See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226602407

The Earthquake Readiness Scale: The Development of a Valid and Reliable

Unifactorial Measure

Article  in  Natural Hazards · January 2006

DOI: 10.1007/s11069-005-2369-9

CITATIONS READS

45 2,460

5 authors, including:

Frank H. Walkey John Mcclure

Victoria University of Wellington Victoria University of Wellington
89 PUBLICATIONS   2,429 CITATIONS    104 PUBLICATIONS   3,398 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Richard J Siegert
Auckland University of Technology
250 PUBLICATIONS   6,946 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Causal attribution and explanation View project

Leg Activity measure (LegA) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John Mcclure on 17 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Natural Hazards (2006) 39: 15–29 Ó Springer 2006
DOI 10.1007/s11069-005-2369-9

The Earthquake Readiness Scale: The

Development of a Valid and Reliable
Unifactorial Measure
MATTHEW J. SPITTAL1,2,w, FRANK H. WALKEY1,
JOHN McCLURE1, RICHARD J. SIEGERT1 and
KIMBERLEY E. BALLANTYNE1
1
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand; 2Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer,
The Cancer Council of Victoria, 1 Rathdowne Street, Carlton VIC, 3053, Australia

(Received: 18 June 2004; accepted: 19 August 2005)

Abstract. Preparedness is a key dependent variable in many studies examining people’s re-
sponse to disasters such as earthquakes. A feature of many studies on this issue, however, is
the lack of attention given to psychometric issues when constructing measures of prepared-
ness. With regard to earthquake preparation, for example, many studies could be greatly
improved by the use of a valid and reliable measure of preparedness. This research developed
such a measure that assessed both low-level preparedness, such as having an emergency kit,
and high-level preparedness, such as altering home structures to mitigate damage. Studies of
Wellington (New Zealand) residents using two samples totalling n=652 showed that 23 items
measuring these different aspects of earthquake preparation could be combined into a reliable,
valid, unifactorial scale. This brief scale should have utility in multivariate studies of earth-
quake preparation, either as a dependent variable, where preparation is the outcome variable
of primary interest, or as one of several independent variables, where preparation and other
measures predict another outcome variable.
Key words: earthquake readiness measure, mitigation preparedness, calibration, scale scores

People’s preparedness for natural disasters such as earthquakes has been

examined as a dependent variable in a number of studies, although there
are substantial differences in the way that earthquake preparation is as-
sessed. Table I shows the wide range of measures of earthquake prepara-
tion used in 18 studies.
Early studies used a free response method to examine the steps individ-
uals had taken to prepare for an earthquake (e.g., Jackson and Mukerjee,
1974; Jackson, 1981). Other studies have examined a single category, such
as insurance purchases (e.g., Sullivan et al., 1977), or intention to live
elsewhere (e.g., Kiecolt and Nigg, 1982). Several studies have used brief

w
Author for correspondence: E-mail: matt.spittal@cancervic.org.au

Table I. Summary of study, sample, and earthquake preparation measures.
Study
De Man and
Simpson-Housley (1987)
Dooley et al. (1992)
Edwards (1993)
Farley et al. (1993)
Hirose and Ishizuka (1983),
Hirose (1986)
Hurnen and McClure (1997)
Jackson and Mukerjee (1974)
Jackson (1981)
Sample
130 residents of San Francisco
1600 California residents
544 Tennessee residents
559 householders 3 cities in Montana
1018 Japanese participants
96 Wellington citizens
120 San Francisco residents
302 householders in California and
British Columbia
16
Earthquake preparation measure Comment
An unspecified number of questions
examining precautions taken
5 item checklist Items used in the study
were not specified
14 item checklist
4 item checklist
13 item checklist
12 item checklist
8 item checklist One item, structural
changes to home, on
pre-earthquake preparation.
Other items on post-impact
purchasing (e.g., earthquake
insurance)
Open ended questionnaire Participants completed two
lists. The first detailed all
possible preparations for
an earthquake. On the
second list, participants
note what of these actions
they had carried out
MATTHEW J. SPITTAL ET AL.
Kiecolt and Nigg (1982) 1450 California residents
McClure et al. (1999) 100 Wellington students (Study 1),
124 Wellington residents (Study 2)
Mileti and O’Brien (1992) 1652 residents of San Francisco
and Santa Cruz
Mulilis et al. (1990) 296 students and 154 homeowners,
California
Mulilis and Lippa (1990) 114 California homeowners
Russell et al. (1995) 690 residents interviewed after the
Whittier Narrows earthquake and
656 residents interviewed after the
Loma Prieta earthquake
Sullivan et al. (1977) 1400 residents from California
Turner et al. (1986) Five samples of between 516 and
1450 participants from California
Intention to move away from the area
in the next 5 years
5 item earthquake preparation checklist
6 item earthquake preparedness checklist
27 item Mullis–Lippa Earthquake
Preparedness Scale
27 item Mullis–Lippa Earthquake
Preparedness Scale
17 item scale
Insurance purchase
16 earthquake preparedness actions
Single item measure assessed
intention to live elsewhere
Reliability estimates for the
scale ranged from 0.68 to 0.97
Examination of the scree plot
suggested the rotation of three
factors. Reliabilities for these
factors range from 0.42 to 0.73
MEASUREMENT OF EARTHQUAKE PREPARATION
17
18 MATTHEW J. SPITTAL ET AL.

measures with four or five items (e.g., Dooley et al., 1992; Farley et al.,
1993; Showalter, 1993; McClure et al., 1999). Eight of the 18 studies in Ta-
ble I have used longer scales (between 12 and 27 items) to assess earth-
quake preparation (e.g., Hirose and Ishizuka, 1983; Hirose, 1986; Turner
et al., 1986; Mileti and Fitzpatrick, 1992, 1993).
These studies have yielded important insights into people’s preparation
for and response to natural disasters such as earthquakes. Unfortunately,
few of these studies have reported estimates of reliability or other relevant
psychometric data for their scales (Lindell and Perry, 2000). Any interpre-
tation of the results is limited therefore by the absence of a numerical esti-
mate of the amount of unsystematic measurement error in the scales.
These data, however, are available for some studies.
Russell et al. (1995) used exploratory factor analysis to identify three
factors: survival, planning, and hazard mitigation. Reliability estimates for
these factors ranged from 0.42 to 0.73. More substantial reliability coeffi-
cients were obtained by Mulilis et al. (1990), who developed a 27-item scale
for measuring the earthquake preparedness of individuals and small busi-
nesses. The Mulilis–Lippa Earthquake Preparedness Scale (ML-EPS) also
measures the perceived difficulty of preparing for an earthquake. For each
item, participants state whether they are prepared by answering Yes, No, or
Unsure, and also indicate the difficulty of performing each item. Using four
samples of respondents, Mulilis et al. (1990) reported estimates of internal
consistency (Cronbach’s alphas) ranging from 0.68 to 0.97 for the prepared-
ness items and estimates of 0.84 to 0.94 for the difficulty items. Test–retest
reliabilities ranged from 0.78 for a 4–6 week interval, down to 0.64 for a
3 month period for both preparedness and difficulty items.
Despite the use of psychometric criteria to assess the usefulness of the
ML-EPS, this scale has two possible limitations. First, in most earthquakes
leading to fatalities, the major cause of death is from buildings collapsing
on people (Russell et al., 1995; McGeary, 1999). Although the ML-EPS
has several questions assessing whether the contents of the home have been
secured (e.g., fastening tall furniture), this scale has no items that assess
whether people have ensured that their homes are sufficiently sound struc-
turally to prevent them collapsing. Because one major goal of earthquake
preparation is to prevent the loss of life, and since a major cause of loss of
life in earthquakes is buildings collapsing, the absence of a measure of this
component of preparation represents a possible limitation of the scale. A
second possible limitation of the ML-EPS is the inclusion of items that
may be unrelated to earthquake survival. In particular, the items ‘‘Do you
attentively listen to or watch radio or television messages about earth-
quake preparedness’’ and ‘‘Do you vote on bills dealing with earthquake
resistant buildings’’ may not necessarily identify those who have prepared
for an earthquake.
MEASUREMENT OF EARTHQUAKE PREPARATION 19

Previous research on this issue has not focused on the issue of interpret-
ing scale scores – that is, what it means to be at different points on the
scale. With most scales, it is unclear how a person with a score of say,
two, differs from a person with a score of 10 (although decile-based norms
do provide some useful information on this issue). The basis for interpret-
ing scores in this way is referred to as scale calibration. Calibration has
been performed successfully on other measures, for instance the Economic
Living Standards Index (Jensen et al., 2002); and is useful when a scale is
used for descriptive purposes. Thus information on the calibration of a
preparedness measure would usefully augment other psychometric informa-
tion.
Finally, for many uses of a measure it is convenient to group responses
into score intervals (for example, where there is a need to present results
indicating the distribution of a set of scores or to compare the distribu-
tions of two sets of scores). This is usually done by means of a table or
histogram showing the numbers of scores falling within specified score
intervals. In general, however, no attempts are made to develop formal
score intervals. Instead, different researchers have interpreted scores along
the continuum of a scale in a sample-specific manner. Although this meth-
od is not flawed and is applied to scales in many domains, it does limit
comparisons between studies, particularly where presenting descriptive
information is of interest. Thus, we regard the specification of a standard
set of score intervals as useful for other researchers – particularly when
combined with the calibration information.
In sum, a review of measures of earthquake preparation shows that 18
scales have been published in the last 25 years. Few studies have reported
data that indicate the level of measurement error within the scales. Of the
studies that report psychometric data, Russell et al. (1995) found poor esti-
mates of reliability for two of their three subscales, while Mulilis et al.
(1990) found higher estimates of reliability for a 27 item scale. However,
not all items in this scale necessarily measure earthquake preparedness.
Other problems identified in measures of preparation (and in measures
generally) include a lack of an interpretative framework for guiding analy-
sis and the lack of standard score intervals for guiding description.
To address the limitations identified in previously developed earthquake
preparation measures, a new scale was developed to assess household pre-
paredness for a major earthquake: the Earthquake Readiness Scale (ERS).
Several goals were applied to the development of this scale: (a) A unidi-
mensional questionnaire that assessed people’s preparation for a major
earthquake; (b) A scale with a high level of internal consistency; (c) A
scale with a normal spread of responses (for parametric tests); (d) To cali-
brate the scale for interpretive purposes; (e) To be able to specify scale
scores as a set of intervals that would suit most relevant applications.
20 MATTHEW J. SPITTAL ET AL.

Schmitt (1996) and others have criticised the general use of coefficient
alpha as a measure of unidimensionality. Coefficient alpha is an estimate
of internal consistency that refers to the interrelatedness of a set of items;
whereas unidimensionality refers to the existence of one latent trait under-
lying the data (Hattie, 1985; Cortina, 1993). Thus items can be interrelated
to one another yet form different latent variables. The development of the
ERS scale provided an opportunity to develop an earthquake preparation
measure using goodness of fit procedures to assess unidimensionality. We
hypothesised that a unidimensional model would fit the 23 earthquake pre-
paredness items better than competing models (e.g., a two factor model).
The validity of the ERS was explored using three different approaches.
Mulilis et al. (2000) showed that homeowners are better prepared for disas-
ters such as tornadoes than non-homeowners. One way of testing the con-
struct validity of the ERS is to see whether this finding holds for the ERS.
We therefore predicted that homeowners would be better prepared for an
earthquake than non-homeowners. Second, previous research has shown
that age is related to preparation, with older people on average being better
prepared (Dooley et al., 1992). If the ERS is a valid measure of earthquake
preparation, then this finding should be replicated. Thus we hypothesised
that age would be positively related to preparation. Our final indicator of
validity was a comparison between participants’ self-ratings of their level of
preparation and the actual preparation that they had undertaken, as shown
by their responses on the ERS. The purpose of this indicator is to examine
the face validity of the ERS, because a global judgement of participants’
preparation should be positively related to their actual level of preparation.
To test this, we hypothesised that a global self-rating of participants’ prepa-
ration would be significantly correlated with their ERS scores.
Finally, a calibration of the ERS was obtained by showing how the
occurrence of different types of preparedness activities changes across the
continuum of responses on the scale. The two types of activities that were
examined were low-level preparation activities, such as storing food and
water, and high-level activities, such as structural modifications to dwell-
ings. The low level actions may be regarded as activities that facilitate sur-
vival, and those at a higher level, as activities that mitigate damage.

1. Method
1.1. PARTICIPANTS

Participants totalled 652 residents of Wellington City, New Zealand. Data

were gathered in two separate samples – the first sample was used as an
exploratory sample to develop the scale; the second was used as a confirma-
tory sample and for scale validation, calibration and distributional analysis.
MEASUREMENT OF EARTHQUAKE PREPARATION 21

The exploratory sample included 295 respondents, of whom 49% were fe-
male and 51% were male. Twenty-five percent were aged 24 or under, 41%
were between 25 and 40, 30% were between 41 and 60, and 4% were 61 or
older. Forty-six percent owned their own home and 54% did not.
The second group of respondents (referred to as the Residential Survey
Sample) were 358 residents of Wellington City, of whom 59% were female
and 41% were male. Twelve percent of this group were aged 24 or under,
32% between 25 and 40, 37% between 41 and 60, and 19% were 61 and
over.

1.2. QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT

Three steps were undertaken before the questionnaire was constructed.

First, a review of existing measures of earthquake preparation was con-
ducted. Five questionnaires were identified that contained material that
could be useful as a source of items for the generation of a new scale.
These were the 27 item Earthquake Preparedness Scale (ML-EPS: Mulilis
et al., 1990), a 17 item earthquake preparedness checklist developed by
Hurnen (1997), a 13 item scale used by Hirose (1986), a 16 item checklist
developed by Turner et al. (1986), and a five item checklist used by
McClure et al. (1999).
Second, an internet search obtained information on the steps widely re-
garded as necessary to prepare for a major earthquake, drawing on lists of
recommendations that have been made by agencies responsible for earth-
quake preparation. Websites that were examined included those of the
New Zealand Earthquake Commission, which publishes an extensive list of
activities for making residences more secure from earthquakes, and the
American Red Cross, which provides information about how to prepare
for earthquakes and other natural disasters. The websites of the Wellington
Emergency Management Office (WEMO) and that of New Zealand’s Min-
istry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management, were also consulted.
The recommendations suggested on the internet websites and the ques-
tionnaires listed above shared a high degree of similarity with regard to
the appropriate steps to prepare for an earthquake. However, the New
Zealand Earthquake Commission’s suggestions placed more emphasis on
structural changes to dwellings to enhance damage prevention.
Finally, to identify steps people had taken to prepare for a major earth-
quake, 280 students from Victoria University of Wellington were asked
‘‘What have you, or the people you live with, done to prepare for a major
earthquake?’’ This open-ended question produced a list of 20 activities that
assisted in generating items.
From the wide variety of possible items gathered from the three sources
described above, a total of 23 items was developed to examine people’s
22 MATTHEW J. SPITTAL ET AL.

earthquake preparation. Based on the review of the sources, the scale in-
cluded two sets of items. The first set included ‘‘mitigation’’ actions that
are specifically intended to limit earthquake damage, and the second set
consisted of ‘‘planning’’ actions intended to facilitate survival following a
major earthquake. This second set of items included some actions, such as
access to an alternative cooking source, that would not be performed so-
lely for the purpose of earthquake preparation. Other researchers have no-
ted these multi-purpose items in their scales (e.g., Dooley et al., 1992;
Weinstein et al., 2000).
To check that the respondent had actually performed the preparatory
action, each item was phrased as ‘‘I have’’ followed by a verb (e.g., consid-
ered, fastened, ensured), followed by the action. Each question was designed
to be answered with a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ response. For two items that referred
to major structural features (4 and 5), the item allows for respondents to
have checked and satisfied themselves that the adjustment was not neces-
sary, having been performed on the structure by the builder or a previous
owner of the home. This design was used in order to reduce the likelihood
of participants replying in the negative if this feature had been dealt with by
a previous owner. The items included in the scale are presented in Table II.
Following the ERS scale were several demographic items: Age (24 or
under, 25–40, 41–60, 61+); gender; and in the first sample: Do you own
your own home? (Yes/No).

1.3. PROCEDURE

For the first sample, members of the public sitting in parks in the central
business district of Wellington city were invited to complete a question-
naire. Those who agreed were given a copy of the questionnaire. Before
answering the ERS questions, participants in this sample were asked ‘‘Do
you think that you are prepared for a major earthquake?’’ Participants re-
sponded to this question on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all pre-
pared) to 7 (very prepared), with a midpoint of 4 (somewhat prepared).
For the second sample (the Residential Survey Sample), 1,000 question-
naire booklets containing the ERS were delivered to households across 10
area sampling units that represented all five levels of socioeconomic strata
across Wellington City. A stamped envelope was provided for participants
to return responses. The response rate for this survey was 38.8%, which
yielded a total of 358 complete questionnaires.

2. Results
An exploratory factor analysis was undertaken on the first sample to
establish the factor structure of the scale. The unrotated principal compo-
MEASUREMENT OF EARTHQUAKE PREPARATION 23

Table II. Percentage of participants undertaking each of the earthquake preparation activi-
ties listed in the Earthquake Readiness Scale.

Item Yes (%)

18 I have obtained a working torch 84.59

15 I have purchased a first aid kit 66.10
9 I have ensured that objects which contain water have 64.95
not been stored on top of electrical equipment
(e.g., a pot plant or fishbowl on top of the television)
20 I have access to an alternative cooking source 62.33
(e.g., gas barbecue)
16 I have a supply of essential medicines for 61.72
illness and allergies
10 I have ensured that heavy objects are 60.00
stored on the floor
14 I have obtained a supply of tinned food 59.93
that could be used in an emergency
13 I have accumulated enough tools to make minor 54.48
repairs to the house following a major earthquake
17 I have obtained a working battery radio 50.68
7 I have arranged the cupboards so that heavy 41.78
objects are stored at ground level
11 I have stored water for survival 40.41
1 I have considered the risk of a major earthquake 37.33
when deciding to live in the house that I do now
3 I have fastened my hot water cylinder 34.38
5 I have either strengthened my house to increase its 33.22
earthquake resistance, or satisfied myself that it will
probably not fall down in a major earthquake
22 I have obtained a working fire extinguisher 33.22
12 I have put aside spare plastic bags and toilet paper 30.82
for use as an emergency toilet
4 I have either strengthened my chimney, or satisfied 29.85
myself that it will not fall down in a major earthquake
6 I have ensured that my roof will probably not 28.37
collapse in a major earthquake
23 I have taken some steps at work. 25.81
The steps taken were—(name)
8 I have securely fastened cupboards with latches 23.97
2 I have fastened tall furniture to the wall 19.38
21 I have arranged a place to meet after an earthquake 19.18
19 I have secured movable objects in my 10.31
home e.g. computer, television
24 MATTHEW J. SPITTAL ET AL.

nents suggested that the data did form a clear general factor with a high
mean loading of 0.51 on the first component (SD=0.08) and very low
mean loadings on the other components (M=0.01, SD=0.27 for Factor 2
and M=0.01 SD=0.26, for Factor 3). Analysis of the rotated solution
suggested that there might be a coherent two-factor structure to the items:
one factor seemed to comprise activities undertaken solely for disaster
preparation (e.g., fastening hot water cylinder, obtained working fire extin-
guisher, etc.). The other factor contained activities that could potentially
be undertaken for a number of reasons (e.g., obtained working torch, first
aid kit, etc.). It is interesting that if activities are ordered from lowest to
highest according to the percentage of people who have performed them,
items related to Factor 2 appear predominately at the top of this list (most
people have undertaken these activities) and items related to Factor 1 ap-
pear at the bottom (few have performed them) (see Table II). The three-
factor solution appeared less clear, and could not be interpreted.
To test the competing one and two factor structures, confirmatory fac-
tor analysis was undertaken using the responses from the Residential Sur-
vey Sample. To examine the unidimensionality of the scale, we employed
the method recommended by Hattie (1985). In this analysis, items were
parcelled into three groups of 6 items and one group of 5 items (Kishton
and Widaman, 1994). Eight indices of fit were examined – the v2 test; the
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI); the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI)
the Comparative Fit Index (CFI); the Normed Fit Index (NFI); the Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA); the Root Mean Square
Residual (RMR); and the ratio of the v2 to the degrees of freedom. This
model was contrasted against the two-factor model identified by the
exploratory analysis.
The data did not differ significantly from the unifactorial model
(v2 (2)=5.77, NS; GFI=0.99, AGFI=0.96, CFI=0.98, NFI=0.98;
RMSEA=0.07, RMR=0.02; ratio of v2 to degrees of freedom=2.88). The
observed data, however, did differ from the two-factor model derived from
the exploratory analysis. With items grouped in seven parcels, v2
(13)=60.18, p>0.0001; GFI=0.95, AGFI=0.89, CFI=0.93, NFI=0.92;
RMSEA=0.10, RMR=0.05; and the ratio of v2 to degrees of free-
dom=4.63, indicating that this is a less adequate model. Examination of
the difference between the v2 values found for the two models, (v2
(11)=54.41, p>0.001) shows that the unifactorial model is significantly
better than the two factor model.
In addition to this empirically-derived two factor model, a competing the-
oretically-derived two factor model was also evaluated. This two factor mod-
el contrasted items relating to survival facilitation (items 7–12, 14–18, 20–23)
and items relating to damage limitation (items 1–6, 19). For this analysis,
items were grouped in five parcels. The data did not differ significantly from
MEASUREMENT OF EARTHQUAKE PREPARATION 25

this model, (v2 (4)=7.52, NS; CFI=0.99, AGFI=0.97, CFI=0.99;

RMSEA=0.04, RMR=0.02; ratio of v2 to degrees of freedom=1.88),
which in turn did not differ significantly from the unifactorial model. How-
ever, it was considered that the imbalance in the number of items in the two
subscales limited the value of this model. It was also noted that the correla-
tion between these two latent variables was 0.66, indicating that the scales
could virtually be regarded as parallel measures of the same variable.
These results support the view that a conceptualisation of earthquake
preparedness may be expressed most parsimoniously as a unifactorial
model. The reliability of this 23 item unidimensional scale, which we have
called the Earthquake Readiness Scale (ERS) is 0.87 for the exploratory
sample and 0.85 for the Residential Survey Sample.
The validity of the ERS was tested by examining mean differences be-
tween homeowners and non-homeowners and between different age groups
using the Residential Survey data. As a third indicator of validity, partici-
pants’ judgments of how prepared they were correlated with the number of
steps they indicated that they had undertaken.
A comparison of levels of preparedness reported by homeowners and
non-homeowners showed that homeowners (M=12.20, SD=5.25) were
significantly better prepared for an earthquake than non-homeowners
(M=8.11, SD=4.93), t (51)=2.93, p<0.01. ERS scores also increased sig-
nificantly with age (M=7.31, SD=4.07 for 18- to 25-year-olds; M=9.17,
SD=5.85 for 26- to 40-year-olds; M=12.95, SD=4.48 for 41 years of age
and over; F (2, 52)=5.44, p<0.01. Finally, the correlation between how
prepared individuals thought they were for an earthquake and their level
of preparation on the ERS was also significant (r=0.50, p<0.01).
The scores that define the boundaries of the scale intervals are given in
Table III. The full continuum was partitioned into five intervals. This spec-
ification was chosen for several reasons: it did not sacrifice useful discrimi-
nation power at the low or high end of the scale; it produced a compact
set of ranges; and it enabled sufficient sample sizes in each interval. The
distribution of ERS scores is presented in Table III. The mean score for
the ERS was calculated at 9.66 (SD=5.46). An item-by-item analysis of re-
sponses is presented in Table II.
To calibrate the scale, the occurrence of damage limitation and survival
facilitation items was examined across the scale’s continuum. Although we
regard a unifactorial structure as the most useful structure for the ERS,
the distinction between survival facilitation and damage limitation as use-
ful for describing the different types of preparation activities when calibrat-
ing the scale. For each participant and within each of the five intervals, the
percentage of reported survival facilitation activities and damage limitation
activities was calculated. The average of these percentages was then
calculated for all of the participants at each interval.
26 MATTHEW J. SPITTAL ET AL.

Table III. Standard score ranges and distribution of the Earthquake Readiness Scale.

Scale interval Boundary Distribution (%)

1 0–4 14.9
2 5–8 20.9
3 9–12 26.8
4 13–16 25.9
5 17–23 11.5

Participants had undertaken: at Level 1, 15% of the survival activities

and just 3% of the mitigation activities; at Level 2, 39% of the survival
activities and 11% of the mitigation activities; at Level 3, 58% of the sur-
vival activities and 27% of the mitigation activities; at Level 4, 73% of the
survival activities and 49% of the mitigation activities; and at Level 5,
85% of the survival activities and 70% of the mitigation activities.

3. Discussion
This study developed and evaluated a unidimensional questionnaire, the
Earthquake Readiness Scale (ERS), which was designed to assess people’s
preparedness for a major earthquake. Further goals of the study were to
demonstrate that the developed scale has a high level of reliability, an
acceptable level of validity, and a calibrated interpretative framework. To
achieve these goals, the generation of items for the scale was based on rec-
ommendations made by several relevant agencies, and took account of
steps that other researchers have regarded as necessary for preparation
(e.g., Hirose, 1986; Turner et al., 1986; McClure et al., 1999).
The results indicate that the ERS is a unidimensional measure that has
an acceptably high level of internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analy-
sis showed a close fit between the data and a one-factor model. This model
was better on goodness of fit indices and error estimates than the competing
two-factor model derived from the exploratory factor analysis of the other
data set. A model that identified survival facilitation and damage limitation
as separate factors was also examined. This model was not rejected on the
basis of confirmatory factor analysis, but it was considered that the imbal-
ance in the scale lengths in this model gave the unidimensional model an
edge. In addition, the correlation between the two latent variables was so
high that little utility is gained by separating them into separate factors.
Thus, the parsimonious one-factor model is more appropriate as a measure
of earthquake preparation. A subsequent independent analysis of data from
358 respondents confirmed the appropriateness and the reliability of the
unidimensional model of the Earthquake Readiness Scale.
MEASUREMENT OF EARTHQUAKE PREPARATION 27

Tests of the validity of total ERS scores showed the predicted differ-
ences for substantial groups who would be expected to differ in their
scores: home-owners and non-homeowners, and different age groups. A
third indicator of the validity of the scale is that participants who thought
they were better prepared for an earthquake had higher scores on the
ERS.
The basis for interpreting ERS scores is the calibration information
which contrasts two different types of preparedness – low-level survival
facilitation preparation (e.g., having a store of water, food, spare batteries,
etc.) and high level damage limitation preparation (e.g., structural modifi-
cations to dwellings, fastening heavy objects, etc.). The calibration infor-
mation showed that those with low ERS scores tended to have undertaken
only a small percentage of the survival facilitation activities and effectively
none of the damage limitation activities. As ERS scores increased, the level
of survival facilitation increased rapidly. Damage limitation increased also
but to a lesser extent.
The distribution of ERS scores in Table III coupled with the calibration
information shows the percentage of the participants that have undertaken
some survival facilitation activities and no damage limitation activities
(36% of the sample – 14% from level 1 and 22% from level 2). About
26% of the participants had undertaken moderate levels of both survival
facilitation activities and damage limitation activities (level 3). High levels
of survival facilitation were observed for about 37% of the participants
(levels 4 and 5), but only 12% of the participants had undertaken a signifi-
cant amount of damage limitation preparation (in level 5). Based on this
information, people in level 1 could be regarded as ‘‘very poorly pre-
pared;’’ people in level 2 as ‘‘poorly prepared;’’ people in level 3 as ‘‘mod-
erately well prepared;’’ people in level 4 as ‘‘well prepared;’’ and people in
level 5 as ‘‘very well prepared.’’ The mean score from these data suggests
that, on average, Wellington residents are only moderately well prepared
for a major earthquake.
The ERS has been designed to include a wide range of earthquake
preparation indicators. As with any measure, however, the question arises
as to whether other items should be included (e.g., having a wrench to turn
of water, etc.). Items such as this are likely to be highly correlated with the
scale. Thus, individuals who fail to store water, have a first-aid kit, or
make structural modifications to their home are also unlikely to have a
wrench to turn off water. A primary criterion for the inclusion of addi-
tional items should be the discriminative power that an additional item can
offer in measuring earthquake preparation. Using the example above, such
an item is likely to offer greater discrimination at the bottom end of the
scale’s distribution (i.e., it may discriminate between those at level 1 and
level 2, but not between people at levels 4 and 5). Given that there is
28 MATTHEW J. SPITTAL ET AL.

already a large number of items that discriminate at the bottom end of the
scale, any revisions of the ERS could focus on incorporating items that
discriminate at the top end of the continuum. However, the responses from
the present samples show that the ERS has an approximately normal dis-
tribution, suggesting that the scale does not need additional top-end items
to successfully measure earthquake preparation.
In summary, the data presented here support the usefulness of the ERS
as a measure of earthquake preparation. It includes items on structural
preparation, a component that is not included in other measures of earth-
quake preparation. It has a stable, unifactorial structure that is suitable for
use as a dependent variable, and has high reliability and good validity. The
scale can be expressed as a continuous variable ranging from 0 to 23, or it
can be classified into five different score intervals. The latter will be partic-
ularly useful when descriptive information, particularly between different
sub-groups, is of interest. Finally, the scale has been calibrated to enable
interpretation of scale scores.

Acknowledgements
We thank members of the Friday Research Group for their assistance in
the Scale development, and Douglas Paton and Kathy Parkes for valuable
comments on the study.

References
Cortina, J. M.: 1993, What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and application, J.
Appl. Psychol. 78, 98–104.
De Man, A. and Simpson-Housley, P.: 1987, Factors in the perception of earthquake hazard,
Percept. Motor Skills 64, 815–820.
Dooley, D., Catalano, R., Mishra, S., and Serxner, S.: 1992, Earthquake preparedness:
predictors in a community survey, J. Appl. Social Psychol. 22, 451–470.
Edwards, M. E.: 1993, Social location and self-protective behavior: implications for
earthquake preparedness, Int. J. Mass Emergencies Disasters 11, 293–303.
Farley, J. E., Barlow, H. D., Finklestein, M. S., and Riley, L.: 1993, Earthquake hysteria,
before and after: a survey and follow-up on public response to the Browning forecast, Int.
J. Mass Emergencies Disasters 11, 305–322.
Hattie, J.: 1985, Methodology review: assessing unidimensionality of tests and items, Appl.
Psychol. Meas. 9, 139–164.
Hirose, H.: 1986, The psychological impact of the Tokai earthquake prediction: individual’s
responses and the mass media coverage, Jpn. Psychol. Res. 26, 64–76.
Hirose, H. and Ishizuka, T.: 1983, Causal analysis of earthquake concern and preparing
behavior in the North Izu Peninsula, Jpn. Psychol. Res. 25, 103–111.
Hurnen, F. R.: 1997, Perceived Damage Preventability, Knowledge, and Preparation for
Earthquakes, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington. Unpublished MA thesis.
MEASUREMENT OF EARTHQUAKE PREPARATION 29

Hurnen, F. R. and McClure, J.: 1997, The effect of increased earthquake knowledge on
perceived preventability of earthquake damage. Aust. J. Disaster Trauma Stud. 1, Massey
University, New Zealand, http://www.massey.ac.nz/-trauma.
Jackson, E. L.: 1981, Response to earthquake hazard: the West Coast of North America,
Environ. Behav. 14, 387–416.
Jackson, E. L. and Mukerjee, T.: 1974, Human adjustment to the earthquake hazard in San
Francisco, California, In: G. F. White (ed), Natural Hazards: Local, National and Global,
New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 160–166.
Jensen, J., Spittal, M., Crichton, S., Sathyandra, S., and Krishnan, V.: 2002, The Direct
Measurement of Living Standards: The New Zealand ELSI Scale, Ministry of Social
Development, Wellington.
Kiecolt, K. J. and Nigg, J. M.: 1982, Mobility and perceptions of a hazardous environment,
Environ. Behav. 14, 131–154.
Kishton, J. M. and Widaman, K. F.: 1994, Unidimensional versus domain representative
parceling of questionnaire items: an empirical example, Educ. Psychol. Meas. 54, 757–765.
Lindell, M. K. and Perry, R. W.: 2000, Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: a review
of research, Environ. Behav. 32, 461–501.
McClure, J., Walkey, F., and Allen, M.: 1999, When earthquake damage is seen as
preventable: attributions, locus of control and attitudes to risk, Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 48,
239–256.
McGeary, J.: August 30, 1999, Buried alive, Time 16–21.
Mileti, D. and Darlington, J. D.: 1997, The role of searching in shaping reactions to
earthquake risk information, Soc. Probl. 44, 89–103.
Mileti, D. and Fitzpatrick, C.: 1992, The causal sequence of risk communication in the
Parkfield earthquake prediction experiment, Risk Anal. 12, 393–400.
Mileti, D., Fitzpatrick, C.: 1993, The great earthquake experiment: Risk communication and
public action. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Mileti, D. and O’Brien, P. W.: 1992, Warnings during disasters: normalizing communicating
risk, Soc. Probl. 38, 40–57.
Mulilis, J. P. and Lippa, R.: 1990, Behavioral change in earthquake preparedness due to
negative threat appeals: a test of protection motivation theory, J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 20,
619–638.
Mulilis, J. P., Duval, T. S., and Bovalino, K.: 2000, Tornado preparedness of students, non-
student renters, and non-student owners: issues of PrE theory, J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30,
1310–1329.
Mulilis, J. P., Duval, T. S., and Lippa, R.: 1990, The effects of a large destructive local
earthquake on earthquake preparedness as assessed by the Earthquake Preparedness Scale,
Nat. Hazards 3, 357–371.
Russell, L. A., Goltz, J. D., and Bourque, L. B.: 1995, Preparedness and hazard mitigation
actions before and after two earthquakes, Environ. Behav. 27, 744–770.
Schmitt, N.: 1996, Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha, Psychol. Assess. 8, 350–353.
Showalter, P. S.: 1993, Prognostication of doom: an earthquake prediction’s effect on four
small communities, Int. J. Mass Emergencies Disasters 11, 279–292.
Sullivan, R., Mustart, D. A., and Galehouse, J. S.: 1977, Living in earthquake country, Calif.
Geol. 3, 3–8.
Turner, R. H., Nigg, J. M., and Paz, D. H.: 1986, Waiting for Disaster: Earthquake Watch in
California, University of California Press, Los Angeles.
Weinstein, N., Lyon, J. E., Rothman, A. J., and Cuite, C. L.: 2000, Preoccupation and affect
as predictors of protective action following natural disaster, Brit. J. Health Psychol. 5,
351–363.

View publication stats