Adaptation and Validation of the Turkish Version of a Single-Item Food Choice Questionnaire

Abstract

Objectives: The single-item Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) is a self-reported instrument with 11 dimensions to assess food choice motives alternative to the multi-item FCQ. This study aimed to examine the validity and reliability of a Turkish version of the questionnaire. Materials and Methods: In phase 1, forward-backwards translation, cognitive debriefing with thirty participants, and content validity with ten experts were carried out. In phase 2, the psychometric properties were evaluated through a cross-sectional survey. A total of 350 responses were analyzed for convergent validity by comparing dimensions of single-item and multi-item FCQs. The questionnaire was reposted after a month, and 50 re-administration data (11.4% retest rate) were examined for test-retest reliability. Results: The eight dimensions of single-item FCQ (health, mood, convenience, sensory, price, weight, and familiar) were correlated with corresponding factors in multi-item FCQ, ranged between 0.431 to 0.646. The three dimensions (environment friendliness, animal friendliness, and social justice) corresponding to a single factor regarding ethical concern in multi-item FCQ were analyzed separately and significantly correlated (0.569, 0.433, and 0.572 respectively). All correlations were statistically significant at p <0.001 significance level. The Pearson’s correlations of test-retest analysis ranged from r = 0.407 to 0.673 (p = 0.000). The intraclass correlation coefficient values ranged between 0.581 to 0.796, indicating moderate to good reliability for all dimensions. The sensory appeal, convenience, and price dimensions were the most crucial motives. Conclusion: The results indicate that the single-item FCQ is a valid alternative instrument in the Turkish population.

Keywords

• food choice motives
• single item measure
• validation

References

1. Allam, Z., Bibri, S. E., & Sharpe, S. A. (2022). The rising impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine War: Energy transition, climate justice, global inequality, and supply chain disruption. Resources, 11(99). https://doi.org/10.3390/resources11110099
2. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 25(24), 3186-3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
3. Blake, C. E., Frongillo, E. A., Warren, A. M., Constantinides, S. V., Rampalli, K. K., & Bhandari, S. (2021). Elaborating the science of food choice for rapidly changing food systems in low-and middle-income countries. Global Food Security, 28, Article 100503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100503
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022, June 3). About Adult BMI. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html
5. Chen, P. J., & Antonelli, M. (2020). Conceptual models of food choice: Influential factors related to foods, individual differences, and society. Foods, 9(12), Article 1898. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9121898
6. Cunha, L. M., Cabral, D., Moura, A. P., & de Almeida, M. D. V. (2018). Application of the Food Choice Questionnaire across cultures: Systematic review of cross-cultural and single country studies. Food Quality and Preference, 64, 21-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.10.007
7. Dikmen, D., İnan-Eroğlu, E., Göktaş, Z., Barut-Uyar, B., & Karabulut, E. (2016). Validation of a Turkish version of the food choice questionnaire. Food Quality and Preference, 52, 81-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.016
8. EIT Food. (2020). The EIT Food Trust Report 2020. https://www.eitfood.eu/reports/trust-report-2020

9. Köksal, E., Bilici, S., Çitar Daziroğlu, M. E. & Erdoğan Gövez, N. (2022). Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Sustainable and Healthy Eating Behaviors Scale. Br J Nutr, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114522002525
10. European Parliamentary Research Service (ERPS). (2014). Fair trade and consumers in the European Union. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2014/140784/LDM_BRI(2014)140784_REV1EN.pdf
11. Evans, J., & Mathur, A. (2018). The value of online surveys: A look back and a look ahead. Internet Research, 28 (4). https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-03-2018-0089
12. Fairtrade International. (2022). Building resilience in a changing world: Annual report 2021 -2022. https://www.fairtrade.net/library/2021-2022-annual-report
13. FAO, & WHO. (2019). Sustainable healthy diets – Guiding principles. Rome. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241516648
14. Fotopoulos, C., Krystallis, A., Vassallo, M., & Pagiaslis, A. (2009). Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) revisited. Suggestions for the development of an enhanced general food motivation model. Appetite, 52(1), 199-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2008.09.014
15. Gericke, N., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Berglund, T., & Olsson, D. (2019). The Sustainability Consciousness Questionnaire: The theoretical development and empirical validation of an evaluation instrument for stakeholders working with sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 27(1), 35-49. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1859
16. Hendriks, S., Groot Ruiz, A. d., Acosta, M. H., Baumers, H., Galgani, P., Mason-D'Croz, D., Godde, C., Waha, K., Kanidou, D., von Braun, J., Benitez, M., Blanke, J., Caron, P., Fanzo, J., Greb, F., Haddad, L., Herforth, A., Jordaan, D., Masters, W., . . . Watkins, M. (2021). The True Cost and True Price of Food. A paper from the Scientific Group of the UN Food Systems Summit (Draft). https://sc-fss2021.org/materials/scientific-group-reports-and-briefs/
17. Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General. (2019). Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The Future is Now – Science for Achieving Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/24797GSDR_report_2019.pdf
18. Konttinen, H., Sarlio-Lähteenkorva, S., Silventoinen, K., Männistö, S., & Haukkala, A. (2013). Socio-economic disparities in the consumption of vegetables, fruit and energy-dense foods: the role of motive priorities. Public Health Nutr, 16(5), 873-882. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980012003540
19. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A Guideline of selecting and reporting ıntraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med, 15(2), 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
20. Larson, R. B. (2018). Controlling social desirability bias. International Journal of Market Research, 61(5), 534-547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805305
21. Lindeman, M., & Väänänen, M. (2000). Measurement of ethical food choice motives. Appetite, 34(1), 55-59. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0293
22. Michalos, A. C., Creech, H., Swayze, N., Kahlke, P. M., Buckler, C., & Rempel, K. (2012). Measuring knowledge, attitudes and behaviours concerning sustainable development among tenth grade students in Manitoba. Social Indicators Research, 106(2), 213-238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9809-6
23. Milošević, J., Žeželj, I., Gorton, M., & Barjolle, D. (2012). Understanding the motives for food choice in Western Balkan Countries. Appetite, 58(1), 205-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.012
24. Onwezen, M. C., Reinders, M. J., Verain, M. C. D., & Snoek, H. M. (2019). The development of a single-item Food Choice Questionnaire. Food Quality and Preference, 71, 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.05.005
25. Perez-Cueto, F. J. A. (2019). An umbrella review of systematic reviews on food choice and nutrition published between 2017 and-2019. Nutrients, 11(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11102398
26. Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Guerrero, L., & Hersleth, M. (2009). Association between traditional food consumption and motives for food choice in six European countries. Appetite, 53(1), 101-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2009.05.019
27. Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg, 126(5), 1763-1768. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000002864
28. Sobal, J., & Bisogni, C. A. (2009). Constructing food choice decisions. Ann Behav Med, 38(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9124-5
29. Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract, 17(2), 268-274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
30. Steptoe, A., Pollard, T. M., & Wardle, J. (1995). Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: he Food Choice Questionnaire. Appetite, 25(3), 267-284. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1995.0061
31. The World Bank. (2023). Food Security (Update May 4, 2023). Washington, DC. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/40ebbf38f5a6b68bfc11e5273e1405d4-0090012022/related/Food-Security-Update-LXXXIV-May-4-2023.pdf
32. Verain, M. C. D., van den Puttelaar, J., Zandstra, E. H., Lion, R., de Vogel-van den Bosch, J., Hoonhout, H. C. M., & Onwezen, M. C. (2022). Variability of food choice motives: Two Dutch studies showing variation across meal moment, location and social context. Food Quality and Preference, 98, 104505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104505
33. WHO. (2020). Healthy diet. https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-diet
34. Yüksel, Y., & Yıldız, B. (2019). Adaptation of Sustainability Consciousness Questionnaire. Erciyes Journal of Education, 3(1), 16-36. https://doi.org/10.32433/eje.562622
35. Żakowska-Biemans, S., Pieniak, Z., Kostyra, E., & Gutkowska, K. (2019). Searching for a measure integrating sustainable and healthy eating behaviors. Nutrients, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11010095
36. Zamanzadeh, V., Ghahramanian, A., Rassouli, M., Abbaszadeh, A., Alavi-Majd, H., & Nikanfar, A. R. (2015). Design and implementation content validity study: development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. J Caring Sci, 4(2), 165-178. https://doi.org/10.15171/jcs.2015.017