4.5 Article

Confirmatory factor analysis and measurement invariance of the Child Feeding Questionnaire in low-income Hispanic and African-American mothers with preschool-age children

期刊

APPETITE
卷 90, 期 -, 页码 16-22

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.027

关键词

Child feeding questionnaire; African-American; Hispanic; Low-income; Validation

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [R21 CA121423, RC1CA149400, R25CA057699]
  2. National Health Lung and Blood Institute [RO1 HL081645]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Validation work of the Child Feeding Questionnaire (CFQ) in low-income minority samples suggests a need for further conceptual refinement of this instrument. Using confirmatory factor analysis, this study evaluated 5- and 6-factor models on a large sample of African-American and Hispanic mothers with preschool-age children (n=962). The 5-factor model included: 'perceived responsibility', 'concern about child's weight', 'restriction', 'pressure to eat', and 'monitoring' and the 6-factor model also tested 'food as a reward'. Multi-group analysis assessed measurement invariance by race/ethnicity. In the 5-factor model, two low-loading items from 'restriction' and one low-variance item from 'perceived responsibility' were dropped to achieve fit. Only removal of the low-variance item was needed to achieve fit in the 6-factor model. Invariance analyses demonstrated differences in factor loadings. This finding suggests African-American and Hispanic mothers may vary in their interpretation of some CFQ items and use of cognitive interviews could enhance item interpretation. Our results also demonstrated that 'food as a reward' is a plausible construct among a low-income minority sample and adds to the evidence that this factor resonates conceptually with parents of preschoolers; however, further testing is needed to determine the validity of this factor with older age groups. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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