Main Article Content

Authors

This article uses a structural equation model to define the attitudes and practices of researchers from Costa Rica’s five public universities (University of Costa Rica, National University, Costa Rican Institute of Technology, National Technical University and Distance State University) regarding science communication in 2021. The guiding theoretical framework is the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). This quantitative, cross-sectional, single-measurement study had a descriptive scope and employed a questionnaire as the main data collection technique. The instrument was administered to a sample of 545 researchers, and their responses were used to construct a covariance-based structural equation model (CB-SEM). The main findings indicate a high level of motivation among researchers to engage in science communication activities despite limited perceived institutional support from universities. The factors facilitating the intention to participate in communication activities were associated with attitudes and perceived behavioural control; subjective norms were the least influential element. Together, these three factors explain 52.2 % of the variance in intentions towards science communication, while intentions explain 34.2 % of the variance in communication practices. These results provide an empirical basis for designing institutional strategies to promote scientific dissemination as a regular practice within Costa Rican academia.

Castillo Vargas, A., Ruiz Sánchez, A., & Vargas-Halabí, T. (2026). Scientific Dissemination in the Public Universities of Costa Rica: A Structural Model Based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Avances En Psicología Latinoamericana, 43(2). https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/apl/a.14999

Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 314-324. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195

Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2020). Changing behavior using the theory of planned behavior. En M. S. Hagger, L. D. Cameron, K. Hamilton, N. Hankonen & T. Lintunen (Eds.), The handbook of behavior change, (pp. 17-31). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.002

Besley, J., & Dudo, A. (2022). Strategic communication as planned behavior for science and risk communication: A theory-based approach to studying communicator choice. Risk Analysis, 42(11), 2584-2592. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14029

Bosnjak, M., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Selected recent advances and applications. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 16(3), 352-356. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v16i3.3107

Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (Eds.). (2021). Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003039242

Choi, S., Anderson, A. A., Cagle, S., Long, M., & Kelp, N. C. (2023). Scientists’ deficit perception of the public impedes their behavioral intentions to correct misinformation. PLOS ONE, 18(8), Artículo 0287870. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287870

Consejo Nacional de Rectores (CONARE). (2024a). CONARE: la institución. https://www.conare.ac.cr/conare/la-institucion/

Consejo Nacional de Rectores (CONARE). (2024b). Autoridades institucionales. https://www.conare.ac.cr/conare/autoridades-institucionales/

Consejo Nacional de Rectores (CONARE). (2024c). Folleto CONARE. https://www.conare.ac.cr/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Folleto_del_CONARE.pdf

Dash, G., & Paul, J. (2021). CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, Artículo 121092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121092

Entradas, M., Marcinkowski, F., Bauer, M., & Pellegrini, G. (2023). University central offices are moving away from doing towards facilitating science communication: A European cross-comparison. PLOS ONE, 18(10), Artículo e0290504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290504

Hagger, M., & Hamilton, K. (2024). Progress on theory of planned behavior research: Advances in research synthesis and agenda for future research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 48(1), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-024-00545-8

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2019). Multivariante data analysis (8th ed.). Cegage Learning.

Hosen, M., Ogbeibu, S., Marc, W., Ferraris, A., Haque, Z., & Chong, Y. (2022). Knowledge sharing behavior among academics: Insights from theory of planned behavior, perceived trust and organizational climate. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(6), 1740-1764. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2022-0140

Koo, M., & Yang, S. (2025). Likert-type scale. Encyclopedia, 5(1), Artículo 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5010018

Matas, A. (2018). Diseño del formato de escalas tipo Likert: un estado de la cuestión. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 20(1), 38-47. https://doi.org/10.24320/redie.2018.20.1.1347

Naskar, S., & Merigo, J. (2026). Forty years of the theory of planned behavior: A bibliometric analysis (1985-2024). Management Review Quarterly, 76, 573–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-025-00487-8

Nguyen, T., Phong, N., & Hoang, V. (2019). The theory of planned behavior and knowledge sharing: A systematic review and meta-analytic structural equation modelling. VINE: Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 49(1), 76-94. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-10-2018-0086

Oliveira, M., Barata, G., Fleerackers, A., Alperin, J., Falade, B., & Bauer, M. (2024). Bridging science communication and open science: Working inclusively toward the common good. Frontiers in Communication, 9, Artículo 1473268. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1473268

Rönkkö, M., & Cho, E. (2022). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organizational Research Methods, 25(1), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120968614

Rosellini, A. J., & Brown, T. A. (2021). Developing and validating clinical questionnaires. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 17(1), 55-81. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-115343

Sathyanarayana, S., & Mohanasundaram, T. (2024). Fit indices in structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis: Reporting guidelines. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, 24(7), 561-577. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2024/v24i71430

Walker, A., Totzkay, D., Scarneo-Miller, S., Claydon, E., & Olfert, M. (2023). Application of the theory of planned behaviour to inform development of a dissemination and implementation science training for nutrition practitioners. Public Health Nutrition, 26(12), 3202-3210. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023002525

Wang, X., & Cheng, Z. (2020). Cross-sectional studies: Strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Chest, 158(1), S65-S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.012

West, S. G., Wu, W., McNeish, D., & Savord, A. (2023). Model fit in structural equation modeling. En R. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (2a ed., pp. 182-205). Guilford Press.

Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913-934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237

Worthington, D., Graham, B., Gilliard, H., & Kelp, N. (2024). Development of a scale to measure planned behavior in inclusive science communication: Validity evidence in undergraduate STEM students. CBE: Life Sciences Education, 23(4), Artículo ar48. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.24-01-0012

Yuan, S., Besley, J. C., & Dudo, A. (2019). A comparison between scientists’ and communication scholars’ views about scientists’ public engagement activities. Public Understanding of Science, 28(1), 101-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518797002

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.