6.37 ± 1.28 (0.72)
6.71 ± 0.85 (0.74)
Behavioural Beliefs (N=34): Raw Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.76 (scale = 1 to 7)
Having smoke alarms in my home is…

The safe thing to do for the people living in my home

Of no value for the safety of people living in my home

Stressful due to false alarms
Testing smoke alarms in my home, once a month, will

Make people living in my home feel safe from fires

Make sure that smoke alarms are in “working condition”

Be a source of stress (from the noise of the alarm)

Be a physically demanding task for me to do

Take me away from other more important household activities
To make sure smoke alarms are in “working condition” they must be tested once a
month…Strongly Disagree/Agree
To make sure smoke alarms are in “working condition” batteries must be replaced once a year or
as needed…Strongly Disagree/Agree
In homes where the elderly (>65 years) live smoke alarms should be tested monthly…Strongly
Disagree/Agree
In homes where young children live smoke alarms should be tested monthly…Strongly
Disagree/Agree
Mean ± SD (α)*
In homes where smokers live smoke alarms should be tested monthly…Strongly Disagree/Agree
In homes where the pets such as dogs, cats live smoke alarms should be tested monthly…Strongly
Disagree/Agree
Outcome Evaluation: Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.53 (N=31) (scale = 1 to 7)
Smoke alarms in “working condition” will warn the people living in my home to escape quickly
from a dangerous fire…Strongly Disagree/Agree
For me or for my family, false alarms from smoke alarms are…Extremely Desirable/Undesirable
Having to test smoke alarms in my home once a month will be stressful…Very Likely/Unlikely
Making the people living in my home feel safe from fires is important to me…Strongly
Agree/Disagree
Less/More Likely to test smoke alarms once a month
 The time spent on testing smoke alarms makes me…
 If I have young children at home, I am
 If people over 65 years live in my home, I am
 If there are smokers living in my home, I am
 If there were pets (dogs/cats/etc.) living in my home, I am
6.62 ± 0.94
6.84 ± 0.51
6.53 ± 0.94
6.28 ± 1.25
(0.81)
(0.75)
(0.76)
(0.78)
6.37 ± 1.18 (0.71)
5.56 ± 1.81 (0.78)
6.82 ± 0.62 (0.75)
6.32 ± 1.68 (0.73)
6.17 ± 1.60 (0.75)
6.17 ± 1.33 (0.74)
6.82 ± 0.52 (0.76)
5.79 ± 1.95 (0.78)
6.32 ± 1.38 (0.77)
6.20 ± 1.32 (0.74)
4.64 ± 1.79 (0.73)
6.32 ± 1.17 (0.75)
5.79 ± 1.53 (0.72)
5.88 ± 1.59 (0.73)
5.94 ± 1.66 (0.74)
5.14 ± 1.82 (0.74)
Mean ± SD (α)*
6.19 ± 1.68 (0.60)
3.48 ± 1.70 (0.60)
6.29 ± 1.60 (0.57)
6.71 ± 0.82 (0.48)
5.16 ± 1.34 (0.49)
6.19 ± 0.95 (0.42)
5.87 ± 1.15 (0.43)
5.94 ± 1.18 (0.35)
4.94 ± 1.39 (0.48)
(α)* = Cronbach’s Alpha with deleted item
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
32
APPENDIX E: Continued…
Normative Beliefs: Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.54 (N=25) (scale = see below)
Who would be for, neutral or against you testing smoke alarms in your home monthly?
 Spouse/partner (scale = 1 to 3)
 Family/household (scale = 1 to 3)
 Fire department (scale = 1 to 3)
My fire department thinks I should test smoke alarms in my home monthly…Strongly
Disagree/Agree (scale = 1 to 7)
People living in my home think I should test smoke alarms monthly to check if they are in
“working condition” …Strongly Disagree/Agree (scale = 1 to 7)
Mean ± SD (α)*
Motivation to Comply Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.91 (N=35) (scale = 1 to 7)
Doing what my fire department thinks I should do for the fire safety in my home (test and
maintain smoke alarms) is very important to me…Most Unlikely/Likely
I would listen to people living in my home and take action to test smoke alarms in my
home…Most Unlikely/Likely
Mean ± SD
Subjective Norm: Cronbach’s Alpha = Not/Applicable (N=34) (scale = 1 to 7)
Most people important to me think I should test smoke alarms in my home monthly…Strongly
Disagree/Agree
Mean ± SD
Control Beliefs: Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.63 (N=35) (scale = 1 to 7)
I may easily forget to test smoke alarms once a month because I have a busy life…Strongly
Disagree/Agree
Other competing demands on my time at home can prevent me from testing smoke alarms once a
month…Strongly Disagree/Agree
Mean ± SD (α)*
Instructions on testing smoke alarms is difficult for me to understand…Strongly Disagree/Agree
Using a ladder or other device to test smoke alarms on ceiling every month is very difficult for
me…Strongly Disagree/Agree
2.80 ± 0.41 (0.47)
2.64 ± 0.49 (0.38)
2.92 ± 0.28 (0.56)
6.24 ± 1.39 (0.50)
4.92 ± 1.96 (0.47)
5.80 ± 1.25
5.86 ± 1.28
5.20 ± 1.49
2.71 ± 1.67 (0.59)
3.37 ± 2.04 (0.53)
6.34 ± 1.51 (0.56)
5.82 ± 1.99 (0.57)
Perceived Power: Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.36 (N=35) (scale = 1 to 7)
If I have to, I can ask someone to help me test smoke alarms in my home…Most Unlikely/Likely
If I have to, I can pay someone to test smoke alarms in my home…Most Unlikely/Likely
If I want to, I can have a method to remind myself to test smoke alarms once a month…Most
Unlikely/Likely
Testing smoke alarms once a month is a task that could be forgotten because I have a busy
life…Most Unlikely/Likely
Other competing demands on my time at home can prevent me from testing smoke alarms once a
month…Most Unlikely/Likely
Proof that smoke alarms protect people from dangerous home fires, will encourage me to test
them monthly…Most Unlikely/Likely
Mean ± SD (α)*
6.14 ± 1.53 (0.36)
3.63 ± 2.47 (0.21)
Perceived Behavioural Control: Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.44 (N=35) (scale = 1 to 7)
Whether or not I test smoke alarms in my home once a month is entirely up to me…Most
Unlikely/Likely
I can overcome any problem that may prevent me from testing smoke alarms in my home once a
month…Most Unlikely/Likely
Mean ± SD
Intention: Cronbach’s Alpha =0.49 (N=33) (scale = 1 to 7)
I expect to test smoke alarms in my home once a month to make sure they are in working
condition…Most Unlikely/Likely
I plan to replace smoke alarm batteries once a year or as needed…Most Unlikely/Likely
How likely are you to remove battery or disconnect the electricity from a smoke alarm, if false
alarms happen? …Very Likely /Unlikely
I intend to test smoke alarms in my home once a month…Definitely Yes/Not
Mean ± SD (α)*
6.26 ± 1.27 (0.34)
2.94 ± 1.91 (0.21)
3.77 ± 2.16 (0.31)
5.34 ± 2.06 (0.44)
6.11 ± 1.35
6.09 ± 1.29
5.18 ± 1.72 (0.22)
6.51 ± 1.17 (0.50)
5.15 ± 2.13 (0.64)
4.75 ± 1.73 (0.26)
(α)* = Cronbach’s Alpha with deleted item
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
33
Appendix F: TOWN OF WAINWRIGHT
Source: http://www.town.wainwright.ab.ca/opportunities.html
The Town is the major retail and service center in the east central region serving an extended area of approximately
40,000.
Population 5,183 (2004); Total Area of Municipality (Hectares) 853; Number of Dwelling Units 2,364; 200 km
(125 miles) Southeast of Edmonton.
Education:
Highest Level of Education Achieved for Population 20 Years Old and Over
Average Annual Income For Population 15 Years Old and Over
Full Time
Part year or part time
Combined
Male
$45,070
$25,843
$38,060
Female
$29,241
$13,371
$19,224
Average Household Income:
$51,117
Average Family Income:
$58,594
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
34
Employment by Industry
Employees
Government
441 (17.2%)
Retail Trade, Wholesale Trade
346 (13.5%)
Oil and Gas
280 (10.9%)
Health - Social
244 (9.5%)
Accomodation, Food and Beverage
198 (7.7%)
Education
156 (6.1%)
Construction
152 (5.9%)
Business Service, Personal Service
122 (4.8%)
Transportation
104 (4.1%)
Agriculture
100 (3.9%)
Finance, Insurance, Realty
93 (3.6%)
Communications and Utilities
56 (2.2%)
Manufacturing
27 (1.1%)
Other
242 (9.4%)
Total
2561
Age/Sex Structure*
Age
Male
Female
Total
0-4
189 ( 6.98%)
163 ( 6.13%)
352 ( 6.56%)
5-9
178 ( 6.58%)
175 ( 6.58%)
353 ( 6.58%)
10 - 14
199 ( 7.35%)
181 ( 6.81%)
380 ( 7.08%)
15 - 17
129 ( 4.77%)
117 ( 4.40%)
246 ( 4.59%)
18 - 19
76 ( 2.81%)
72 ( 2.71%)
148 ( 2.76%)
20 - 24
201 ( 7.43%)
161 ( 6.05%)
362 ( 6.75%)
25 - 29
193 ( 7.13%)
162 ( 6.09%)
355 ( 6.62%)
30 - 34
176 ( 6.50%)
174 ( 6.54%)
350 ( 6.52%)
35 - 39
204 ( 7.54%)
187 ( 7.03%)
391 ( 7.29%)
40 - 44
228 ( 8.43%)
234 ( 8.80%)
462 ( 8.61%)
45 - 49
229 ( 8.46%)
206 ( 7.75%)
435 ( 8.11%)
50 - 54
164 ( 6.06%)
125 ( 4.70%)
289 ( 5.39%)
55 - 59
133 ( 4.92%)
126 ( 4.74%)
259 ( 4.83%)
60 - 64
88 ( 3.25%)
102 ( 3.84%)
190 ( 3.54%)
65 - 69
96 ( 3.55%)
103 ( 3.87%)
199 ( 3.71%)
70 - 74
60 ( 2.22%)
98 ( 3.69%)
158 ( 2.95%)
75 - 79
51 ( 1.88%)
81 ( 3.05%)
132 ( 2.46%)
80 - 84
65 ( 2.40%)
89 ( 3.35%)
154 ( 2.87%)
85 - 89
33 ( 1.22%)
60 ( 2.26%)
93 ( 1.73%)
90+
14 ( 0.52%)
43 ( 1.62%)
57 ( 1.06%)
Total
2706 ( 50.50%)
2659(49.50%)
5365
Wijayasinghe – Barriers to smoke alarm installation and maintenance in rural Alberta
35