OBJECTIVE: To assess the psychometric characteristics of new scales of shopping practices and social support for purchasing fruits and vegetables. DESIGN: Participants were recruited in front of diverse grocery stores. Telephone data collection was done on 2 occasions, separated by 6 weeks. PARTICIPANTS: 166 food shoppers with children at home participated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: New scales of food shopping practices and social support for purchasing fruits and vegetables were psychometrically analyzed and related to a measure of home fruit or vegetable availability as a test of construct validity. ANALYSIS: Both classical test and item response theory procedures were used. Correlations related the new measures to home fruit and vegetable availability. RESULTS: Single dimension scales were specified for fruit and vegetable shopping practices (35% of the variance), fruit purchase social support (53% of the variance), and vegetable purchase social support (52% of the variance). Item response theory difficulty estimates varied from -0.64 to 0.73 for fruit and vegetable shopping practices, from -0.55 to 0.33 for fruit purchase social support, and from -0.55 to 0.34 for vegetable social support. Each scale significantly correlated with home fruit and vegetable availability (construct validity), even after controlling for social desirability of response (0.19 for shopping practices, 0.37 for fruit purchasing social support, and 0.28 for vegetable purchasing social support). Person separation reliability was 0.80 for food shopping practices, 0.74 for fruit purchasing social support, and 0.73 for vegetable purchasing social support. CONCLUSION: The scales performed well. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE: These scales are now available to help better understand fruit and vegetable shopping practices, fruit purchase social support, and vegetable purchase social support.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the psychometric characteristics of new scales of shopping practices and social support for purchasing fruits and vegetables. DESIGN:Participants were recruited in front of diverse grocery stores. Telephone data collection was done on 2 occasions, separated by 6 weeks. PARTICIPANTS: 166 food shoppers with children at home participated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: New scales of food shopping practices and social support for purchasing fruits and vegetables were psychometrically analyzed and related to a measure of home fruit or vegetable availability as a test of construct validity. ANALYSIS: Both classical test and item response theory procedures were used. Correlations related the new measures to home fruit and vegetable availability. RESULTS: Single dimension scales were specified for fruit and vegetable shopping practices (35% of the variance), fruit purchase social support (53% of the variance), and vegetable purchase social support (52% of the variance). Item response theory difficulty estimates varied from -0.64 to 0.73 for fruit and vegetable shopping practices, from -0.55 to 0.33 for fruit purchase social support, and from -0.55 to 0.34 for vegetable social support. Each scale significantly correlated with home fruit and vegetable availability (construct validity), even after controlling for social desirability of response (0.19 for shopping practices, 0.37 for fruit purchasing social support, and 0.28 for vegetable purchasing social support). Person separation reliability was 0.80 for food shopping practices, 0.74 for fruit purchasing social support, and 0.73 for vegetable purchasing social support. CONCLUSION: The scales performed well. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE: These scales are now available to help better understand fruit and vegetable shopping practices, fruit purchase social support, and vegetable purchase social support.
Authors: Shreela V Sharma; Tasnuva Rashid; Nalini Ranjit; Courtney Byrd-Williams; Ru-Jye Chuang; Cynthia Roberts-Gray; Margaret Briley; Sara Sweitzer; Deanna M Hoelscher Journal: Prev Med Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Cindy Roberts-Gray; Nalini Ranjit; Sara J Sweitzer; Courtney E Byrd-Williams; Maria Jose Romo-Palafox; Margaret E Briley; Deanna M Hoelscher Journal: Appetite Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Temitope O Erinosho; Courtney A Pinard; Linda C Nebeling; Richard P Moser; Abdul R Shaikh; Ken Resnicow; April Y Oh; Amy L Yaroch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-02-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Pamela Joseph; A Darlene Davis; Ruby Miller; Karen Hill; Honey McCarthy; Ananya Banerjee; Clara Chow; Andrew Mente; Sonia S Anand Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Melicia C Whitt-Glover; Jaimie C Hunter; Capri G Foy; Sara A Quandt; Mara Z Vitolins; Iris Leng; Lyndsey M Hornbuckle; Kara A Sanya; Alain G Bertoni Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2013 Impact factor: 2.830