- Email: [email protected]
Validation of a Turkish version of the food choice questionnaire
Accepted Manuscript Validation of a turkish version of the food choice questionnaire Derya Dikmen, Elif İnan-Eroğlu, Zeynep Göktaş, Banugül Barut-Uyar, Erdem Karabulut PII: DOI: Reference:
S0950-3293(16)30070-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.016 FQAP 3120
To appear in:
Food Quality and Preference
Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:
23 February 2016 19 March 2016 29 March 2016
Please cite this article as: Dikmen, D., İnan-Eroğlu, E., Göktaş, Z., Barut-Uyar, B., Karabulut, E., Validation of a turkish version of the food choice questionnaire, Food Quality and Preference (2016), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodqual.2016.03.016
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
VALIDATION OF A TURKISH VERSION OF THE FOOD CHOICE QUESTIONNAIRE
Derya Dikmen1, Elif İnan-Eroğlu1, Zeynep Göktaş1, Banugül Barut-Uyar2, Erdem Karabulut3
1
Nutrition and Dietetics, Hacettepe University, Faculty of Health Sciences , Sihhiye, Ankara , Turkey; [email protected] ; [email protected]
2
Nutrition and Dietetics, Gazi University, Faculty of Health Sciences , Besevler, Ankara , Turkey; [email protected]
3
Department of Biostatistics, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; [email protected]
Address and contact details of the corresponding and co-authors:
Corresponding Author Derya Dikmen Address: Hacettepe University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, 06100, Sıhhiye Ankara, Turkey E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +903123051096 Fax: +903123091310
Co-Authors Elif İnan-Eroğlu Address: Hacettepe University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, 06100, Sıhhiye Ankara, Turkey E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +903123051096 Fax: +903123091310
Zeynep Göktaş Address: Hacettepe University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, 06100, Sıhhiye Ankara, Turkey E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +903123051096 Fax: +903123091310
Banugül Barut-Uyar Address: Nutrition and Dietetics, Gazi University, Faculty of Health Sciences , Besevler, Ankara , Turkey E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +903122162608 Fax: +903122162636
Erdem Karabulut Address: Department of Biostatistics, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +903123051467 Fax: +903123051459
Running Title: Validation of The Food Choice Questionnaire
Acknowledgments: All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version submitted for publication. Financial Support: This study was not funded.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interests.
Author Contributions: D.D., E.İ.E., B.B.U., Z.G. and E.K. planned the research, D.D. and E.İ.E conducted the research, E.K. analyzed the data, D.D. and E.K. wrote the paper, Z.G., and B.B.U. contributed to the edits of the final manuscript, D.D. had primary responsibility for final content. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version submitted for publication.
Ethical Standards Disclosure: This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and all procedures involving human subjects were approved by the [Research Ethical Committee from Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey].
VALIDATION
OF
A
TURKISH
VERSION
OF
THE
FOOD
CHOICE
QUESTIONNAIRE
Abstract The purpose of this study was to test the validity and reliability of the Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) for Turkish consumers. A total of 963 voluntary consumers participated in this study. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a diagonally weighted least squares estimation method was used to assess the construct validity. Results showed that factor loadings were similar to the original FCQ. CFA results indicated an acceptable fit. Test-retest reliability was tested with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the ICC values ranged from 0.89 to 0.95. Results show that the Turkish version of FCQ was validated and it appears to be a reliable research instrument. Keywords: validation; food choice questionnaire; Turkish consumers
1. Introduction Making healthier food choices would have positive effects on health. Unhealthy food consumption can lead to chronic non-communicable diseases like obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), stroke and certain cancers whereas choosing nutritious food like fruits and vegetables can reduce the probability of CVDs and some cancers(Willett et al., 2006). Determination of people’s motives behind their food choices would help to develop better public health strategies and health promotion activities (Cannuscio, Hillier, Karpyn, & Glanz, 2014; Lyerly & Reeve, 2015; Miller & Cassady, 2012). Food choices include a complex interaction between non-sensory factors, including foodrelated expectations and attitudes, health claims, price, ethical concerns, mood and familiarity, and sensory factors such as appearance, taste, smell and texture characteristics. Food choices increasingly reflect people’s personalities and lifestyles, emphasizing that different motives play a role in determining food choices (Honkanen & Frewer, 2009; Prescott, Young, O'Neill, Yau, & Stevens, 2002). In addition, the determination of potential food choice motives in different populations has great importance during the formation of press releases, product development, market promotion, health campaigns, healthy nutrition habits and more efficient public health policies (Januszewska, Pieniak, & Verbeke, 2011; Milosevic, Zezelj, Gorton, & Barjolle, 2012). The food choice questionnaire (FCQ) was developed by Steptoe, Pollard and
Wardle in order to determine motives that affect consumers during the food choice process (Steptoe, Pollard, & Wardle, 1995). The food choice questionnaire is composed of 36 items representing health and non-health characteristics of food, including subscales of health, mood (improve mood and cope with stress), convenience (ease of preparation and availability), sensory appearance (appearance, taste, smell and texture), natural content (no additives or artificial ingredients), price, weight control (low in calories and fat), familiarity and ethical concern (country of origin and environmentally friendly packaging). Each subscale includes 3-6 items. In the questionnaire, questions starting with "on a typical day" related to the food choices are asked to participants and it is requested that they evaluate them on a four-point scale. The validity and reliability of the instrument was established by the authors (Pollard, Steptoe, & Wardle, 1998). The authors concluded that “within western urban populations, the FCQ provides the opportunity to assess a broad range of factors perceived as relevant to food selection.” Since its introduction, the food choice questionnaire has been applied at both national, crosscultural and cross-national levels and has been translated into many languages, including Finnish, Polish, Greek and Spanish (Ares & Gambaro, 2007; Chryssochoidis, Krystallis, & Perreas, 2007; Lindeman & Vaananen, 2000; Lockie, Lyons, Lawrence, & Mummery, 2002; Pollard et al., 1998; Prescott et al., 2002). However, to the authors’ knowledge there is not a validated questionnaire used to determine food choices in Turkey. The aim of this study was to provide validation by translating the food choice questionnaire into the Turkish language and applying it for the first time to the Turkish consumers.
2. Methods 2.1.Participants A total of 963 people, including 448 males and 515 females between the ages of 18 and 64, participated in the study voluntarily in Ankara Turkey. Data were collected between May and June 2015. One thousand people were informed about the survey and 963 people accepted to participate in this study. Response rate was 96%. Food choice behavior is a complex process and mainly influenced by taste, convenience, cost of the food items and health status of the individuals(Shepherd, 1990). Because of doing own food shopping, taking medical treatment and having chronic illnesses may affect the decision process of food choice, the participants were included in the study if they did their own food shopping and had no medical treatment
or chronic illnesses. Furthermore the volunteer participants did not receive any incentive for participation.
2.2.Questionnaire The questionnaire included socio-demographic characteristics of the participants, such as gender, age, marital status, salary, residence and education. Self-reported body weight and height values were provided during the interview by the participants. BMI (kg/m2) was calculated as body weight (kg) divided by height (m) squared. Participants were classified into four categories according to the WHO classification of BMI (Organization, 2010). The FCQ (Steptoe et al., 1995) comprised 36 items in 9 dimensions (health, mood, convenience, sensory appeal, natural content, price, weight control, familiarity and ethical concern). Some researchers have used 5-point (1=not at all important to 5=extremely important) or 7- point (1= not important at all to 7= extremely important) Likert scales in recent studies (Dowd & Burke, 2013; Markovina et al., 2015; Milosevic et al., 2012; Pieniak, Verbeke, Vanhonacker, Guerrero, & Hersleth, 2009). The FCQ scale was scored as originally with a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all important to 4=very important) in this study. The questionnaire was translated from English to Turkish, and then back to English by expert scientists in the Nutritional Epidemiology field. The translation process followed the Brislin method (Brislin & Leibowitz, 1970). Two native Turkish speakers translated the FCQ to Turkish and two native English speakers translated the Turkish-FCQ to English. These translations were compared with the original FCQ by an expert committee experienced in food choice and nutrition and necessary corrections were made. The randomly selected 40 participants completed the food choice questionnaire (FCQ) at baseline and after 4 weeks to provide evidence of test–retest reliability.
2.3.Procedure All volunteer participants who live around Altindag District of Ankara were informed about the purpose of the research and were asked to sign a consent form. After having agreed to participate in the study, they were asked to complete the questionnaire which lasted no more than 15 minutes. The first section of the questionnaire gathered socio-demographic information that was not included in the validation analyses. The second section consisted of
36 items of FCQ. All of the interviews were pencil and paper survey and conducted face to face by two trained dietitians.
2.4.Statistical Analysis Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a diagonally weighted least squares estimation method was used to assess the construct validity of the Turkish version of the food choice questionnaire (FCQ). Model fit of the 9-factor structure was examined using χ2/df, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and two goodness of fit indices such as comparative fit index (CFI) and non-normed fit index (NNFI). The criteria for an acceptable model fit was identified as χ2/df (degrees of freedom) ≤ 5, CFI ≥ 0.90, NNFI ≥ 0.90, and RMSEA ≤0.06, and also the good model fit was identified as χ2/df ≤ 2, CFI ≥ 0.95 and NNFI ≥ 0.95. RMSEA <0.05 with an upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) ≤0.08 was considered as an acceptable model fit (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Internal consistency of the scale was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. A criteria for Cronbach’s alpha was selected as 0.70 (Field, 2009). Test-retest reliability was examined by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). ICC>0.80 indicates excellent test-retest agreement.
2.5.Ethics The study and its survey were approved by the ethical board of Hacettepe University (GO 15/114). All survey participants signed the consent form which included their agreement of participation to the study and of the use of anonymized data.
3. Results Demographic characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 1. The participants’ mean age was 25.4 (±9.8) years. 81.2% of participants were single, 76.2% were non-smoker, and 41.7% were single household. The average BMI of the male participants was 24.4 (±3.5), and the average BMI of the female participants was 21.9 (±3.5). Insert Table 1 Food choice item statistics (mean, standard deviation and item-total correlations) of the participants according to the FCQ are shown in Table 2. According to FCQ scales, item 4 “Tastes good” elicited the highest mean: (3.63). Other items with highest score were item 29 “Keeps me healthy” (3.24); item 12 “Is good value for the money” (3.24); item 14 “smells
nice” (3.20). The items with the lowest means were item 3 “Is low in calories” (2.22); item 9 “Is high in fibre and roughage ” (2.24) and item 20 and 21 “Comes from countries I approve of politically”, “Is like the food I ate when I was a child” (2.29).
Insert Table 2 Correlations between dimensions of the FCQ are shown in Table 3. There were weak to moderate correlations (ranging from 0.09 to 0.66) between the dimensions of the FCQ at the 0.05 significance level, except for between price & natural content and convenience & natural content. . There were moderate correlations between the food choice motives related to health and to natural content (r=0.66) and to weight concern(r=0.57). Weak correlations were observed between health and mood, ethical concern, between mood and familiarity, ethical concern between convenience and price, between sensory appeal and price, between familiarity and ethical concern.
Insert Table 3
3.1.Construct validity The construct validity of the food choice questionnaire was tested by CFA. The 9-factor structure of the model is given in Figure 1. All items’ standardized factor loadings were greater than 0.40 (ranging from 0.48 to 0.89) (Table 4). Statistics obtained from CFA to evaluate the model fit were as follows: χ2/df =4.63 < 5, CFI=0.96 ≥ 0.95, NFI=0.95 ≥ 0.95, and RMSEA =0.061 > 0.06 but 90% CI 0.059-0.064. The CFA result indicated acceptable fit for the Turkish version of the FCQ. Insert Figure 1 3.2.Internal reliability Cronbach’s alpha values of the FCQ’s subscales are presented in Table 4. Alpha values for subscales ranged from 0.60 to 0.84 and for the overall questionnaire it was 0.90, although only two subscale Cronbach’s alpha values were below 0.70. Test-retest reliability was tested with ICC and the ICC values ranged from 0.89 to 0.95. Insert Table 4
4. Discussion To our knowledge this is the first study conducted to validate the Turkish version of FCQ and to determine the motives for food choice of Turkish consumers. Results show that Turkish version of the FCQ is a validated questionnaire and reliable research instrument in Turkish population. Sensory appeal, natural content and price are the important motivational food choice factors for Turkish population. Steptoe, (Steptoe et al., 1995) reported the sensory appeal, health, convenience and price are the most important factors in the original FCQ. In a validation study of FCQ conducted in 9 European countries(Markovina et al., 2015) showed the price was the most important food choice motive in Spain, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and the Netherlands, sensory appeal was the first for Norway, Germany and the UK while natural content was the most important food choice motive in Poland. In another study in Greece(Fotopoulos, Krystallis, Vassallo, & Pagiaslis, 2009) it was found the natural content, convenience, health, are the important food choice motives. Like our study sensory appeal is the most important food choice motive in Romania, Hungary, Philippines and Belgium(Januszewska et al., 2011). In a study in Western Balkan countries (Milosevic et al., 2012) the most important food choice motives were sensory appeal, convenience, health and natural content. Food choices motives of the individuals were mostly affected by the sensory appeal because this motive involves smell, taste and appearance. Familiarity and ethical concern were least important in European countries (Januszewska et al., 2011; Markovina et al., 2015), ethical concern and the weight control were the least important food choice motives for Turkish population according to our findings. Although most of the items had high item-total correlations (>0.40), three items showed a low item-total correlation between 0.34 and 0.40 with the respective FCQ-scale. This was observed for the familiarity (item 9, 21) and for the price (item 12) factors. Unlike our study, Fotopulas et al (Fotopoulos et al., 2009) found the lowest item total correlations in all items of ethical concern, item number 30 of health, item number 34 of mood, and item number 35 for convenience. Furthermore, similar to our study they showed the lowest item total correlations in item number 33 for familiarity. We observed weak to moderate correlations between dimensions, unlike the recent studies conducted by Markovina (Markovina et al., 2015) and Peiniak (Pieniak et al., 2009) who found high intercorrelations between dimensions. Like the original FCQ study(Steptoe et al.,
1995) we observe significant associations between food choice motives related to health and natural content. According to the CFA results, construct validity of the Turkish version of the FCQ was satisfactory. Studies conducted to examine the validity and the reliability of the FCQ had also acceptable CFA fits (Fotopoulos et al., 2009; Januszewska et al., 2011; Markovina et al., 2015; Milosevic et al., 2012). According to the consistent CFA results of these studies, FCQ could be used as a suitable tool for exploring food choice motives across different European populations. Although the FCQ may be a useful instrument for assessing food choice within a population, previous research findings suggest key issues to consider. In a study that aimed to examine the degree to which the factor structure of the FCQ is invariant across western urban populations, it has been reported that certain items on the scale may acquire different connotative meanings in translation (Eertmans, Victoir, Notelaers, Vansant, & Van den Bergh, 2006). FCQ was originally developed for populations in the United Kingdom, it is possible that food choice items may not be properly representative to other countries food choice motives. Translation of the FCQ would be considered as an important process of validation and needs to be translated accurately, in order to avoid connotative meaning as Eertman et al. (2006) reported. This study has a few limitations. First, we aimed for the adult population (age between 18 and 64) since this FCQ is widely used only in adult population. Adult population in Turkey is 67.8% of the entire population. Further research needs to be done to determine the validity of the FCQ with other age groups such as adolescents and elderly people. Second, FCQ uses a Likert scale, which is susceptible to central tendency bias. Despite these limitations, the results of this study are important and noteworthy. When compared to other FCQ validity studies, the original FCQ (36 items, 4 point likert scale) was used in this study. Unlike the other web based studies (Januszewska et al., 2011; Pieniak, Perez-Cueto, & Verbeke, 2013; Prescott et al., 2002; Pula, Parks, & Ross, 2014), this study was done with face to face interviews.
5. Conclusion Understanding food choice motives is an important component of planning public health policies that can lead to healthier dietary habits, food product innovations, better food labelling and food marketing practices. A validated food choice questionnaire can be a great
tool to assess the population’s food choice motives. According to the results of this study, the FCQ seems to be a valid instrument for measuring food choice motives of the Turkish population.
Acknowledgment Conflict of interests, source of funding and authorship The authors declare no conflicts of interest. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version submitted for publication. References
Ares, G., & Gambaro, A. (2007). Influence of gender, age and motives underlying food choice on perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional foods. Appetite, 49(1), 148-158. Brislin, R. W., & Leibowitz, H. W. (1970). The effect of separation between test and comparison objects on size constancy at various age-levels. Am J Psychol, 83(3), 372376. Cannuscio, C. C., Hillier, A., Karpyn, A., & Glanz, K. (2014). The social dynamics of healthy food shopping and store choice in an urban environment. Soc Sci Med, 122, 13-20. Chryssochoidis, G., Krystallis, A., & Perreas, P. (2007). Ethnocentric beliefs and country‐of‐origin (COO) effect: Impact of country, product and product attributes on Greek consumers' evaluation of food products. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12), 1518-1544. Dowd, K., & Burke, K. J. (2013). The influence of ethical values and food choice motivations on intentions to purchase sustainably sourced foods. Appetite, 69, 137-144. Eertmans, A., Victoir, A., Notelaers, G., Vansant, G., & Van den Bergh, O. (2006). The Food Choice Questionnaire: Factorial invariant over western urban populations? Food Quality and Preference, 17(5), 344-352. Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications. Fotopoulos, C., Krystallis, A., Vassallo, M., & Pagiaslis, A. (2009). Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) revisited. Suggestions for the development of an enhanced general food motivation model. Appetite, 52(1), 199-208. Honkanen, P., & Frewer, L. (2009). Russian consumers' motives for food choice. Appetite, 52(2), 363-371. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 7. Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. Januszewska, R., Pieniak, Z., & Verbeke, W. (2011). Food choice questionnaire revisited in four countries. Does it still measure the same? Appetite, 57(1), 94-98.
Lindeman, M., & Vaananen, M. (2000). Measurement of ethical food choice motives. Appetite, 34(1), 55-59. Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G., & Mummery, K. (2002). Eating ‘Green’: Motivations behind organic food consumption in Australia. Sociologia Ruralis, 42(1), 23-40. Lyerly, J. E., & Reeve, C. L. (2015). Development and validation of a measure of food choice values. Appetite, 89, 47-55. Markovina, J., Stewart-Knox, B. J., Rankin, A., Gibney, M., de Almeida, M. D. V., Fischer, A., et al. (2015). Food4Me study: Validity and reliability of Food Choice Questionnaire in 9 European countries. Food Quality and Preference, 45, 26-32. Miller, L. M., & Cassady, D. L. (2012). Making healthy food choices using nutrition facts panels. The roles of knowledge, motivation, dietary modifications goals, and age. Appetite, 59(1), 129-139. Milosevic, J., Zezelj, I., Gorton, M., & Barjolle, D. (2012). Understanding the motives for food choice in Western Balkan Countries. Appetite, 58(1), 205-214. Pieniak, Z., Perez-Cueto, F., & Verbeke, W. (2013). Nutritional status, self-identification as a traditional food consumer and motives for food choice in six European countries. British Food Journal, 115(9), 1297-1312. Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Guerrero, L., & Hersleth, M. (2009). Association between traditional food consumption and motives for food choice in six European countries. Appetite, 53(1), 101-108. Pollard, T. M., Steptoe, A., & Wardle, J. (1998). Motives underlying healthy eating: using the Food Choice Questionnaire to explain variation in dietary intake. J Biosoc Sci, 30(2), 165-179. Prescott, J., Young, O., O'Neill, L., Yau, N. J. N., & Stevens, R. (2002). Motives for food choice: a comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and New Zealand. Food Quality and Preference, 13(7), 489-495. Pula, K., Parks, C. D., & Ross, C. F. (2014). Regulatory focus and food choice motives. Prevention orientation associated with mood, convenience, and familiarity. Appetite, 78, 15-22. Shepherd, R. (1990). The Psychology of Food Choice Nutrition & Food Science, 90(3), 2-4. Steptoe, A., Pollard, T. M., & Wardle, J. (1995). Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite, 25(3), 267284. WHO. (2010). Global Database on Body Mass Index. In: World Health Organization. Willett, W. C., Koplan, J. P., Nugent, R., Dusenbury, C., Puska, P., & Gaziano, T. A. (2006). Prevention of Chronic Disease by Means of Diet and Lifestyle Changes. In D. T. Jamison, J. G. Breman, A. R. Measham, G. Alleyne, M. Claeson, D. B. Evans, P. Jha, A. Mills & P. Musgrove, Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. Washington DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank Group.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study sample
Male
Female
Total
Marital Status Married Single
27.3 ± 11.2 n (%) 116 (26) 332 (74)
23.7 ± 8.1 n (%) 65 (12.6) 450 (87.4)
25.4 ± 9.8 n (%) 181(18.8) 782(81.2)
BMI Underweight Normal weight Overweight Obesity
9 (2) 262 (59) 147 (33.1) 26 (5.9)
66 ( 12.9) 365 (71.3) 69 (13.5) 12 (2.3)
75(7.8) 627(65.6) 216(22.6) 38(3.9)
Resident Home with family Home alone Home with friends Single household
216 (48.9) 23 (5.2) 69 (15.6) 134 (30.3)
142 (27.8) 5 (1) 96 (18.8) 268 (52.4)
358(37.6) 28(2.9) 165(17.3) 402(42.2)
Monthly Salary 0-1000 TL 1001-2000 TL 2001-3000 TL 3001-5000 TL 5000 ≥ TL
65 (14.7) 108 (24.4) 148 (33.4) 82 (18.5) 40 (9)
110 (21.6) 122 (24) 153 (30.1) 93 (18.3) 31 (6.1)
175(18.4) 230(24.2) 301(31.6) 175(18.4) 71(7.5)
Age in years (SD)
Table 2. FCQ-items: Mean and standard deviation (SD) and item-total correlation (r) Food Choice Dimensions Health 9 10 22 27 29 30 Mood 13 16 24 26 31 34 Convenience 1 11 15 28 35 Sensory 4 Appeal 14 18 25 Natural 2 Content 5 23 Price 6 12 36 Weight 3 Control 7 17 Familiarity 8 21 33 Ethical 19 Concern 20 32
Questions Is high in fibre and roughage Is nutritious Contains a lot of vitamins and minerals Is high in protein Keeps me healthy Is good for my skin/teeth/hair/nails etc. Cheers me up Helps me cope with stress Keeps me awake/alert Helps me relax Makes me feel good Helps me cope with life Is easy to prepare Is easily available in shops and supermarkets Can be cooked very simply Takes no time to prepare Can be bought in shops close to where I live or work Tastes good Smells nice Has a pleasant texture Looks nice Contains no additives Contains natural ingredients Contains no artificial ingredients Is not expensive Is good value for money Is cheap Is low in calories Is low in fat Helps me control my weight Is familiar Is like the food I ate when I was a child Is what I usually eat Is packaged in an environmentally friendly way Comes from countries I approve of politically Has the country of origin clearly marked
Mean 2.24 2.78 3.00 2.72 3.24 2.84 3.02 2.42 2.71 2.83 3.14 2.48 2.60 2.82 2.65 2.68 2.97 3.63 3.20 2.81 3.19 2.80 2.92 2.86 2.72 3.24 2.71 2.22 2.60 2.60 3.10 2.29 2.87 2.51 2.29 2.45
Std. Deviation 0.98 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.91 1.05 1.00 1.07 1.00 0.95 0.91 1.02 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.02 0.94 0.72 0.87 0.98 0.88 1.05 0.96 0.98 0.92 0.90 0.96 1.03 1.02 1.08 0.90 1.04 0.91 1.07 1.13 1.08
r 0.490 0.663 0.702 0.625 0.654 0.595 0.474 0.595 0.465 0.704 0.629 0.567 0.545 0.509 0.635 0.633 0.441 0.450 0.578 0.442 0.545 0.685 0.652 0.649 0.544 0.369 0.517 0.607 0.597 0.557 0.373 0.340 0.524 0.428 0.544 0.576
Table 3. Correlation matrix of the FCQ sub-scales (n = 993). Sensory Natural Health
Mood
Weight
Convenience Appeal Content Price
Concern Familiarity
Mood
0.43*
Convenience
0.13*
0.29*
0.22*
0.52*
0.28*
Content
0.66*
0.29*
0.01
0.18*
Price
0.12*
0.23*
0.45*
0.30*
0.01
Concern
0.57*
0.28*
0.10*
0.13*
0.54*
0.09*
Familiarity
0.26*
0.32*
0.25*
0.36*
0.21*
0.20*
0.16*
0.47*
0.34*
0.11*
0.23*
0.50*
0.09*
0.29*
Sensory Appeal Natural
Weight
Ethical Concern * P<0.05
0.35*
Table 4. Internal reliability, test-retest reliability and standardised factor loadings of the FCQ Number of Subscales
items
Test-retest Cronbach’s α reliability
Range of standardised factor
ICC
loadings
Health
6
0.84
0.94
0.59-0.85
Mood
6
0.81
0.94
0.61-0.82
Convenience
5
0.78
0.93
0.61-0.78
Sensory appeal
4
0.71
0.92
0.60-0.77
Natural content
3
0.81
0.90
0.78-0.86
Price
3
0.66
0.95
0.61-0.84
Weight control
3
0.76
0.89
0.70-0.81
Familiarity
3
0.60
0.92
0.57-0.69
Ethical concern
3
0.70
0.95
0.48-0.89
Overall
36
0.90
0.90
0.48-0.89
Figure 1. Confirmatory Factor analysis result
Highlights • The choice of food products is a complex process and it is affected from many factors. Food choices include a complex interaction between the non-sensory factors and sensory factors. •
A validated food choice questionnaire (FCQ) could be an effective way to assess the population’s food choice motives.
•
FCQ seems to be a valid instrument for measuring food choice motives of Turkish sample.
S0950-3293(16)30070-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.016 FQAP 3120
To appear in:
Food Quality and Preference
Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:
23 February 2016 19 March 2016 29 March 2016
Please cite this article as: Dikmen, D., İnan-Eroğlu, E., Göktaş, Z., Barut-Uyar, B., Karabulut, E., Validation of a turkish version of the food choice questionnaire, Food Quality and Preference (2016), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodqual.2016.03.016
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
VALIDATION OF A TURKISH VERSION OF THE FOOD CHOICE QUESTIONNAIRE
Derya Dikmen1, Elif İnan-Eroğlu1, Zeynep Göktaş1, Banugül Barut-Uyar2, Erdem Karabulut3
1
Nutrition and Dietetics, Hacettepe University, Faculty of Health Sciences , Sihhiye, Ankara , Turkey; [email protected] ; [email protected]
2
Nutrition and Dietetics, Gazi University, Faculty of Health Sciences , Besevler, Ankara , Turkey; [email protected]
3
Department of Biostatistics, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; [email protected]
Address and contact details of the corresponding and co-authors:
Corresponding Author Derya Dikmen Address: Hacettepe University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, 06100, Sıhhiye Ankara, Turkey E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +903123051096 Fax: +903123091310
Co-Authors Elif İnan-Eroğlu Address: Hacettepe University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, 06100, Sıhhiye Ankara, Turkey E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +903123051096 Fax: +903123091310
Zeynep Göktaş Address: Hacettepe University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, 06100, Sıhhiye Ankara, Turkey E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +903123051096 Fax: +903123091310
Banugül Barut-Uyar Address: Nutrition and Dietetics, Gazi University, Faculty of Health Sciences , Besevler, Ankara , Turkey E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +903122162608 Fax: +903122162636
Erdem Karabulut Address: Department of Biostatistics, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +903123051467 Fax: +903123051459
Running Title: Validation of The Food Choice Questionnaire
Acknowledgments: All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version submitted for publication. Financial Support: This study was not funded.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interests.
Author Contributions: D.D., E.İ.E., B.B.U., Z.G. and E.K. planned the research, D.D. and E.İ.E conducted the research, E.K. analyzed the data, D.D. and E.K. wrote the paper, Z.G., and B.B.U. contributed to the edits of the final manuscript, D.D. had primary responsibility for final content. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version submitted for publication.
Ethical Standards Disclosure: This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and all procedures involving human subjects were approved by the [Research Ethical Committee from Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey].
VALIDATION
OF
A
TURKISH
VERSION
OF
THE
FOOD
CHOICE
QUESTIONNAIRE
Abstract The purpose of this study was to test the validity and reliability of the Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) for Turkish consumers. A total of 963 voluntary consumers participated in this study. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a diagonally weighted least squares estimation method was used to assess the construct validity. Results showed that factor loadings were similar to the original FCQ. CFA results indicated an acceptable fit. Test-retest reliability was tested with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the ICC values ranged from 0.89 to 0.95. Results show that the Turkish version of FCQ was validated and it appears to be a reliable research instrument. Keywords: validation; food choice questionnaire; Turkish consumers
1. Introduction Making healthier food choices would have positive effects on health. Unhealthy food consumption can lead to chronic non-communicable diseases like obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), stroke and certain cancers whereas choosing nutritious food like fruits and vegetables can reduce the probability of CVDs and some cancers(Willett et al., 2006). Determination of people’s motives behind their food choices would help to develop better public health strategies and health promotion activities (Cannuscio, Hillier, Karpyn, & Glanz, 2014; Lyerly & Reeve, 2015; Miller & Cassady, 2012). Food choices include a complex interaction between non-sensory factors, including foodrelated expectations and attitudes, health claims, price, ethical concerns, mood and familiarity, and sensory factors such as appearance, taste, smell and texture characteristics. Food choices increasingly reflect people’s personalities and lifestyles, emphasizing that different motives play a role in determining food choices (Honkanen & Frewer, 2009; Prescott, Young, O'Neill, Yau, & Stevens, 2002). In addition, the determination of potential food choice motives in different populations has great importance during the formation of press releases, product development, market promotion, health campaigns, healthy nutrition habits and more efficient public health policies (Januszewska, Pieniak, & Verbeke, 2011; Milosevic, Zezelj, Gorton, & Barjolle, 2012). The food choice questionnaire (FCQ) was developed by Steptoe, Pollard and
Wardle in order to determine motives that affect consumers during the food choice process (Steptoe, Pollard, & Wardle, 1995). The food choice questionnaire is composed of 36 items representing health and non-health characteristics of food, including subscales of health, mood (improve mood and cope with stress), convenience (ease of preparation and availability), sensory appearance (appearance, taste, smell and texture), natural content (no additives or artificial ingredients), price, weight control (low in calories and fat), familiarity and ethical concern (country of origin and environmentally friendly packaging). Each subscale includes 3-6 items. In the questionnaire, questions starting with "on a typical day" related to the food choices are asked to participants and it is requested that they evaluate them on a four-point scale. The validity and reliability of the instrument was established by the authors (Pollard, Steptoe, & Wardle, 1998). The authors concluded that “within western urban populations, the FCQ provides the opportunity to assess a broad range of factors perceived as relevant to food selection.” Since its introduction, the food choice questionnaire has been applied at both national, crosscultural and cross-national levels and has been translated into many languages, including Finnish, Polish, Greek and Spanish (Ares & Gambaro, 2007; Chryssochoidis, Krystallis, & Perreas, 2007; Lindeman & Vaananen, 2000; Lockie, Lyons, Lawrence, & Mummery, 2002; Pollard et al., 1998; Prescott et al., 2002). However, to the authors’ knowledge there is not a validated questionnaire used to determine food choices in Turkey. The aim of this study was to provide validation by translating the food choice questionnaire into the Turkish language and applying it for the first time to the Turkish consumers.
2. Methods 2.1.Participants A total of 963 people, including 448 males and 515 females between the ages of 18 and 64, participated in the study voluntarily in Ankara Turkey. Data were collected between May and June 2015. One thousand people were informed about the survey and 963 people accepted to participate in this study. Response rate was 96%. Food choice behavior is a complex process and mainly influenced by taste, convenience, cost of the food items and health status of the individuals(Shepherd, 1990). Because of doing own food shopping, taking medical treatment and having chronic illnesses may affect the decision process of food choice, the participants were included in the study if they did their own food shopping and had no medical treatment
or chronic illnesses. Furthermore the volunteer participants did not receive any incentive for participation.
2.2.Questionnaire The questionnaire included socio-demographic characteristics of the participants, such as gender, age, marital status, salary, residence and education. Self-reported body weight and height values were provided during the interview by the participants. BMI (kg/m2) was calculated as body weight (kg) divided by height (m) squared. Participants were classified into four categories according to the WHO classification of BMI (Organization, 2010). The FCQ (Steptoe et al., 1995) comprised 36 items in 9 dimensions (health, mood, convenience, sensory appeal, natural content, price, weight control, familiarity and ethical concern). Some researchers have used 5-point (1=not at all important to 5=extremely important) or 7- point (1= not important at all to 7= extremely important) Likert scales in recent studies (Dowd & Burke, 2013; Markovina et al., 2015; Milosevic et al., 2012; Pieniak, Verbeke, Vanhonacker, Guerrero, & Hersleth, 2009). The FCQ scale was scored as originally with a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all important to 4=very important) in this study. The questionnaire was translated from English to Turkish, and then back to English by expert scientists in the Nutritional Epidemiology field. The translation process followed the Brislin method (Brislin & Leibowitz, 1970). Two native Turkish speakers translated the FCQ to Turkish and two native English speakers translated the Turkish-FCQ to English. These translations were compared with the original FCQ by an expert committee experienced in food choice and nutrition and necessary corrections were made. The randomly selected 40 participants completed the food choice questionnaire (FCQ) at baseline and after 4 weeks to provide evidence of test–retest reliability.
2.3.Procedure All volunteer participants who live around Altindag District of Ankara were informed about the purpose of the research and were asked to sign a consent form. After having agreed to participate in the study, they were asked to complete the questionnaire which lasted no more than 15 minutes. The first section of the questionnaire gathered socio-demographic information that was not included in the validation analyses. The second section consisted of
36 items of FCQ. All of the interviews were pencil and paper survey and conducted face to face by two trained dietitians.
2.4.Statistical Analysis Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a diagonally weighted least squares estimation method was used to assess the construct validity of the Turkish version of the food choice questionnaire (FCQ). Model fit of the 9-factor structure was examined using χ2/df, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and two goodness of fit indices such as comparative fit index (CFI) and non-normed fit index (NNFI). The criteria for an acceptable model fit was identified as χ2/df (degrees of freedom) ≤ 5, CFI ≥ 0.90, NNFI ≥ 0.90, and RMSEA ≤0.06, and also the good model fit was identified as χ2/df ≤ 2, CFI ≥ 0.95 and NNFI ≥ 0.95. RMSEA <0.05 with an upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) ≤0.08 was considered as an acceptable model fit (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Internal consistency of the scale was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. A criteria for Cronbach’s alpha was selected as 0.70 (Field, 2009). Test-retest reliability was examined by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). ICC>0.80 indicates excellent test-retest agreement.
2.5.Ethics The study and its survey were approved by the ethical board of Hacettepe University (GO 15/114). All survey participants signed the consent form which included their agreement of participation to the study and of the use of anonymized data.
3. Results Demographic characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 1. The participants’ mean age was 25.4 (±9.8) years. 81.2% of participants were single, 76.2% were non-smoker, and 41.7% were single household. The average BMI of the male participants was 24.4 (±3.5), and the average BMI of the female participants was 21.9 (±3.5). Insert Table 1 Food choice item statistics (mean, standard deviation and item-total correlations) of the participants according to the FCQ are shown in Table 2. According to FCQ scales, item 4 “Tastes good” elicited the highest mean: (3.63). Other items with highest score were item 29 “Keeps me healthy” (3.24); item 12 “Is good value for the money” (3.24); item 14 “smells
nice” (3.20). The items with the lowest means were item 3 “Is low in calories” (2.22); item 9 “Is high in fibre and roughage ” (2.24) and item 20 and 21 “Comes from countries I approve of politically”, “Is like the food I ate when I was a child” (2.29).
Insert Table 2 Correlations between dimensions of the FCQ are shown in Table 3. There were weak to moderate correlations (ranging from 0.09 to 0.66) between the dimensions of the FCQ at the 0.05 significance level, except for between price & natural content and convenience & natural content. . There were moderate correlations between the food choice motives related to health and to natural content (r=0.66) and to weight concern(r=0.57). Weak correlations were observed between health and mood, ethical concern, between mood and familiarity, ethical concern between convenience and price, between sensory appeal and price, between familiarity and ethical concern.
Insert Table 3
3.1.Construct validity The construct validity of the food choice questionnaire was tested by CFA. The 9-factor structure of the model is given in Figure 1. All items’ standardized factor loadings were greater than 0.40 (ranging from 0.48 to 0.89) (Table 4). Statistics obtained from CFA to evaluate the model fit were as follows: χ2/df =4.63 < 5, CFI=0.96 ≥ 0.95, NFI=0.95 ≥ 0.95, and RMSEA =0.061 > 0.06 but 90% CI 0.059-0.064. The CFA result indicated acceptable fit for the Turkish version of the FCQ. Insert Figure 1 3.2.Internal reliability Cronbach’s alpha values of the FCQ’s subscales are presented in Table 4. Alpha values for subscales ranged from 0.60 to 0.84 and for the overall questionnaire it was 0.90, although only two subscale Cronbach’s alpha values were below 0.70. Test-retest reliability was tested with ICC and the ICC values ranged from 0.89 to 0.95. Insert Table 4
4. Discussion To our knowledge this is the first study conducted to validate the Turkish version of FCQ and to determine the motives for food choice of Turkish consumers. Results show that Turkish version of the FCQ is a validated questionnaire and reliable research instrument in Turkish population. Sensory appeal, natural content and price are the important motivational food choice factors for Turkish population. Steptoe, (Steptoe et al., 1995) reported the sensory appeal, health, convenience and price are the most important factors in the original FCQ. In a validation study of FCQ conducted in 9 European countries(Markovina et al., 2015) showed the price was the most important food choice motive in Spain, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and the Netherlands, sensory appeal was the first for Norway, Germany and the UK while natural content was the most important food choice motive in Poland. In another study in Greece(Fotopoulos, Krystallis, Vassallo, & Pagiaslis, 2009) it was found the natural content, convenience, health, are the important food choice motives. Like our study sensory appeal is the most important food choice motive in Romania, Hungary, Philippines and Belgium(Januszewska et al., 2011). In a study in Western Balkan countries (Milosevic et al., 2012) the most important food choice motives were sensory appeal, convenience, health and natural content. Food choices motives of the individuals were mostly affected by the sensory appeal because this motive involves smell, taste and appearance. Familiarity and ethical concern were least important in European countries (Januszewska et al., 2011; Markovina et al., 2015), ethical concern and the weight control were the least important food choice motives for Turkish population according to our findings. Although most of the items had high item-total correlations (>0.40), three items showed a low item-total correlation between 0.34 and 0.40 with the respective FCQ-scale. This was observed for the familiarity (item 9, 21) and for the price (item 12) factors. Unlike our study, Fotopulas et al (Fotopoulos et al., 2009) found the lowest item total correlations in all items of ethical concern, item number 30 of health, item number 34 of mood, and item number 35 for convenience. Furthermore, similar to our study they showed the lowest item total correlations in item number 33 for familiarity. We observed weak to moderate correlations between dimensions, unlike the recent studies conducted by Markovina (Markovina et al., 2015) and Peiniak (Pieniak et al., 2009) who found high intercorrelations between dimensions. Like the original FCQ study(Steptoe et al.,
1995) we observe significant associations between food choice motives related to health and natural content. According to the CFA results, construct validity of the Turkish version of the FCQ was satisfactory. Studies conducted to examine the validity and the reliability of the FCQ had also acceptable CFA fits (Fotopoulos et al., 2009; Januszewska et al., 2011; Markovina et al., 2015; Milosevic et al., 2012). According to the consistent CFA results of these studies, FCQ could be used as a suitable tool for exploring food choice motives across different European populations. Although the FCQ may be a useful instrument for assessing food choice within a population, previous research findings suggest key issues to consider. In a study that aimed to examine the degree to which the factor structure of the FCQ is invariant across western urban populations, it has been reported that certain items on the scale may acquire different connotative meanings in translation (Eertmans, Victoir, Notelaers, Vansant, & Van den Bergh, 2006). FCQ was originally developed for populations in the United Kingdom, it is possible that food choice items may not be properly representative to other countries food choice motives. Translation of the FCQ would be considered as an important process of validation and needs to be translated accurately, in order to avoid connotative meaning as Eertman et al. (2006) reported. This study has a few limitations. First, we aimed for the adult population (age between 18 and 64) since this FCQ is widely used only in adult population. Adult population in Turkey is 67.8% of the entire population. Further research needs to be done to determine the validity of the FCQ with other age groups such as adolescents and elderly people. Second, FCQ uses a Likert scale, which is susceptible to central tendency bias. Despite these limitations, the results of this study are important and noteworthy. When compared to other FCQ validity studies, the original FCQ (36 items, 4 point likert scale) was used in this study. Unlike the other web based studies (Januszewska et al., 2011; Pieniak, Perez-Cueto, & Verbeke, 2013; Prescott et al., 2002; Pula, Parks, & Ross, 2014), this study was done with face to face interviews.
5. Conclusion Understanding food choice motives is an important component of planning public health policies that can lead to healthier dietary habits, food product innovations, better food labelling and food marketing practices. A validated food choice questionnaire can be a great
tool to assess the population’s food choice motives. According to the results of this study, the FCQ seems to be a valid instrument for measuring food choice motives of the Turkish population.
Acknowledgment Conflict of interests, source of funding and authorship The authors declare no conflicts of interest. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version submitted for publication. References
Ares, G., & Gambaro, A. (2007). Influence of gender, age and motives underlying food choice on perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional foods. Appetite, 49(1), 148-158. Brislin, R. W., & Leibowitz, H. W. (1970). The effect of separation between test and comparison objects on size constancy at various age-levels. Am J Psychol, 83(3), 372376. Cannuscio, C. C., Hillier, A., Karpyn, A., & Glanz, K. (2014). The social dynamics of healthy food shopping and store choice in an urban environment. Soc Sci Med, 122, 13-20. Chryssochoidis, G., Krystallis, A., & Perreas, P. (2007). Ethnocentric beliefs and country‐of‐origin (COO) effect: Impact of country, product and product attributes on Greek consumers' evaluation of food products. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12), 1518-1544. Dowd, K., & Burke, K. J. (2013). The influence of ethical values and food choice motivations on intentions to purchase sustainably sourced foods. Appetite, 69, 137-144. Eertmans, A., Victoir, A., Notelaers, G., Vansant, G., & Van den Bergh, O. (2006). The Food Choice Questionnaire: Factorial invariant over western urban populations? Food Quality and Preference, 17(5), 344-352. Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications. Fotopoulos, C., Krystallis, A., Vassallo, M., & Pagiaslis, A. (2009). Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) revisited. Suggestions for the development of an enhanced general food motivation model. Appetite, 52(1), 199-208. Honkanen, P., & Frewer, L. (2009). Russian consumers' motives for food choice. Appetite, 52(2), 363-371. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 7. Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. Januszewska, R., Pieniak, Z., & Verbeke, W. (2011). Food choice questionnaire revisited in four countries. Does it still measure the same? Appetite, 57(1), 94-98.
Lindeman, M., & Vaananen, M. (2000). Measurement of ethical food choice motives. Appetite, 34(1), 55-59. Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G., & Mummery, K. (2002). Eating ‘Green’: Motivations behind organic food consumption in Australia. Sociologia Ruralis, 42(1), 23-40. Lyerly, J. E., & Reeve, C. L. (2015). Development and validation of a measure of food choice values. Appetite, 89, 47-55. Markovina, J., Stewart-Knox, B. J., Rankin, A., Gibney, M., de Almeida, M. D. V., Fischer, A., et al. (2015). Food4Me study: Validity and reliability of Food Choice Questionnaire in 9 European countries. Food Quality and Preference, 45, 26-32. Miller, L. M., & Cassady, D. L. (2012). Making healthy food choices using nutrition facts panels. The roles of knowledge, motivation, dietary modifications goals, and age. Appetite, 59(1), 129-139. Milosevic, J., Zezelj, I., Gorton, M., & Barjolle, D. (2012). Understanding the motives for food choice in Western Balkan Countries. Appetite, 58(1), 205-214. Pieniak, Z., Perez-Cueto, F., & Verbeke, W. (2013). Nutritional status, self-identification as a traditional food consumer and motives for food choice in six European countries. British Food Journal, 115(9), 1297-1312. Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Guerrero, L., & Hersleth, M. (2009). Association between traditional food consumption and motives for food choice in six European countries. Appetite, 53(1), 101-108. Pollard, T. M., Steptoe, A., & Wardle, J. (1998). Motives underlying healthy eating: using the Food Choice Questionnaire to explain variation in dietary intake. J Biosoc Sci, 30(2), 165-179. Prescott, J., Young, O., O'Neill, L., Yau, N. J. N., & Stevens, R. (2002). Motives for food choice: a comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and New Zealand. Food Quality and Preference, 13(7), 489-495. Pula, K., Parks, C. D., & Ross, C. F. (2014). Regulatory focus and food choice motives. Prevention orientation associated with mood, convenience, and familiarity. Appetite, 78, 15-22. Shepherd, R. (1990). The Psychology of Food Choice Nutrition & Food Science, 90(3), 2-4. Steptoe, A., Pollard, T. M., & Wardle, J. (1995). Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite, 25(3), 267284. WHO. (2010). Global Database on Body Mass Index. In: World Health Organization. Willett, W. C., Koplan, J. P., Nugent, R., Dusenbury, C., Puska, P., & Gaziano, T. A. (2006). Prevention of Chronic Disease by Means of Diet and Lifestyle Changes. In D. T. Jamison, J. G. Breman, A. R. Measham, G. Alleyne, M. Claeson, D. B. Evans, P. Jha, A. Mills & P. Musgrove, Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. Washington DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank Group.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study sample
Male
Female
Total
Marital Status Married Single
27.3 ± 11.2 n (%) 116 (26) 332 (74)
23.7 ± 8.1 n (%) 65 (12.6) 450 (87.4)
25.4 ± 9.8 n (%) 181(18.8) 782(81.2)
BMI Underweight Normal weight Overweight Obesity
9 (2) 262 (59) 147 (33.1) 26 (5.9)
66 ( 12.9) 365 (71.3) 69 (13.5) 12 (2.3)
75(7.8) 627(65.6) 216(22.6) 38(3.9)
Resident Home with family Home alone Home with friends Single household
216 (48.9) 23 (5.2) 69 (15.6) 134 (30.3)
142 (27.8) 5 (1) 96 (18.8) 268 (52.4)
358(37.6) 28(2.9) 165(17.3) 402(42.2)
Monthly Salary 0-1000 TL 1001-2000 TL 2001-3000 TL 3001-5000 TL 5000 ≥ TL
65 (14.7) 108 (24.4) 148 (33.4) 82 (18.5) 40 (9)
110 (21.6) 122 (24) 153 (30.1) 93 (18.3) 31 (6.1)
175(18.4) 230(24.2) 301(31.6) 175(18.4) 71(7.5)
Age in years (SD)
Table 2. FCQ-items: Mean and standard deviation (SD) and item-total correlation (r) Food Choice Dimensions Health 9 10 22 27 29 30 Mood 13 16 24 26 31 34 Convenience 1 11 15 28 35 Sensory 4 Appeal 14 18 25 Natural 2 Content 5 23 Price 6 12 36 Weight 3 Control 7 17 Familiarity 8 21 33 Ethical 19 Concern 20 32
Questions Is high in fibre and roughage Is nutritious Contains a lot of vitamins and minerals Is high in protein Keeps me healthy Is good for my skin/teeth/hair/nails etc. Cheers me up Helps me cope with stress Keeps me awake/alert Helps me relax Makes me feel good Helps me cope with life Is easy to prepare Is easily available in shops and supermarkets Can be cooked very simply Takes no time to prepare Can be bought in shops close to where I live or work Tastes good Smells nice Has a pleasant texture Looks nice Contains no additives Contains natural ingredients Contains no artificial ingredients Is not expensive Is good value for money Is cheap Is low in calories Is low in fat Helps me control my weight Is familiar Is like the food I ate when I was a child Is what I usually eat Is packaged in an environmentally friendly way Comes from countries I approve of politically Has the country of origin clearly marked
Mean 2.24 2.78 3.00 2.72 3.24 2.84 3.02 2.42 2.71 2.83 3.14 2.48 2.60 2.82 2.65 2.68 2.97 3.63 3.20 2.81 3.19 2.80 2.92 2.86 2.72 3.24 2.71 2.22 2.60 2.60 3.10 2.29 2.87 2.51 2.29 2.45
Std. Deviation 0.98 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.91 1.05 1.00 1.07 1.00 0.95 0.91 1.02 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.02 0.94 0.72 0.87 0.98 0.88 1.05 0.96 0.98 0.92 0.90 0.96 1.03 1.02 1.08 0.90 1.04 0.91 1.07 1.13 1.08
r 0.490 0.663 0.702 0.625 0.654 0.595 0.474 0.595 0.465 0.704 0.629 0.567 0.545 0.509 0.635 0.633 0.441 0.450 0.578 0.442 0.545 0.685 0.652 0.649 0.544 0.369 0.517 0.607 0.597 0.557 0.373 0.340 0.524 0.428 0.544 0.576
Table 3. Correlation matrix of the FCQ sub-scales (n = 993). Sensory Natural Health
Mood
Weight
Convenience Appeal Content Price
Concern Familiarity
Mood
0.43*
Convenience
0.13*
0.29*
0.22*
0.52*
0.28*
Content
0.66*
0.29*
0.01
0.18*
Price
0.12*
0.23*
0.45*
0.30*
0.01
Concern
0.57*
0.28*
0.10*
0.13*
0.54*
0.09*
Familiarity
0.26*
0.32*
0.25*
0.36*
0.21*
0.20*
0.16*
0.47*
0.34*
0.11*
0.23*
0.50*
0.09*
0.29*
Sensory Appeal Natural
Weight
Ethical Concern * P<0.05
0.35*
Table 4. Internal reliability, test-retest reliability and standardised factor loadings of the FCQ Number of Subscales
items
Test-retest Cronbach’s α reliability
Range of standardised factor
ICC
loadings
Health
6
0.84
0.94
0.59-0.85
Mood
6
0.81
0.94
0.61-0.82
Convenience
5
0.78
0.93
0.61-0.78
Sensory appeal
4
0.71
0.92
0.60-0.77
Natural content
3
0.81
0.90
0.78-0.86
Price
3
0.66
0.95
0.61-0.84
Weight control
3
0.76
0.89
0.70-0.81
Familiarity
3
0.60
0.92
0.57-0.69
Ethical concern
3
0.70
0.95
0.48-0.89
Overall
36
0.90
0.90
0.48-0.89
Figure 1. Confirmatory Factor analysis result
Highlights • The choice of food products is a complex process and it is affected from many factors. Food choices include a complex interaction between the non-sensory factors and sensory factors. •
A validated food choice questionnaire (FCQ) could be an effective way to assess the population’s food choice motives.
•
FCQ seems to be a valid instrument for measuring food choice motives of Turkish sample.