PURPOSE: Test the applicability of the transtheoretical model (TTM) to adult fruit/vegetable consumption. DESIGN: Cross-sectional random-digit dial survey. SETTING: Hawaii. SUBJECTS: 700 (62.6% female; age [mean +/- SD], 47 +/- 17.1 years; education [mean +/- SD], 14.6 +/- 2.8 years; 35.0% white, 31.1% Asian, 22.1% native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 11.8% other). MEASURES: Stages, processes, self-efficacy, decisional balance, and self-reported fruit/vegetable consumption. ANALYSIS: Confirmatory factor analysis tested the factor structure. Analyses of variance were used to explore stage differences in constructs. RESULTS: Stage distribution was precontemplation (33%), contemplation (4%), preparation (37%), action (3%), and maintenance (23%). A 10-factor process model with two higher-order correlated factors (experiential and behavioral) provided the best data fit (chi2 = 1446.12; df = 366; p < .0001; comparative fit index [CFI] = .89; standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .05). The self-efficacy structure fit the data well (chi 2 = 81.86; df = 9; p < .0001; CFI = .94; SRMR = .04), as did the decisional balance structure (chi2 = 37.42; df = 19; p = .007; CFI = .99; SRMR = .02). Processes, self-efficacy, decisional balance, and fruit/vegetable consumption behavior differed significantly by stage, with medium effect sizes for most variables. CONCLUSION: The variables revealed adequate fit to the theorized measurement models. TTM predictions regarding stage differences in self-efficacy, pros and cons, and fruit/vegetable consumption were confirmed; however, most experiential and behavioral processes increased in the early stages and then leveled off.
PURPOSE: Test the applicability of the transtheoretical model (TTM) to adult fruit/vegetable consumption. DESIGN: Cross-sectional random-digit dial survey. SETTING: Hawaii. SUBJECTS: 700 (62.6% female; age [mean +/- SD], 47 +/- 17.1 years; education [mean +/- SD], 14.6 +/- 2.8 years; 35.0% white, 31.1% Asian, 22.1% native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 11.8% other). MEASURES: Stages, processes, self-efficacy, decisional balance, and self-reported fruit/vegetable consumption. ANALYSIS: Confirmatory factor analysis tested the factor structure. Analyses of variance were used to explore stage differences in constructs. RESULTS: Stage distribution was precontemplation (33%), contemplation (4%), preparation (37%), action (3%), and maintenance (23%). A 10-factor process model with two higher-order correlated factors (experiential and behavioral) provided the best data fit (chi2 = 1446.12; df = 366; p < .0001; comparative fit index [CFI] = .89; standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .05). The self-efficacy structure fit the data well (chi 2 = 81.86; df = 9; p < .0001; CFI = .94; SRMR = .04), as did the decisional balance structure (chi2 = 37.42; df = 19; p = .007; CFI = .99; SRMR = .02). Processes, self-efficacy, decisional balance, and fruit/vegetable consumption behavior differed significantly by stage, with medium effect sizes for most variables. CONCLUSION: The variables revealed adequate fit to the theorized measurement models. TTM predictions regarding stage differences in self-efficacy, pros and cons, and fruit/vegetable consumption were confirmed; however, most experiential and behavioral processes increased in the early stages and then leveled off.
Authors: Kate E McSpadden; Heather Patrick; April Y Oh; Amy L Yaroch; Laura A Dwyer; Linda C Nebeling Journal: Appetite Date: 2015-08-29 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Julie A Wright; William G Adams; Robert G Laforge; Donna Berry; Robert H Friedman Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Mihretab M Salasibew; Cami Moss; Girmay Ayana; Desalegn Kuche; Solomon Eshetu; Alan D Dangour Journal: J Health Popul Nutr Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Lana Hebden; Kate Balestracci; Kevin McGeechan; Elizabeth Denney-Wilson; Mark Harris; Adrian Bauman; Margaret Allman-Farinelli Journal: Trials Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Lemmy Schakel; Dieuwke S Veldhuijzen; Henriët van Middendorp; Pieter Van Dessel; Jan De Houwer; Rafael Bidarra; Andrea W M Evers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 3.240