‘I don't have to go to the gym because I ate very healthy today’: the development of a scale to assess diet-related compensatory health beliefs

Abstract

ObjectiveNutritional interventions to decrease energy intake, aimed at portion sizes and front-of-package labelling, are effective only if people do not compensate for their reduced energy intake. Since several observational studies indicate that these interventions could prompt compensation behaviour, it is important to assess underlying beliefs. Therefore, the purpose of the two studies reported here was to develop a Diet-related Compensatory Health Beliefs Scale (Diet-CHBS).DesignCross-sectional surveys were conducted for the scale development. Study 1 provided data on the factor analysis and convergent validity, while Study 2 assessed the Diet-CHBS’ test–retest reliability.SettingsVU University Amsterdam (Study 1) and twenty-five worksite cafeterias in the Netherlands (Study 2).SubjectsStudy 1 was conducted among 179 students and their parents; Study 2 was conducted among 119 worksite cafeteria visitors.ResultsThe results of Study 1 showed that the scale consisted of the hypothesized factors of compensation beliefs with regard to portion sizes (α = 0·73), front-of-package health logos (α = 0·77) and exercise (α = 0·75). The scale's overall Cronbach's α was 0·82. The Diet-CHBS had a Pearson correlation of 0·32 with a general health compensatory beliefs scale, signifying satisfactory convergent validity. Study 2 showed that the intra-class correlation coefficient between T1 and T2 was 0·69, indicating adequate test–retest reliability.ConclusionThe Diet-CHBS is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing diet-related compensatory health beliefs in response to nutritional interventions. It is important to take such beliefs into account in further intervention studies aimed at preventing overweight and obesity.

Beyond single behaviour theory: Adding cross‐behaviour cognitions to the health action process approach

“…Low internal consistency does not mean, however, that heterogeneous constructs are less valid (Dunn, Baguley, & Brunsden, ). In contrast to former research (Poelman, Vermeer, Vyth, & Steenhuis, ), we included the healthy behaviour (i.e., compensatory behaviour) in the item stem and asked for different unhealthy behaviours. Although this reversed measurement is very similar to outcome expectancies, bivariate correlations between CHBs and outcome expectancies suggest that both constructs share only little variance.…”

Modelling and Supporting Complex Behavior Change Related to Obesity and Diabetes Prevention and Management With the Compensatory Carry-Over Action Model

“…However, maintaining the intention not eating candy helps him to alter the rewarding stimuli of the candy with the reward by the physical activity itself like feeling more relaxed or happy. In previous studies, CCs found to correlate positively with risk behaviors and symptoms [20][21][22] , to determine self-regulation failure and lower goal-attainment [23] . In addition, CCs have been associated with fewer health behaviors and motivational stage movements [22] .…”

Preliminary Validation of the Exercise-Snacking Licensing Scale: Rewarding Exercise with Unhealthy Snack Foods and Drinks

“…A number of instruments have been designed to measure compensatory health beliefs for a range of behavior “pairings” [17,19], including those that exist between food and exercise [20,21]. However, these measures may not fully capture the specific “licensing” relationship that exists between exercise and subsequent unhealthy snacking behaviors.…”

“…For example, compensatory health belief items around weight management, originally stemming from the Compensatory Health Beliefs Scale [17], and subsequently used by Radtke et al [21], only include one item addressing the “food-and-exercise” pairing. In addition, although the instrument used by Poelman, Vermeer, Vyth and Steenhuis [20] contains four items assessing this pairing, these items focus on how a healthy diet/smaller portion sizes can compensate for minimal exercise (e.g., “When I eat less, it’s not necessary to have a lot of exercise”), rather than how exercise may act as justification for unhealthy eating/drinking (e.g., “because I have exercised, it’s okay to eat some chocolate cake”).…”