Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of measures of correlates of obesity-related behaviours included in the current study

From: Reliability of self-report measures of correlates of obesity-related behaviours in Hong Kong adolescents for the iHealt(H) and IPEN adolescent studies

Measures Description Source and adaptations Test-retest reliabilitya Cronbach’s α
Dietary behaviour
Individual correlates
  Decisional balance for eating fruits and vegetables 5 items about ‘Pros’ and 4 items about ‘Cons’ rated on 4-point Likert scale Adapted for TEAN study from Hagler et al. [40] Pros: 0.87 [40]
Cons: 0.74 [40]
Pros: 0.78 [40]
Cons: 0.72 [40]
  Decisional balance for eating high-fat foods 4 items about ‘Pros’ and 3 items about ‘Cons’ rated on 4-point Likert scale Adapted for TEAN study from Hagler et al. [40] Pros: 0.85 [40]
Cons: 0.71 [40]
Pros: 0.64 [40]
Cons: 0.79 [40]
  Decisional balance for drinking sugar-sweetened beverages 3 items about ‘Pros’ rated on 4-point Likert scale TEAN study Unknown Unknown
  Self-efficacy for eating fruits and vegetables 5 items rated on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘I’m sure I can’t’ to ‘I’m sure I can’ Adapted for TEAN study from Hagler et al. [40] 0.87 [40] 0.77 [40]
  Self-efficacy for eating low-fat foods 8 items rated on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘I’m sure I can’t’ to ‘I’m sure I can’ Included in TEAN study from Hagler et al. [40] 0.93 [40] 0.90 [40]
  Self-efficacy for reducing sugar-sweetened beverage intake 2 items rated on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘I’m sure I can’t’ to ‘I’m sure I can’ TEAN study Unknown Unknown
  Enjoyment of fruits and vegetables Single item rated on 5-point Likert scale TEAN study Unknown n/a
  Enjoyment of high-fat foods Single item rated on 5-point Likert scale TEAN study Unknown n/a
  Enjoyment of sugar-sweetened beverages Single item rated on 5-point Likert scale TEAN study Unknown n/a
Social correlates
  Social support for eating fruits and vegetables 3 items about ‘support from adults’ and 3 items about ‘support from peers’ rated on a 4-point Likert scale Adapted for TEAN study from Hagler et al. [40] Adults: 0.79 [40]
Peers: 0.75 [40]
Adults: 0.74 [40]
Peers: 0.74 [40]
  Social support for eating high-fat foods 3 items about ‘support from adults’ and 3 items about ‘support from peers’ rated on a 4-point Likert scale Adapted for TEAN study from Hagler et al. [40] Adults: 0.93 [40]
Peers: 0.77 [40]
Adults: 0.77 [40]
Peers: 0.80 [40]
  Social support for drinking sugar-sweetened beverages 3 items about ‘support from adults’ and 3 items about ‘support from peers’ rated on a 4-point Likert scale TEAN study Unknown Unknown
Environmental correlates
  School food environment 4 dichotomous items (‘Yes’, ‘No’), one assessing healthy and 3 unhealthy school practices/policies Active Where study [38] Kappa range: 0.57–0.77 [38] n/a
Physical activity behaviour
Individual correlates
  Perceived barriers to active transport (cycling or walking) to/from school 19 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale 17 items from the Active Where study [38] and 2 items added by expert panel: ‘being tired’ and ‘having a tight schedule (no time)’ Original 17 items: 0.38–0.77 [38] 11-item version: 0.80 [41]
  Perceived barriers to active transport to/from closest park 17 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale Active Where study [38] 0.32–0.78 [38] Unknown
  Perceived barriers to active transport in the neighbourhood 9 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale Active Where study [38] 0.35–0.63 [38] Unknown
  Decisional balance for engagement in physical activity 5 items about ‘Pros’ and 5 items about ‘Cons’ rated on 4-point Likert scale Adapted for TEAN study from Norman et al. [42] Pros: 0.74 [42]
Cons: 0.86 [42]
Pros: 0.81 [42]
Cons: 0.53 [42]
  Self-efficacy for physical activity 6 items rated on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘I’m sure I can’t’ to ‘I’m sure I can’ Included in TEAN study from Norman et al. [42] 0.71 [42] 0.76 [42]
  Enjoyment of physical activity Single item rated on 5-point Likert scale Included in TEAN study from Norman et al. [42] 0.43 [42] n/a
Social correlates
  Social support for physical activity 3 items about ‘support from adults’ and 2 items about ‘support from peers’ rated on a 5-point frequency scale Adapted for TEAN study from Norman et al. [42] Adults: 0.78 [42]
Peers: 0.68 [42]
Adults: 0.81 [42]
Peers: 0.53 [42]
  Parental rules about physical activity 14 dichotomous items (‘Yes’, ‘No’) Active Where study [38] % agreement: 50% - 78% [38] n/a
Environmental correlates
  School physical activity equipment 6 dichotomous items (‘Yes’, ‘No’) Active Where study [38] % agreement: 77% - 86% [38] n/a
  Physical activity equipment at home 10 dichotomous items (‘Yes’, ‘No’) and 4-point frequency scales Active Where study [38] % agreement: 55%–67%
Frequency scales: 0.49–0.75 [38]
n/a
  Perceived neighbourhood traffic safety 6 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale Neighbourhood Environment Walkability Scale – Youth [43] Items: 0.41–0.57 [38]
Scale: 0.67 [43]
0.81 [43]
  Perceived neighbourhood crime safety 8 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale Neighbourhood Environment Walkability Scale – Youth [43] Items: 0.34–0.74 [38]
Scale: 0.73 [43]
0.87 [43]
  Physical activity friendly school policy 2 items rated on a 5-point frequency scale Active Where study [38] 0.27–0.57 [38] n/a
Sedentary behaviour
Individual correlates
  Decisional balance for engagement in sedentary behaviour 6 items about ‘Pros’ and 6 items about ‘Cons’ rated on 4-point Likert scale Adapted for TEAN study from Norman et al. [42] Pros: 0.30 [42]
Cons: 0.59 [42]
Pros: 0.61 [42]
Cons: 0.58 [42]
  Self-efficacy for reducing sedentary behaviour 7 items rated on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘I’m sure I can’t’ to ‘I’m sure I can’ Included in TEAN study from Norman et al. [42] 0.80 [42] 0.90 [42]
  Enjoyment of sedentary behaviour Single item rated on 5-point Likert scale Included in TEAN study from Norman et al. [42] 0.29 [42] n/a
Social correlates
  Social support for sedentary behaviour Single item about ‘support from adults’ and 2 items about ‘support from peers’ rated on a 5-point frequency scale Adapted for TEAN study from Norman et al. [42] Adults: 0.93 [42]
Peers: 0.77 [42]
Adults: n/a
Peers: 0.58 [42]
  Parental rules about sedentary behaviour 3 dichotomous items (‘Yes’, ‘No’) Adapted for TEAN study from Salmon et al. [44] % agreement: 71% - 90% [44] n/a
Environmental correlates
  Screen media in bedroom 6 dichotomous items (‘Yes’, ‘No’) Adapted from continuous items in Active Where study [38] 0.36–0.79 [38] n/a
  Personal electronics 4 dichotomous items (‘Yes’, ‘No’) Adapted from continuous items in Active Where study [38] 0.38–0.76 [38] n/a
  1. aValues represent estimates of intra-class correlation (ICC) unless otherwise stated