Julia K Kolodziejczyk1, Gregory J Norman2, Cheryl L Rock3, Elva M Arredondo4, Scott C Roesch5, Hala Madanat6, Kevin Patrick7. 1. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States; Center for Wireless and Population Health Systems, Qualcomm Institute/Calit2, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States; Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, United States. 2. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States; Center for Wireless and Population Health Systems, Qualcomm Institute/Calit2, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States. 3. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States. 4. Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, United States. 5. Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, United States. 6. Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, United States; Institute for Behavioral and Community Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, United States. 7. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States; Center for Wireless and Population Health Systems, Qualcomm Institute/Calit2, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States. Electronic address: kpatrick@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates the reliability and validity of the strategies for weight management (SWM) measure, a questionnaire that assesses weight management strategies for adults. The SWM includes 20 items that are categorized within the following subscales: (1) energy intake, (2) energy expenditure, (3) self-monitoring, and (4) self-regulation. METHODS: Baseline and 6-month data were collected from 404 overweight/obese adults (mean age=22±3.8 years, 68% ethnic minority) enrolled in a randomized controlled trial aiming to reduce weight by improving diet and physical activity behaviours. Reliability and validity were assessed for each subscale separately. Cronbach alpha was conducted to assess reliability. Concurrent, construct I (sensitivity to the study treatment condition), and construct II (relationship to the outcomes) validity were assessed using linear regressions with the following outcome measures: weight, self-reported diet, and weekly energy expenditure. RESULTS: All subscales showed strong internal consistency. The strength of the validity evidence depended on subscale and validity type. The strongest validity evidence was concurrent validity of the energy intake and energy expenditure subscales; construct I validity of the energy intake and self-monitoring subscales; and construct II validity of the energy intake, energy expenditure, and self-regulation subscales. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the SWM can be used to assess weight management strategies among an ethnically diverse sample of adults as each subscale showed evidence of reliability and select types of validity. As validity is an accumulation of evidence over multiple studies, this study provides initial reliability and validity evidence in one population segment.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates the reliability and validity of the strategies for weight management (SWM) measure, a questionnaire that assesses weight management strategies for adults. The SWM includes 20 items that are categorized within the following subscales: (1) energy intake, (2) energy expenditure, (3) self-monitoring, and (4) self-regulation. METHODS: Baseline and 6-month data were collected from 404 overweight/obese adults (mean age=22±3.8 years, 68% ethnic minority) enrolled in a randomized controlled trial aiming to reduce weight by improving diet and physical activity behaviours. Reliability and validity were assessed for each subscale separately. Cronbach alpha was conducted to assess reliability. Concurrent, construct I (sensitivity to the study treatment condition), and construct II (relationship to the outcomes) validity were assessed using linear regressions with the following outcome measures: weight, self-reported diet, and weekly energy expenditure. RESULTS: All subscales showed strong internal consistency. The strength of the validity evidence depended on subscale and validity type. The strongest validity evidence was concurrent validity of the energy intake and energy expenditure subscales; construct I validity of the energy intake and self-monitoring subscales; and construct II validity of the energy intake, energy expenditure, and self-regulation subscales. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the SWM can be used to assess weight management strategies among an ethnically diverse sample of adults as each subscale showed evidence of reliability and select types of validity. As validity is an accumulation of evidence over multiple studies, this study provides initial reliability and validity evidence in one population segment.
Authors: A F Subar; D Midthune; M Kulldorff; C C Brown; F E Thompson; V Kipnis; A Schatzkin Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2000-08-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Ross L Prentice; Walter C Willett; Peter Greenwald; David Alberts; Leslie Bernstein; Norman F Boyd; Tim Byers; Steven K Clinton; Gary Fraser; Laurence Freedman; David Hunter; Victor Kipnis; Laurence N Kolonel; Bruce S Kristal; Alan Kristal; Johanna W Lampe; Anne McTiernan; John Milner; Ruth E Patterson; John D Potter; Elio Riboli; Arthur Schatzkin; Allison Yates; Elizabeth Yetley Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Eric A Finkelstein; Olga A Khavjou; Hope Thompson; Justin G Trogdon; Liping Pan; Bettylou Sherry; William Dietz Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: K Patrick; S J Marshall; E P Davila; J K Kolodziejczyk; J H Fowler; K J Calfas; J S Huang; C L Rock; W G Griswold; A Gupta; G Merchant; G J Norman; F Raab; M C Donohue; B J Fogg; T N Robinson Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2013-11-09 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Nur Nadia Mohamed; Abdul Jalil Rohana; Noor Aman A Hamid; Frank B Hu; Vasanti S Malik; Muhammad Fadhli Mohd Yusoff; Tahir Aris Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 6.706