Validity of the factorial structure of the Brazilian version scale of the Food Choice Questionnaire

Heitor, Sara Franco Diniz; Reichenheim, Michael Eduardo; Ferreira, Julia Elba de Souza; Castro, Sybelle de Souza

doi:10.1590/1413-81232018249.26482017

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

FREE THEMES • Ciênc. saúde coletiva 24 (9) • Sept 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232018249.26482017 copy

Validity of the factorial structure of the Brazilian version scale of the Food Choice Questionnaire

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

This study examines the dimensional structure and reliability of the 36-item Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) in a Brazilian Portuguese version, an instrument used to measure the importance of motives behind food choices. The sample includes 502 adults. Confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA) were used to evaluate the configural (dimensionality) and metric (magnitude of factorial loadings, residual correlations and factorial discriminatory validity) structures of the instrument. Internal consistency evaluation used the Omega coefficient (Ω); temporal reproducibility used the Kappa coefficient with quadratic weighting (κ) in a separate sample of 41 subjects. The final CFA corroborates the 9-factor original structure and shows high factorial loadings (λ_i > 0.80 in 34 items); two residual correlations (r(i2-i3) = 0.773 and r(i16 i17) = 0.853); and factorial correlations indicating factor discriminant validity (φ < 0.80). Regarding reliability, there is adequate internal consistency (Ω = 0.877 to 0.968), and good test-retest reproducibility indicating temporal stability (κ = 0.768 to 0.917). It can be concluded that the FCQ version has good configural and metric properties, and may be recommended for use in Brazil in its present form.

Key words
Validation studies; Cross-cultural comparison; Questionnaires; Food preferences; Feeding Behavior

Variables		N = 502	%
Gender	Male	142	28.2
	Female	360	71.8
Age group (in years old)	18 ┤ 19	30	6.0
	20 ┤ 29	104	20.8
	30 ┤39	79	15.7
	40 ┤49	77	15.3
	50 ┤ 59	79	15.7
	≥ 60	133	26.5
Marital status	Single	144	28.7
Marital status	Married/living with partner	260	51.8
	Separated/divorced	48	9.6
	Widower	50	10.0
Schooling (in years of study)	No schooling	4	0.8
Schooling (in years of study)	Elementary and Middle School (1 ┤9)	151	30.0
	High School (10 ┤13)	182	36.3
	Higher education (14 and below)	165	32.9
Professional activity	Employee with or without a work card	125	24.9
Professional activity	Employee as a public servant	87	17.3
	Employer	26	5.2
	Self-employed	64	12.7
	Unpaid	32	6.4
	Unemployed	58	11.6
	Retired/pensioner	110	21.9
Household per capita income (minimum wages-MW)^a a Between January and July 2016, the MW corresponded to R$880.00.	< 1	96	19.1
	1	23	4.6
	1 ┤3	156	31.0
	3 ┤5	26	5.2
	>5	23	4.6
	Refused to declare income	18	3.6
	Unknown	160	31.9
Religion	Catholic	275	54.8
	Evangelical	121	24.1
	Spiritualist	69	13.7
	Umbanda/Candomblé/other religions	4	0.8
	Without religion or atheist/did not declare	33	6.6

Factor	Items	Importance (perceived)
Factor	Items	Not important	A little important	Moderately important	Very important
(1) Health	1. Contains a lot of vitamins and minerals	22.9	17.6	18.5	41.0
	2. Keeps me healthy	6.6	13.3	23.5	56.6
	3. Is nutritious	8.8	13.9	24.5	52.8
	4. Is hight in protein	8.5	19.5	22.5	29.5
	5. Is good for my skin/teeth/hair/nails	36.9	13.1	14.3	35.7
	6. Is rich in fiber and roughage	26.9	15.3	19.2	38.6
(2) Mood	7. Helps me cope with stress	36.3	18.9	12.5	32.3
	8. Helps me to cope with life	31.5	18.5	15.7	34.3
	9. Helps me relax	33.1	16.5	20.5	29.9
	10. Keeps me awake/alert	44.8	20.2	14.7	20.3
	11. Cheers me up	35.7	15.3	16.7	32.3
	12. Makes me feel good	22.7	12.4	17.5	47.4
(3) Convenience	13. Is easy to prepare	20.5	15.9	18.9	44.7
	14. Can be cooked very simply	20.1	16.5	20.2	43.2
	15. Takes no time to prepare	19.9	16.7	22.1	39.3
	16. Found in shops close to where I live or work^* * The complete semantics of the items can be found in Heitor et al.21, Chart 1.	18.7	19.7	17.1	44.5
	17. Is easily available in shops and supermarkets	11.4	17.7	18.5	52.4
(4) Sensory appeal	18. Smells nice	2.8	5.0	12.5	79.7
	19. Looksnice	1.8	5.2	12.7	80.3
	20. Has a pleasant texture	2.4	4.8	17.7	75.1
	21. Tastes good	1.4	3.3	11.6	83.7
(5) Natural content	22. Contains no additives	27.9	18.7	23.3	30.1
	23. Contains natural ingredients	23.1	15.7	20.8	40.4
	24. Contains no artificial ingredients	28.5	22.5	18.9	30.1
(6) Price	25. Is notexpensive	12.0	16.1	23.3	48.6
	26. Is cheap	12.5	20.1	23.5	43.9
	27. Is good value for money	4.4	7.0	17.1	71.5
(7) Weight control	28. Is low in calories	35.9	19.5	15.9	28.7
	29. Helps me control my weight	31.5	16.5	17.3	34.7
	30. Is low in fat	25.9	17.1	16.2	40.8
(8) Familiarity	31. Is what I usually eat	13.9	23.3	25.7	37.1
	32. Is familiar	14.1	22.1	26.3	37.5
	33. Is like the food I ate when I was a child	38.2	25.2	18.5	18.1
(9) Ethical concern	34. Comes from countries I approve of politically	60.5	12.0	12.4	15.0
	35. Has the country of origin clearly marked	58.0	12.2	10.3	19.5
	36. Packaged in an environmentally friendly way^* * The complete semantics of the items can be found in Heitor et al.21, Chart 1.	44.0	12.5	11.6	31.9

Factor	Item	λ_i^a a Factor loadings;	δ_i^b b Residual variances;	Ω ^c c McDonald's Omega coefficients; (95%CI)
(1) Health	1. Contains a lot of vitamins and minerals	0.868^* * p<0.001;	0.246	0.913 (0.898 - 0.928)
	2. Keeps me healthy	0.788^* * p<0.001;	0.379
	3. Is nutritious	0.747^* * p<0.001;	0.443
	4. Is hight in protein	0.834^* * p<0.001;	0.304
	5. Is good for my skin/teeth/hair/nails	0.899^* * p<0.001;	0.192
	6. Is high in fibre and roughage	0.891^* * p<0.001;	0.206
(2) Mood	7. Helps me cope with stress	0.906^* * p<0.001;	0.180	0.968 (0.962 - 0.975)
	8. Helps me to cope with life	0.941^* * p<0.001;	0.114
	9. Helps me relax	0.930^* * p<0.001;	0.134
	10. Keeps me awake/alert	0.804^* * p<0.001;	0.353
	11. Cheers me up	0.933^* * p<0.001;	0.129
	12. Makes me feel good	0.925^* * p<0.001;	0.144
(3) Convenience	13. Is easy to prepare	0.928^* * p<0.001;	0.139	0.877) (0.857 - 0.896)
	14. Can be cooked very simply	0.951^* * p<0.001;	0.096
	15. Takes no time to prepare	0.929^* * p<0.001;	0.137
	16. Found in shops close to where I live	0.505^* * p<0.001;	0.745
	17. Is easily available in shops and markets	0.564^* * p<0.001;	0.682
(4) Sensory appeal	18. Smells nice	0.943^* * p<0.001;	0.110	0.949 (0.934 - 0.963)
	19. Looksnice	0.961^* * p<0.001;	0.076
	20. Has a pleasant texture	0.897^* * p<0.001;	0.196
	21. Tastes good	0.813^* * p<0.001;	0.340
(5) Natural content	22. Contains no additives	0.918^* * p<0.001;	0.158	0.959 (0.946 - 0.971)
	23. Contains natural ingredients	0.958^* * p<0.001;	0.083
	24. Contains no artificial ingredients	0.940^* * p<0.001;	0.117
(6) Price	25. Is not expensive	0.983^* * p<0.001;	0.034	0.927 (0.909 - 0.945)
	26. Is cheap	0.923^* * p<0.001;	0.147
	27. Is good value for money	0.764^* * p<0.001;	0.416
(7) Weight control	28. Is low in calories	0.929^* * p<0.001;	0.137	0.947 (0.933 - 0.962)
	29. Helps me control my weight	0.929^* * p<0.001;	0.137
	30. Is low in fat	0.925^* * p<0.001;	0.145
(8) Familiarity	31. Is what I usually eat	0.918^* * p<0.001;	0.157	0.898 (0.875 - 0.920)
	32. Is familiar	0.958^* * p<0.001;	0.082
	33. Is like the food I ate when I was a child	0.637^* * p<0.001;	0.594
(9)	34. From countries I approve of politically	0.916^* * p<0.001;	0.162	0.952 (0.938 - 0.966)
Ethical	35. Has the country of origin clearly marked	0.955^* * p<0.001;	0.089
concern	36. Environmentally-friendly packaging	0.925^* * p<0.001;	0.144
r_(i2-i3)d	0.773
r_(i16-17) d	0.853
RMSEA ^e e Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA); 90% confidence interval in parentheses;	0.047 (0.043-0.051)
CFI^f f Comparative Fit Index (CFI);	0,985
TLI ^g g Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)	0.983

Factors	F1	F2	F3	F4	F5	F6	F7	F8	F9
F1	---
F2	0.678	---
F3	0.063	0.249	---
F4	-0.066	-0.019	0.203	---
F5	0.667	0.514	-0.001	-0.073	---
F6	0.102	0.095	0.376	0.336	0.079	---
F7	0.711	0.652	0.161	-0.083	0.591	0.081	---
F8	0.087	0.196	0.355	0.284	0.125	0.247	0.145	---
F9	0.623	0.568	0.097	-0.104	0.690	0.052	0.595	0.309	---

Factors	Test		Retest		Kappa(95%CI) ^b b Weighted Kappa coefficient (quadratic weighting). In parentheses, 95% confidence intervals obtained by the bootstrap method with 1,000 replications.
Factors	x̅ (DP) ^a		x̅ (DP) ^a
Health	12.09	(5.61)	12.58	(5.69)	0.902	(0.825 - 0.966)
Mood	10.19	(5.80)	10.04	(5.51)	0.912	(0.831 - 0.960)
Convenience	8.41	(4.69)	8.63	(4.65)	0.900	(0.798 - 0.965)
Sensory appeal	10.75	(1.69)	10.85	(1.82)	0.768	(0.498 - 0.931)
Natural content	5.73	(3.14)	5.31	(3.21)	0.871	(0.696 - 0.964)
Price	6.58	(2.35)	6.80	(2.36)	0.865	(0.702 - 0.954)
Weight control	5.17	(3.15)	4.85	(3.40)	0.874	(0.763 - 0.955)
Familiarity	4.12	(3.00)	3.85	(3.00)	0.894	(0.804 - 0.952)
Ethical concern	3.80	(3.23)	3.34	(3.18)	0.917	(0.783 - 0.978)

ABRASCO - Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva Av. Brasil, 4036 - sala 700 Manguinhos, 21040-361 Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brazil, Tel.: +55 21 3882-9153 / 3882-9151 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: cienciasaudecoletiva@fiocruz.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Collaborations

SFD Heitor - Project design, data collection and analysis, writing and article discussion. ME Reichenheim - Data analysis and interpretation, critical review of the article and final approval of the version to be published. JES Ferreira - Designer and academic co-advisor of the project, writing of the article. SS Castro - Drafting and academic advisor of the project, data analysis and interpretation, critical review of the article and final approval of the version to be published.