Gudrun Sproesser1, Matthew B Ruby2, Naomi Arbit3, Paul Rozin2, Harald T Schupp4, Britta Renner1. 1. 1University of Konstanz,Psychological Assessment and Health Psychology,Box 47,78457 Konstanz,Germany. 2. 2University of Pennsylvania,Department of Psychology,Philadelphia,PA,USA. 3. 3Columbia University,Department of Nutrition,New York,NY,USA. 4. 4University of Konstanz,General Psychology,Konstanz,Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Research has shown that there is a large variety of different motives underlying why people eat what they eat, which can be assessed with The Eating Motivation Survey (TEMS). The present study investigates the consistency and measurement invariance of the fifteen basic motives included in TEMS in countries with greatly differing eating environments. DESIGN: The fifteen-factor structure of TEMS (brief version: forty-six items) was tested in confirmatory factor analyses. SETTING: An online survey was conducted. SUBJECTS: US-American, Indian and German adults (total N 749) took part. RESULTS: Despite the complexity of the model, fit indices indicated a reasonable model fit (for the total sample: χ 2/df=4·03; standardized root-mean-squared residual (SRMR)=0·063; root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA)=0·064 (95 % CI 0·062, 0·066)). Only the comparative fit index (CFI) was below the recommended threshold (for the total sample: CFI=0·84). Altogether, 181 out of 184 item loadings were above the recommended threshold of 0·30. Furthermore, the factorial structure of TEMS was invariant across countries with respect to factor configuration and factor loadings (configural v. metric invariance model: ΔCFI=0·009; ΔRMSEA=0·001; ΔSRMR=0·001). Moreover, forty-three out of forty-six items showed invariant intercepts across countries. CONCLUSIONS: The fifteen-factor structure of TEMS was, in general, confirmed across countries despite marked differences in eating environments. Moreover, latent means of fourteen out of fifteen motive factors can be compared across countries in future studies. This is a first step towards determining generalizability of the fifteen basic eating motives of TEMS across eating environments.
OBJECTIVE: Research has shown that there is a large variety of different motives underlying why people eat what they eat, which can be assessed with The Eating Motivation Survey (TEMS). The present study investigates the consistency and measurement invariance of the fifteen basic motives included in TEMS in countries with greatly differing eating environments. DESIGN: The fifteen-factor structure of TEMS (brief version: forty-six items) was tested in confirmatory factor analyses. SETTING: An online survey was conducted. SUBJECTS: US-American, Indian and German adults (total N 749) took part. RESULTS: Despite the complexity of the model, fit indices indicated a reasonable model fit (for the total sample: χ 2/df=4·03; standardized root-mean-squared residual (SRMR)=0·063; root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA)=0·064 (95 % CI 0·062, 0·066)). Only the comparative fit index (CFI) was below the recommended threshold (for the total sample: CFI=0·84). Altogether, 181 out of 184 item loadings were above the recommended threshold of 0·30. Furthermore, the factorial structure of TEMS was invariant across countries with respect to factor configuration and factor loadings (configural v. metric invariance model: ΔCFI=0·009; ΔRMSEA=0·001; ΔSRMR=0·001). Moreover, forty-three out of forty-six items showed invariant intercepts across countries. CONCLUSIONS: The fifteen-factor structure of TEMS was, in general, confirmed across countries despite marked differences in eating environments. Moreover, latent means of fourteen out of fifteen motive factors can be compared across countries in future studies. This is a first step towards determining generalizability of the fifteen basic eating motives of TEMS across eating environments.
Authors: Klaus L Fuchs; Jie Lian; Leonard Michels; Simon Mayer; Enrico Toniato; Verena Tiefenbeck Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-05-13 Impact factor: 6.706
Authors: Elsa Lamy; Claudia Viegas; Ada Rocha; Maria Raquel Lucas; Sofia Tavares; Fernando Capela E Silva; David Guedes; Monica Laureati; Zeineb Zian; Alessandra Salles Machado; Pierre Ellssel; Bernhard Freyer; Elena González-Rodrigo; Jesús Calzadilla; Edward Majewski; Ibrahim Prazeres; Vlademir Silva; Josip Juračak; Lenka Platilová Vorlíčková; Antonino Kamutali; Elizabeth Regina Tschá; Keylor Villalobos; Rasa Želvytė; Ingrida Monkeviciene; Jalila Elati; Ana Maria de Souza Pinto; Paula Midori Castelo; Stephanie Anzman-Frasca Journal: Food Qual Prefer Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 5.565
Authors: Gudrun Sproesser; Matthew B Ruby; Naomi Arbit; Charity S Akotia; Marle Dos Santos Alvarenga; Rachana Bhangaokar; Isato Furumitsu; Xiaomeng Hu; Sumio Imada; Gülbanu Kaptan; Martha Kaufer-Horwitz; Usha Menon; Claude Fischler; Paul Rozin; Harald T Schupp; Britta Renner Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Deborah Ronja Wahl; Karoline Villinger; Michael Blumenschein; Laura Maria König; Katrin Ziesemer; Gudrun Sproesser; Harald Thomas Schupp; Britta Renner Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Kirsten Schlüter; Sandra Vamos; Corinne Wacker; Virginia D E Welter Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 3.390