Sarah H Green1, Karen Glanz2. 1. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: shgreen@upenn.edu. 2. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Objective, observational measures of nutrition environments are now well established and widely used. Individuals' perceptions of their nutrition environments may be equally or more important, but are less well conceptualized, and comprehensive measures are not available. This paper describes the development of the Perceived Nutrition Environment Measures Survey (NEMS-P), its test-retest reliability, and its ability to discern differences between lower- and higher-SES neighborhoods. METHODS: This research involved five steps: (1) development of a conceptual model and inventory of items; (2) expert review; (3) pilot testing and cognitive interviews; (4) revising the survey; and (5) administering the revised survey to participants in neighborhoods of high and low SES on two occasions to evaluate neighborhood differences and test-retest reliability. Data were collected in 2010 and 2011 and analyzed in 2011 and 2012. RESULTS: The final survey has 118 items. Fifty-three core items represent three types of perceived nutrition environments: community nutrition environment, consumer nutrition environment, and home food environment. Test-retest reliability for core constructs of perceived nutrition environments was moderate to good (0.52-0.83) for most measured constructs. Residents of higher-SES neighborhoods reported higher availability scores in stores, stronger agreement that healthy options were available in nearby restaurants, and higher scores for accessibility of healthy foods in their homes. CONCLUSIONS: The NEMS-P has moderate to good test-retest reliability and can discriminate perceptions of nutrition environments between residents of higher- and lower-SES neighborhoods. This survey is available and ready to be used.
INTRODUCTION: Objective, observational measures of nutrition environments are now well established and widely used. Individuals' perceptions of their nutrition environments may be equally or more important, but are less well conceptualized, and comprehensive measures are not available. This paper describes the development of the Perceived Nutrition Environment Measures Survey (NEMS-P), its test-retest reliability, and its ability to discern differences between lower- and higher-SES neighborhoods. METHODS: This research involved five steps: (1) development of a conceptual model and inventory of items; (2) expert review; (3) pilot testing and cognitive interviews; (4) revising the survey; and (5) administering the revised survey to participants in neighborhoods of high and low SES on two occasions to evaluate neighborhood differences and test-retest reliability. Data were collected in 2010 and 2011 and analyzed in 2011 and 2012. RESULTS: The final survey has 118 items. Fifty-three core items represent three types of perceived nutrition environments: community nutrition environment, consumer nutrition environment, and home food environment. Test-retest reliability for core constructs of perceived nutrition environments was moderate to good (0.52-0.83) for most measured constructs. Residents of higher-SES neighborhoods reported higher availability scores in stores, stronger agreement that healthy options were available in nearby restaurants, and higher scores for accessibility of healthy foods in their homes. CONCLUSIONS: The NEMS-P has moderate to good test-retest reliability and can discriminate perceptions of nutrition environments between residents of higher- and lower-SES neighborhoods. This survey is available and ready to be used.
Authors: S C Kwon; S Patel; C Choy; J Zanowiak; C Rideout; S Yi; L Wyatt; M D Taher; M J Garcia-Dia; S S Kim; T K Denholm; R Kavathe; N S Islam Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Valarie Blue Bird Jernigan; Alicia L Salvatore; Mary Williams; Marianna Wetherill; Tori Taniguchi; Tvli Jacob; Tamela Cannady; Mandy Grammar; Joy Standridge; Jill Fox; JoAnna Tingle Owens; Jennifer Spiegel; Charlotte Love; Travis Teague; Carolyn Noonan Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Rebecca A Seguin; Meredith L Graham; Galen Eldridge; Miriam E Nelson; David Strogatz; Sara C Folta; Lynn Paul Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Susan B Roberts; Sai Krupa Das; R Drew Sayer; Ann E Caldwell; Holly R Wyatt; Tapan S Mehta; Anna M Gorczyca; Jennifer L Oslund; John C Peters; James E Friedman; Chia-Ying Chiu; Frank L Greenway; Joseph E Donnelly; Maria Carlota Dao; Adolfo G Cuevas; Olivia Affuso; Larrell L Wilkinson; Diana Thomas; Ebaa Al-Ozairi; Mary Yannakoulia; Yeganeh M Khazrai; Raoul J Manalac; Vasil Bachiashvili; James O Hill Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 5.551
Authors: Hannah G Lane; Rachel Deitch; Yan Wang; Maureen M Black; Genevieve F Dunton; Linda Aldoory; Lindsey Turner; Elizabeth A Parker; Shauna C Henley; Brit Saksvig; Hee-Jung Song; Erin R Hager Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 2.226