Lifestyle interventions commonly measure psychosocial beliefs as precursors to positive behavior change, but often overlook questionnaire validation. This can affect measurement accuracy if the survey has been developed for a different population, as differing behavioral influences may affect instrument validity. The present study aimed to explore psychometric properties of self-efficacy and outcome expectation scales-originally developed for younger children-in a population of female college freshmen (N = 268). Exploratory principal component analysis was used to investigate underlying data patterns and assess validity of previously published subscales. Composite scores for reliable subscales (Cronbach's α ≥ .70) were calculated to help characterize self-efficacy and outcome expectation beliefs in this population. The outcome expectation factor structure clearly comprised of positive (α = .81-.90) and negative outcomes (α = .63-.67). The self-efficacy factor structure included themes of motivation and effort (α = .75-.94), but items pertaining to hunger and availability cross-loaded often. Based on cross-loading patterns and low Cronbach's alpha values, respectively, self-efficacy items regarding barriers to healthy eating and negative outcome expectation items should be refined to improve reliability. Composite scores suggested that eating healthfully was associated with positive outcomes, but self-efficacy to do so was lower. Thus, dietary interventions for college students may be more successful by including skill-building activities to enhance self-efficacy and increase the likelihood of behavior change.
The PEER project is a peer‐led intervention to promote healthy lifestyles in freshman women. Baseline data (n=157, wave‐1) included 48 items for self‐efficacy (SE) and 30 items for outcome expectancies (OE). Within SE for fruits (F), vegetables (V), low‐fat foods (LF), and high‐calcium foods (HC), strongest correlations (R) were between not liking to eat the food/not feeling like eating the food (r=.856; r=.810; r=.879; r=.878, p<.01, respectively). For V and LF, the weakest R's were between limited availability/being very hungry (r=.211, p<.01; r=.197, p<.05). The weakest R for SE in F was between no availability/when it's work to prepare (r=.238, p<.01). For HC, the weakest R was between having no HC you like/being very hungry (r=.336, p<.01). Most items for SE for making healthier food choices were significantly correlated. OE for F&V, LF, and HC had significant positive and negative R's. For eating >5 servings of F&V and >3 servings of HC, the strongest R was between feeling I'm being good to myself/other people would think I'm healthy (r=.587, p<.01; r=.771, p<.01). For eating LF every day, the strongest R was between I would be able to keep my weight where I want it/feeling that I'm being good to myself (r=.755, p<.01). Within each food type, "food would cost too much" was not correlated often. Most subjects worried about weight gain and were concerned about their health now, indicating health consciousness. Funded by USDA.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.