FOOD CHOICE QUESTIONNAIRE
Published on Dec 09, 2015
No Description
MORE DECKS TO EXPLORE
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
FOOD CHOICE QUESTIONNAIRE
(Steptoe, Pollard, & Wardle, 1995) By Vanessa Chee and Shawna Green
Constructs
- 1.) Food selection and 2.) Food choice motivation
DEVELOPMENT
- Instrument was created to determine motives related to food choice
DEVELOPMENT
- Self-reported
- Combination of previous instruments
Previous instruments included measures of dietary restraint, eating style, value of health, health locus of control (belief in ability to influence their own health status), and personality factors (interesting that authors chose neuroticism as it relates to stress and coping as potentially relevant to willingness to eat a wide variety of foods)
Administration
- Study 1 – mail in survey : N= 358 Study 2 – mail in survey : N= 358
Study one was a sample of 105 university students, 90 employees of a university library and 635 people selected at random from the electoral register of a London neighborhood.
The second study
400 students
641 London residents
The target audience for the FCQ is anyone who intends to measure food selection and food choice
Technically food choice applies to everyone so the audience is very broad
Study 1
- Factor Analysis
- 9 Factors
- Not specified whether CFA or EFA
- Self report survey
Factor analysis of responses generated the following nine factors of the FCQ
68 items were factor analyzed with varimax rotation. 9 factors accounted for 49.5% of the variance and Eigen values ranged from 12.4 to 1.72. Items with a severely skewed distribution and those that did not load clearly on a single factor were discarded
Factor analysis was performed on 36 items. 9 factors accounted for 62.5 % of the variance.
68 items were factor analyzed with varimax rotation. 9 factors accounted for 49.5% of the variance and Eigen values ranged from 12.4 to 1.72. Items with a severely skewed distribution and those that did not load clearly on a single factor were discarded
Factor analysis was performed on 36 items. 9 factors accounted for 62.5 % of the variance.
Factors
- Health, mood, convenience, sensory appeal, natural content, price, weight control, familiarity, ethical concern
Factor analysis of responses generated the following nine factors of the FCQ
68 items were factor analyzed with varimax rotation. 9 factors accounted for 49.5% of the variance and Eigen values ranged from 12.4 to 1.72. Items with a severely skewed distribution and those that did not load clearly on a single factor were discarded
Factor analysis was performed on 36 items. 9 factors accounted for 62.5 % of the variance.
68 items were factor analyzed with varimax rotation. 9 factors accounted for 49.5% of the variance and Eigen values ranged from 12.4 to 1.72. Items with a severely skewed distribution and those that did not load clearly on a single factor were discarded
Factor analysis was performed on 36 items. 9 factors accounted for 62.5 % of the variance.
Study 2
- CFA with SEM
- FCQ with locus of control
- Neuroticism
- Self report
Factor analysis of responses generated the following nine factors of the FCQ
68 items were factor analyzed with varimax rotation. 9 factors accounted for 49.5% of the variance and Eigen values ranged from 12.4 to 1.72. Items with a severely skewed distribution and those that did not load clearly on a single factor were discarded
Factor analysis was performed on 36 items. 9 factors accounted for 62.5 % of the variance.
68 items were factor analyzed with varimax rotation. 9 factors accounted for 49.5% of the variance and Eigen values ranged from 12.4 to 1.72. Items with a severely skewed distribution and those that did not load clearly on a single factor were discarded
Factor analysis was performed on 36 items. 9 factors accounted for 62.5 % of the variance.
Click to Ed
Verification
- CFA verified questionnaire structure in second study
- All parameters were significant at p
- Test-retest reliability was satisfactory over the 2-3 week period
CFA was carried out with SEM with generalized least squares normal theory estimation.
Results:
CFI = .991
FCQ factor structure identified in the first study was confirmed in the second independent study.
Results:
CFI = .991
FCQ factor structure identified in the first study was confirmed in the second independent study.
Validity evidence
- Researchers presented inter item correlation
- EQS program
- CFA done with structural equation modelling
- Convergent validity tested between FCQ and personality factors
Strengths
- CFA good fit
- All parameters were significant
- Corroborates other research
Test-retest was satisfactory
questionnaire structure was verified through the CFA
questionnaire structure was verified through the CFA
Limitations
- No qualitative data
- Self report
- No theory
- Not generalizable
- Mixture of instruments and scales
No, qualitative methods were not involved in generating factors.
Authors simply chose constructs from existing literature to develop a multidimensional questionnaire.
Possibly can assume it was CCT that was used, based on the reliability findings (understand and improve the reliability of psychological tests)
Authors simply chose constructs from existing literature to develop a multidimensional questionnaire.
Possibly can assume it was CCT that was used, based on the reliability findings (understand and improve the reliability of psychological tests)
Thank you for listening!
Factor analysis of responses generated the following nine factors of the FCQ
68 items were factor analyzed with varimax rotation. 9 factors accounted for 49.5% of the variance and Eigen values ranged from 12.4 to 1.72. Items with a severely skewed distribution and those that did not load clearly on a single factor were discarded
Factor analysis was performed on 36 items. 9 factors accounted for 62.5 % of the variance.
68 items were factor analyzed with varimax rotation. 9 factors accounted for 49.5% of the variance and Eigen values ranged from 12.4 to 1.72. Items with a severely skewed distribution and those that did not load clearly on a single factor were discarded
Factor analysis was performed on 36 items. 9 factors accounted for 62.5 % of the variance.
