| Literature DB >> 30166648 |
Zoltán Szakály1, Enikő Kontor1, Sándor Kovács2, József Popp2, Károly Pető3, Zsolt Polereczki1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to examine the applicability of the original 36-item Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) model developed by Steptoe et al. (1995) in Hungary. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The national representative questionnaire involved 1,050 individuals in Hungary in 2015. Several multivariable statistical techniques were applied for the analysis of the data: confirmatory factor analysis, principal component analysis, and cluster and Log-linear analysis.Entities:
Keywords: Food choice; Motives; Questionnaire; Validity
Year: 2018 PMID: 30166648 PMCID: PMC6091656 DOI: 10.1108/BFJ-07-2017-0404
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br Food J ISSN: 0007-070X Impact factor: 2.518
Distribution of the sample according to the most important background variables
| Sample distribution | Census proportionsa | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Individuals | % | % |
| Total | 1,050 | 100.0 | |
| Men | 494 | 47.0 | 46.9 |
| Women | 556 | 53.0 | 53.1 |
| 14–18 | 65 | 6.2 | 6.6 |
| 19–29 | 164 | 15.6 | 15.8 |
| 30–39 | 187 | 17.8 | 18.4 |
| 40–49 | 175 | 16.7 | 15.3 |
| 50–59 | 164 | 15.7 | 16.7 |
| 60 and older | 294 | 28.0 | 27.2 |
| Up to 8 years of schooling | 164 | 15.6 | 31.6 |
| Vocational or specialist school | 334 | 31.8 | 21.3 |
| High school qualification | 370 | 35.2 | 30.1 |
| Higher education degree | 183 | 17.4 | 17.0 |
| Central Hungary | 133 | 12.6 | 12.6 |
| Central Transdanubia | 117 | 11.2 | 11.3 |
| Western Transdanubia | 106 | 10.1 | 10.3 |
| Southern Transdanubia | 99 | 9.4 | 10.0 |
| Northern Hungary | 120 | 11.4 | 11.9 |
| Northern Great Plain | 149 | 14.2 | 12.4 |
| Southern Great Plain | 140 | 13.3 | 13.1 |
| Budapest | 186 | 17.8 | 18.4 |
Note: aOn the basis of data from the 2011 census; the census data distribution also shows the 14-year old or older age group
Results from the principal component analysis
| Item number | Original factors | Extracted factors | Items on other factors than the original |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 and 5 and 7 health, natural content | |||
| 22 | Contains a lot of vitamins and minerals | 0.76 | |
| 29 | Keeps me healthy | 0.70 | |
| 10 | Is nutritious | 0.40 | |
| 27 | Is high in protein | 0.68 | |
| 30 | Is good for my skin/teeth/hair/nails | 0.67 | |
| 9 | Is high in fiber and roughage | 0.74 | |
| 16 | Helps me cope with stress | 0.73 | |
| 34 | Helps me cope with life | 0.72 | |
| 26 | Helps me relax | 0.79 | |
| 24 | Keeps me awake/alert | 0.72 | |
| 13 | Cheers me up | 0.69 | |
| 31 | Makes me feel good | Sensory appeal 0.62 | |
| 3.1 Preparation convenience | |||
| 1 | Is easy to prepare | 0.83 | |
| 15 | Can be cooked very simply | 0.77 | |
| 28 | Takes no time to prepare | 0.83 | |
| 35 | Can be bought in shops close to where I live or work | Price and purchase convenience 0.60 | |
| 11 | Is easily available in shops and supermarkets | Price and purchase convenience 0.57 | |
| 14 | Smells nice | 0.69 | |
| 25 | Looks nice | 0.75 | |
| 18 | Has a pleasant texture | 0.75 | |
| 4 | Tastes good | 0.41 | |
| 2 | 1 and 5 and 7 health, natural content 0.67 | ||
| 5 | Contains natural ingredients | 0.67 | |
| 23 | Contains no artificial ingredients | 0.69 | |
| 6 price and 3.2 purchase convenience | |||
| 6 | Is not expensive | 0.80 | |
| 36 | Is cheap | 0.83 | |
| 12 | Is good value for money | 0.61 | |
| 1 and 5 and 7 health, natural content | |||
| 3 | Is low in calories | 0.71 | |
| 17 | Helps me control my weight | 0.66 | |
| 7 | Is low in fat | 0.72 | |
| 33 | Is what I usually eat | 0.56 | |
| 8 | Is familiar | 0.40 | |
| 21 | Is like the food I ate when I was a child | 0.73 | |
| 20 | Comes from countries I approve of politically | 0.65 | |
| 32 | Has the country of origin clearly marked | 0.69 | |
| 19 | Is packaged in an environmentally friendly way | 0.45 |
Note: PCA loadings on numbered items (n=1,050)
Descriptive statistics and reliabilities of the original FCQ
| Item number | It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day | Median | IQR |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.52 | 2.18 | ||
| 22 | Contains a lot of vitamins and minerals | 3.74 | 1.96 |
| 29 | Keeps me healthy | 3.96 | 1.69 |
| 10 | Is nutritious | 4.45 | 1.35 |
| 27 | Is high in protein | 3.11 | 2.13 |
| 30 | Is good for my skin/teeth/hair/nails | 2.94 | 2.40 |
| 9 | Is high in fiber and roughage | 3.38 | 2.00 |
| 2 | Contains no additives | 3.62 | 2.14 |
| 5 | Contains natural ingredients | 3.96 | 1.76 |
| 23 | Contains no artificial ingredients | 3.86 | 2.00 |
| 3 | Is low in calories | 2.66 | 2.19 |
| 17 | Helps me control my weight | 2.87 | 2.40 |
| 7 | Is low in fat | 3.15 | 1.95 |
| 31 | Makes me feel good | 4.20 | 1.69 |
| Cronbach’s | |||
| 2.72 | 2.44 | ||
| 16 | Helps me cope with stress | 2.21 | 2.42 |
| 34 | Helps me cope with life | 2.56 | 2.55 |
| 26 | Helps me relax | 2.55 | 2.47 |
| 24 | Keeps me awake/alert | 2.06 | 2.41 |
| 13 | Cheers me up | 3.21 | 2.69 |
| Cronbach’s | |||
| 4.03 | 1.79 | ||
| 1 | Is easy to prepare | 4.07 | 1.80 |
| 15 | Can be cooked very simply | 4.19 | 1.68 |
| 28 | Takes no time to prepare | 3.65 | 1.96 |
| Cronbach’s | |||
| 4.36 | 1.52 | ||
| 6 | Is not expensive | 4.26 | 1.69 |
| 36 | Is cheap | 4.13 | 1.60 |
| 12 | Is good value for money | 4.62 | 0.94 |
| 35 | Can be bought in shops close to where I live or work | 4.29 | 1.62 |
| 11 | Is easily available in shops and supermarkets | 4.40 | 1.45 |
| Cronbach’s | |||
| 4.42 | 1.43 | ||
| 14 | Smells nice | 4.35 | 1.56 |
| 25 | Looks nice | 4.43 | 1.37 |
| 18 | Has a pleasant texture | 4.24 | 1.66 |
| 4 | Tastes good | 4.74 | 0.80 |
| Cronbach’s | |||
| 3.86 | 1.76 | ||
| 33 | Is what I usually eat | 3.92 | 1.62 |
| 8 | Is familiar | 4.15 | 1.61 |
| 21 | Is like the food I ate when I was a child | 3.44 | 2.10 |
| Cronbach’s | |||
| 2.43 | 2.49 | ||
| 20 | Comes from countries I approve of politically | 1.53 | 1.95 |
| 32 | Has the country of origin clearly marked | 2.99 | 2.70 |
| 19 | Is packaged in an environmentally friendly way Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.67 | 2.79 | 2.11 |
| Cronbach’s |
Notes: n=1,050. Five-point Likert scale was used
Characteristics of the FCQ clusters
| Average factor scores by cluster | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCQ clusters | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| Factors | Modern food enthusiast ( | Tradition-oriented ( | Optimizer ( | Easy-choice ( | Un-concerned ( | |
| Factor 1 (health and natural content) | −0.62 | 0.12 | −0.12 | 0.27 | −0.07 | 21.2 |
| Factor 2 (mood) | 0.46 | −0.63 | −0.40 | 0.39 | −0.13 | 51.7 |
| Factor 3 (prep. convenience) | 0.30 | −0.81 | −0.48 | 0.47 | 0.03 | 73.7 |
| Factor 4 (price and purchase convenience) | −1.19 | −1.01 | 0.59 | 0.30 | 0.24 | 181.5 |
| Factor 5 (sensory appeal) | 0.36 | 0.07 | 0.60 | 0.34 | −1.35 | 275.2 |
| Factor 6 (familiarity) | −0.87 | 0.72 | −0.73 | 0.58 | −0.24 | 166.1 |
| Factor 7 (ethical concern) | −0.55 | 0.35 | 0.33 | −0.01 | −0.21 | 23.3 |
Notes: n=1,050. aThe F-tests are for descriptive purposes only. All F values are significant at the 1% level
Parameter estimates of the education/age and FCQ cluster effect
| FCQ cluster | 1. Modern food enthusiast | 2. Tradition-oriented | 3. Optimizer | 4. Easy-choice | 5. Un-concerned |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher educated | 0.173 | 0.133 | 0.012 | −0.125 | −0.193 |
| Secondary school | 0.113 | 0.220 | −0.078 | −0.087 | −0.147 |
| Vocational school | −0.380 | −0.203 | 0.090 | 0.193 | 0.298 |
| Primary school | 0.092 | −0.150 | −0.025 | 0.020 | 0.042 |
| Odds (higher vs primary) | 1.08 | 1.33 | 1.04 | 0.87 | 0.79 |
| 14–18 | 0.451 | 0.092 | −0.048 | 0.071 | −0.566 |
| 19–29 | 0.243 | −0.210 | −0.141 | 0.016 | 0.091 |
| 30–39 | 0.168 | 0.167 | −0.254 | −0.237 | 0.157 |
| 40–49 | 0.113 | 0.036 | 0.057 | −0.043 | −0.162 |
| 50–59 | −0.588 | 0.090 | 0.150 | 0.236 | 0.110 |
| 60< | −0.387 | −0.175 | 0.235 | −0.428 | 0.369 |
| Odds (14–18 vs 60<) | 2.31 | 1.31 | 0.75 | 1.65 | 0.39 |
Note: n=1,050