| Literature DB >> 25671070 |
Hyun Jeong Lim1, Min Ju Kim1, Kyung Won Kim1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/Entities:
Keywords: Nutrition label; beliefs; college students; factors; theory of planned behavior
Year: 2015 PMID: 25671070 PMCID: PMC4317482 DOI: 10.4162/nrp.2015.9.1.63
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr Res Pract ISSN: 1976-1457 Impact factor: 1.926
Fig. 1Proposed factors related to nutrition label use applying the Theory of Planned Behavior
General characteristic of subjects by nutrition label use
1) Mean ± SD
2) n (%)
3) χ2 value by χ2-test or t value by t-test
Nutrients for checking and influence of reading nutrition labels on food selection in nutrition label users
1) Number of subjects who did not respond to this variable: 12
Behavioral beliefs by nutrition label use
* P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001
1) Each item was measured using 5-point scales from 'strongly disagree' (1) to 'strongly agree' (5).
2) Mean ± SD
3) t value by t-test
4) Total score of 15 items (possible score: 15-75). To calculate the total score, the items from 9 to 15 were scored reversely.
Normative beliefs and Motivation to comply by nutrition label use
* P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01
1) Each item was measured using 5-point scales from 'strongly disagree' (1) to 'strongly agree' (5). There was a response category of 'not applicable' (0) if each significant other did not apply to the subjects.
2) Each item was measured using 5-point scales from 'not at all' (1) to 'very much' (5). There was a response category of 'not applicable' (0) if each significant other did not apply to the subjects.
3) Mean ± SD. Possible score: 0-25. The score on each item was calculated by multiplying each normative belief and corresponding motivation to comply.
4) t value by t-test
5) Possible score: 0-175. Total score was calculated by multiplying the score on each normative belief and corresponding motivation to comply and summing up these scores.
Control beliefs by nutrition label use
* P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001
1) Each item was measured using 5-point scales from 'strongly disagree' (1) to 'strongly agree' (5).
2) Each item was measured using 5-point scales ranging from 'very difficult' (1) to 'very easy' (5).
3) Mean ± SD
4) t value by t-test
5) Total score of 15 items (possible score: 15-75). To calculate the total score, the items from 1 to 9 were scored reversely.