Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Acceptability, internal consistency and test–retest reliability of scales to assess parental and nursery staff’s self-efficacy, motivation and knowledge in relation to pre-school children’s nutrition, oral health and physical activity

  • Kaiseree Dias (a1), James White (a2), Chris Metcalfe (a1) (a3), Ruth Kipping (a1), Angeliki Papadaki (a4) and Russell Jago (a4)...

Abstract

Objective

To determine the acceptability, internal consistency and test–retest reliability of self-efficacy, motivation and knowledge scales relating to pre-school children’s nutrition, oral health and physical activity.

Design

An online questionnaire was completed twice with an interval of 7–11d.

Setting

Online questionnaires were sent to participants via email from nursery managers. The parent questionnaire was also available on the parenting website www.netmums.com.

Participants

Eighty-two parents and sixty-nine nursery staff from Bristol, UK who had and worked with 2–4-year-olds, respectively.

Results

Response rates were 86·3 and 86·0 % and missing data 15·9 and 14·5 % for the second administration of the parent and nursery staff questionnaires, respectively. Weighted κ coefficients for individual items mostly fell under the ‘moderate’ agreement category for the parental (75·0 %) and nursery staff (55·8 %) items. All self-efficacy and motivation scales had acceptable levels of internal consistency (Cronbach’s α coefficients>0·7). The intraclass correlation coefficients for the self-efficacy, motivation and knowledge scales ranged between 0·48 and 0·82. Paired t tests found an increase between test and retest knowledge scores for the Nutrition Motivation (t=−2·91, df=81, P=0·00) and Knowledge (t=−3·22, df=81, P=0·00) scales in the parent questionnaire.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate that the items and scales show good acceptability, internal consistency and test–retest reliability.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Acceptability, internal consistency and test–retest reliability of scales to assess parental and nursery staff’s self-efficacy, motivation and knowledge in relation to pre-school children’s nutrition, oral health and physical activity
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Acceptability, internal consistency and test–retest reliability of scales to assess parental and nursery staff’s self-efficacy, motivation and knowledge in relation to pre-school children’s nutrition, oral health and physical activity
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Acceptability, internal consistency and test–retest reliability of scales to assess parental and nursery staff’s self-efficacy, motivation and knowledge in relation to pre-school children’s nutrition, oral health and physical activity
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author: Email kaiseree.dias@bristol.ac.uk

References

Hide All
1. UNICEF, World Health Organization & International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank (2018) Levels and Trends in Child Malnutrition: UNICEF–WHO–World Bank Group Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates. New York/Geneva/Washington, DC: UNICEF/WHO/World Bank.
2. World Health Organization (2016) Report of the Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity. Geneva: WHO.
3. Haire-Joshu, D & Nanney, MS (2002) Prevention of overweight and obesity in children: influences on the food environment. Diabetes Educ 28, 415423.
4. Baranowski, T, Domel, S, Gould, R et al. (1993) Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption among 4th and 5th grade students: results from focus groups using reciprocal determinism. J Nutr Educ 25, 114120.
5. Baranowski, T, Cullen, KW & Baranowski, J (1999) Psychosocial correlates of dietary intake: advancing dietary intervention. Annu Rev Nutr 19, 1740.
6. Trost, SG, Sallis, JF, Pate, RR et al. (2003) Evaluating a model of parental influence on youth physical activity. Am J Prev Med 25, 277282.
7. Dempsey, JM, Kimiecik, JC & Horn, TS (1993) Parental influence on children’s moderate to vigorous physical activity participation: an expectancy-value approach. Pediatr Exerc Sci 5, 151167.
8. Mazarello Paes, V, Ong, KK & Lakshman, R (2015) Factors influencing obesogenic dietary intake in young children (0–6 years): systematic review of qualitative evidence. BMJ Open 5, e007396.
9. Henderson, KE, Grode, GM, O’Connell, ML et al. (2015) Environmental factors associated with physical activity in childcare centers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 12, 43.
10. World Health Organization (2017) WHO Expert Consultation on Public Health Intervention Against Early Childhood Caries: Report of a Meeting, Bangkok, Thailand, 26–28 January 2016. Geneva: WHO.
11. Castilho, AR, Mialhe, FL, Barbosa Tde, S et al. (2013) Influence of family environment on children’s oral health: a systematic review. J Pediatr (Rio J) 89, 116123.
12. National Statistics, (2017 ) Education Provision: Children Under 5 Years of Age, January 2017 . London: Department for Education.
13. Wright, JA, Adams, WG, Laforge, RG et al. (2014) Assessing parental self-efficacy for obesity prevention related behaviors. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 11, 53.
14. Strecher, VJ, DeVellis, BM, Becker, MH et al. (1986) The role of self-efficacy in achieving health behavior change. Health Educ Q 13, 7392.
15. Bandura, A (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
16. Gunnarsdottir, T, Njardvik, U, Olafsdottir, AS et al. (2011) The role of parental motivation in family-based treatment for childhood obesity. Obesity (Silver Spring) 19, 16541662.
17. Miller, WR & Rollnick, S (1991) Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change Addictive Behavior. New York: Guilford Publications.
18. Mabiala Babela, JR, Nika, ER, Nkounkou Milandou, KG et al. (2016) Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of parents facing child and adolescent obesity in Brazzaville, Congo. Glob Pediatr Health 3, 2333794X16675546.
19. Ward, DS, Benjamin, SE, Ammerman, AS et al. (2008) Nutrition and physical activity in child care: results from an environmental intervention. Am J Prev Med 35, 352356.
20. Kipping, R, Jago, R, Metcalfe, C et al. (2016) NAP SACC UK: protocol for a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial in nurseries and at home to increase physical activity and healthy eating in children aged 2–4 years. BMJ Open 6, e010622.
21. Lawlor, DA, Howe, LD, Anderson, EL et al. (2016) The Active for Life Year 5 (AFLY5) school-based cluster randomised controlled trial: effect on potential mediators. BMC Public Health 16, 68.
22. Children’s Food Trust (2012) Voluntary Food and Drink Guidelines for Early Years Settings in England – A Practical Guide. Sheffield: Children’s Food Trust; available at https://www.pre-school.org.uk/sites/default/files/voluntary_food_and_drink_guidelines_for_ey_settings.pdf
23. Chief Medical Officers (2011) Start Active, Stay Active: A Report on Physical Activity from the Four Home Countries’ Chief Medical Officers. London : Department of Health and Social Care.
24. Bland, JM & Altman, DG (1997) Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ 314, 572.
25. Cohen, J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70, 213220.
26. Landis, JR & Koch, GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159174.
27. Nunnally, JC (1978) Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
28. de Vet, HCW, Terwee, CB, Mokkink, LB et al. (2011) Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Vereecken, C, De Pauw, A, Van Cauwenbergh, S et al. (2012) Development and test–retest reliability of a nutrition knowledge questionnaire for primary-school children. Public Health Nutr 15, 16301638.
30. Whittaker, KA & Cowley, S (2006) Evaluating health visitor parenting support: validating outcome measures for parental self-efficacy. J Child Health Care 10, 296308.
31. Leung, C & Lo, SK (2013) Validation of a questionnaire to measure mastery motivation among Chinese preschool children. Res Dev Disabil 34, 234245.
32. Finlayson, TL, Siefert, K, Ismail, AI et al. (2005) Reliability and validity of brief measures of oral health-related knowledge, fatalism, and self-efficacy in mothers of African American children. Pediatr Dent 27, 422428.
33. Department for Education (2017) Survey of Childcare and Early Years Providers, England, 2016. London: Department for Education.
34. Hohwu, L, Lyshol, H, Gissler, M et al. (2013) Web-based versus traditional paper questionnaires: a mixed-mode survey with a Nordic perspective. J Med Internet Res 15, e173.
35. Braekman, E, Berete, F, Charafeddine, R et al. (2018) Measurement agreement of the self-administered questionnaire of the Belgian Health Interview Survey: paper-and-pencil versus web-based mode. PLoS One 13, e0197434.
36. Kleinman, L, Leidy, NK, Crawley, J et al. (2001) A comparative trial of paper-and-pencil versus computer administration of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire. Med Care 39, 181189.

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Dias et al. supplementary material
Dias et al. supplementary material 1

 Word (669 KB)
669 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed