Psychometric Evaluation of the Barriers to Healthy Eating Scale: Results from Four Independent Weight Loss Studies

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the 22‐item Barriers to Healthy Eating (BHE) scale in four independent weight loss studies conducted over 13 years. Methods Principal axis factoring with promax rotation was performed to reveal the underlying factor structure. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach α, and convergent validity was assessed by correlating the baseline BHE with the Weight Efficacy Lifestyle questionnaire total and subscale scores. Predictive validity was examined by the association of BHE change with weight loss over 6 months. Results The four studies had similar gender (82.9%‐89.9% female) and race (70.5%‐81.4% white) distributions. Factor analyses suggested removal of two items and a three‐factor structure: self‐control and motivation (10 items), daily mechanics (7 items), and social support (3 items). The Cronbach α for the 20‐item BHE ranged from 0.849 to 0.881 across the four studies. The BHE and Weight Efficacy Lifestyle questionnaire total and subscale scores were all negatively correlated with each other, showing good convergent validity (r = 0.120‐0.544, P < 0.05). BHE change was associated with weight loss from 0 to 6 months (r = 0.282‐0.450, P < 0.05). Conclusions The BHE scale showed very good psychometric properties over time, supporting its use in measuring barriers to one’s ability to adopt or maintain a healthy eating plan.

Multidomain self-report assessment of fronto-executive complaints in Spanish-speaking adults.

“…The commonality ( h 2 ) was analyzed for the 15 items. This is a measure that expresses the amount of common variance in each item that is explained by the factors; therefore, those items with low communalities (<.40) should be considered for removal given their low contribution to the final factorial solution (Sun et al, 2019).…”

“…In addition, the interitem correlations (rho coefficients) were calculated to detect possible redundancy among items. Items with ρ > .80 were considered to be potentially redundant (Sun et al, 2019). To determine discriminant validity (if each factor should attain a different dimension from the rest), Phi-square coefficients were calculated to measure the degree of association between factors.…”

Business Model Innovation in Established SMEs: A Configurational Approach

“…A highly significant X2-value for the Bartlett's test of sphericity and a Kaiser-Meyer Olkin value of 0.82 indicated that the data was suitable for calculating an EFA. All indicators revealed high communalities, with values between 0.54 and 0.89 [107,108]. Based on BMI theory reasoning, an EFA was applied, restricting the solution to seven factors.…”

“…A highly significant X2-value for the Bartlett's test of sphericity and a Kaiser-Meyer Olkin value of 0.86 showed that the data was adequate for conducting an EFA. All indicators revealed high communalities, with values between 0.34 and 0.83, being the lower value close to the cut-off of 0.4, thus, items were considered to be well represented [108]. Based on theory reasoning, the EFA was conducted restricting the solution to three factors.…”

Public Sector Workers’ Mental Health in Argentina: Comparative Psychometrics of the Perceived Stress Scale

“…In addition, inter-item correlations were calculated to detect possible redundancy among items (r>0.80) [27]. Construct validity was defined as the presence of substantial and significant correlations between different instruments designed to assess a common (convergent) and different (divergent) construct [28].…”