Associations between the Family Nutrition and Physical Activity screening tool and the Youth Activity Profile

Abstract

Childhood obesity affects one third of children and adolescents and is expected to increase in coming years. Obesity has been linked to both genetic and environmental factors with more recent research focusing on the role parents play in childhood obesity. The Family Nutrition and Physical Activity (FNPA) Screening tool was developed to provide practical ways to evaluate home obesogenic environments. However, no study to date has examined associations between FNPA scores and child behaviors. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine associations between FNPA scores from parents and child reported lifestyle behaviors as assessed by an established self-report tool called the Youth Activity Profile (YAP). There were 464 4 th and 5 th graders who successfully complete the YAP. Out of the 464 students, 64 parents successfully completely the FNPA with a corresponding student ID number. Correlations were computed to assess associations between parental practices and child's behaviors related to three distinct categories: physical activity (PA), sedentary activity (SA), and nutrition (NUTR). High scores for PA and NUTR parenting practices and low scores for the SA practices indicate healthier parenting practices. High scores for all categories of the YAP indicate healthier behaviors. Within the FNPA survey there was a moderate correlation between positive NUTR practices and positive SA practices (r = 0.51). Within the YAP survey there were

Evaluating the Implementation and Effectiveness of the SWITCH–MS: An Ecological, Multi-Component Adolescent Obesity Prevention Intervention

“…For example, one recent study reported that upper and lower limit of 95% CI for YAP predicted scores were within 10–20% of accelerometer-estimated scores [ 28 ]. The 5 questions on the “Chew” behavior were added upon the original validation of YAP, and showed small to moderate correlations ( r = 0.27) with a validated instrument for concurrent validity [ 29 ].…”