3.9 Article

The Lifestyle Behaviour Checklist: A measure of weight-related problem behaviour in obese children

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/17477160902811199

关键词

Childhood obesity; parenting; self-efficacy; behaviour problems; psychometrics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Parents are often targeted for childhood obesity interventions and parent training is regarded as an integral component of family-based treatments for obesity. However, few studies have examined what challenges parents of obese children face managing their children's behaviour, and how these challenges might be addressed in treatment. To address this gap in knowledge, we describe the development and evaluation of a new measure, the Lifestyle Behaviour Checklist (LBC). Methods. The LBC lists 26 concerns parents might have about children's eating behaviour, activity, and other weight-related behaviours; and includes a Problem scale (extent of problems) and Confidence scale (parents' confidence in dealing with these problems). This study explored the psychometric properties of the LBC in a sample of 182 parents of healthy weight, overweight, or obese 4 to 11-year-old children. A comparison is given for families with healthy weight children and families with obese children. Results. The new measure successfully differentiated families with and without obese children, correctly classifying 91.1% of participants. Parents of healthy weight children reported lower levels of lifestyle behaviour problems (d = 2.40) and higher levels of parenting self-efficacy (d = 1.96) than parents of obese children. The LBC scales had high internal consistency and moderate test-retest stability (12 weeks). Conclusion. The lifestyle behaviour construct appears a useful way to conceptualise parenting challenges faced by parents of obese children, and the LBC a valid and reliable instrument. Routine administration of the LBC in childhood obesity research may assist in the development of more effective management approaches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据