Skip to main content

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and reliability of self-report measures of correlates of obesity-related behaviours for the iHealt(H) and IPEN Adolescent studies in Hong Kong adolescents

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

  Overall sample (N = 119) Boys (n = 59) Girls (n = 60)
Measure [theoretical range: number of items] Meana (SD) ICC
(95% CI)
Cronbach αa Meana (SD) ICC
(95% CI)
Cronbach αa Meana (SD) ICC
(95% CI)
Cronbach αa
Dietary behaviour
 Individual correlates
  Pros for eating fruits and vegetables [1–4 : 5] 3.0 (0.6) 0.86
(0.74, 0.92)
0.75 2.9 (0.6) 0.82
(0.68, 0.90)
0.78 3.1 (0.5) 0.87
(0.72, 0.94)
0.70
  Cons for eating fruits and vegetables [1–4 : 4] 1.7 (0.5) 0.72
(0.62, 0.83)
0.64 1.7 (0.6) 0.71
(0.57, 0.86)
0.67 1.7 (0.5) 0.72
(0.58, 0.87)
0.61
  Pros for eating high-fat foods [1–4 : 4] 2.1 (0.6) 0.69
(0.59, 0.79)
0.69 2.1 (0.7) 0.67
(0.53, 0.81)
0.67 2.0 (0.6) 0.71
(0.56, 0.87)
0.72
  Cons for eating high-fat foods [1–4 : 3] 2.5 (0.6) 0.76
(0.67, 0.85)
0.59 2.4 (0.7) 0.78
(0.65, 0.93)
0.59 2.6 (0.6) 0.75
(0.62, 0.89)
0.58
  Pros for drinking sugar-sweetened beverages [1–4 : 3] 2.4 (0.4) 0.68
(0.57, 0.79)
0.56 2.5 (0.4) 0.64
(0.52, 0.76)
0.60 2.4 (0.4) 0.70
(0.55, 0.88)
0.52
  Self-efficacy for eating fruits and vegetables [1–5 : 5] 3.2 (0.9) 0.92
(0.90, 0.94)
0.83 3.0 (0.9) 0.88
(0.81, 0.93)
0.83 3.4 (0.8) 0.93
(0.75, 0.98)
0.82
  Self-efficacy for eating low-fat foods [1–5 : 8] 3.0 (0.9) 0.81
(0.77, 0.86)
0.91 2.9 (0.9) 0.80
(0.66, 0.88)
0.91 3.1 (0.8) 0.82
(0.74, 0.88)
0.91
  Self-efficacy for reducing sugar-sweetened beverage intake [1–5 : 2] 3.6 (1.0) 0.77
(0.68, 0.86)
0.69 3.5 (1.1) 0.72
(0.58, 0.87)
0.68 3.7 (1.0) 0.82
(0.76, 0.87)
0.70
  Enjoyment of fruits and vegetables [1–5 : 1] 3.9 (0.9) 0.90
(0.84, 0.95)
n/a 3.8 (0.9) 0.88
(0.80, 0.94)
n/a 4.0 (0.8) 0.91
(0.83, 0.97)
n/a
  Enjoyment of high-fat foods [1–5 : 1] 3.1 (1.0) 0.34
(0.16, 0.49)
n/a 3.3 (1.1) 0.30
(0.11, 0.54)
n/a 2.9 (1.2) 0.38
(0.12, 0.59)
n/a
  Enjoyment of sugar-sweetened beverages [1–5 : 1] 3.0 (1.0) 0.40
(0.21, 0.54)
n/a 3.2 (1.0) 0.41
(0.23, 0.59)
n/a 2.9 (1.0) 0.39
(0.10, 0.58)
n/a
 Social correlates
  Social support for eating fruits and vegetables from adults [1–4 : 3] 3.2 (1.0) 0.51
(0.34, 0.64)
0.53 3.0 (0.9) 0.54
(0.39, 0.68)
0.49 3.3 (1.0) 0.49
(0.34, 0.66)
0.57
  Social support for eating fruits and vegetables from peers [1–4 : 3] 1.6 (1.0) 0.44
(0.35, 0.51)
0.65 1.5 (1.0) 0.41
(0.24, 0.58)
0.64 1.7 (0.9) 0.46
(0.30, 0.63)
0.66
  Social support for eating less high-fat foods from adults [1–4 : 3] 2.4 (1.2) 0.65
(0.56, 0.73)
0.54 2.1 (1.0) 0.64
(0.51, 0.77)
0.57 2.7 (1.2) 0.66
(0.54, 0.79)
0.53
  Social support for eating less high-fat foods from peers [1–4 : 3] 1.3 (0.7) 0.56
(0.45, 0.65)
0.55 1.2 (0.4) 0.56
(0.41, 0.70)
0.60 1.4 (0.8) 0.56
(0.40, 0.70)
0.52
  Social support for drinking sugar-sweetened beverages from adults [1–4 : 3] 2.0 (0.6) 0.64
(0.51, 0.74)
0.64 2.0 (0.6) 0.62
(0.50, 0.74)
0.63 1.9 (0.5) 0.65
(0.52, 0.78)
0.66
  Social support for drinking sugar-sweetened beverages from peers [1–4 : 3] 2.3 (0.5) 0.67
(0.56, 0.77)
0.68 2.3 (0.5) 0.62
(0.51, 0.73)
0.65 2.2 (0.5) 0.70
(0.54, 0.89)
0.70
 Environmental correlates
  School food environment (unhealthy) [0–4 : 4] 2.9 (0.9) 0.56
(0.45, 0.65)
n/a 2.9 (0.9) 0.52
(0.37, 0.66)
n/a 2.9 (0.9) 0.60
(0.47, 0.73)
n/a
Physical activity (PA)
 Individual correlates
  Perceived barriers to active transport to/from school [1–4 : 19] 2.2 (0.6) 0.76
(0.66, 0.85)
0.91 2.2 (0.7) 0.75
(0.62, 0.88)
0.91 2.3 (0.6) 0.77
(0.63, 0.88)
0.90
  Perceived barriers to active transport to/from closest park [1–4: 17] 1.9 (0.7) 0.61
(0.48, 0.73)
0.92 1.9 (0.7) 0.65
(0.50, 0.76)
0.93 1.9 (0.7) 0.57
(0.40, 0.71)
0.91
  Perceived barriers to PA in the neighbourhood [1–4 : 9] 1.7 (0.6) 0.67
(0.56, 0.76)
0.83 1.7 (0.7) 0.60
(0.43, 0.75)
0.85 1.7 (0.6) 0.73
(0.60, 0.87)
0.82
  Pros for engagement in PA [1–4 : 5] 3.2 (0.6) 0.80
(0.71, 0.90)
0.78 3.3 (0.6) 0.78
(0.64, 0.87)
0.78 3.2 (0.6) 0.81
(0.74, 0.86)
0.77
  Cons for engagement in PA [1–4 : 5] 1.9 (0.5) 0.68
(0.57, 0.76)
0.61 1.8 (0.5) 0.65
(0.53, 0.74)
0.62 1.9 (0.5) 0.69
(0.46, 0.83)
0.61
  Self-efficacy for PA [1–5 : 6] 2.7 (1.0) 0.73
(0.63, 0.85)
0.88 2.9 (1.0) 0.72
(0.58, 0.90)
0.87 2.6 (0.9) 0.73
(0.62, 0.86)
0.87
  Enjoyment of PA [1–5 : 1] 3.7 (1.0) 0.65
(0.53, 0.75)
n/a 4.0 (1.0) 0.63
(0.47, 0.73)
n/a 3.6 (1.0) 0.66
(0.51, 0.75)
n/a
 Social correlates
  Social support for PA from adults [0–4 : 3] 1.5 (0.9) 0.79
(0.68, 0.88)
0.68 1.4 (1.0) 0.73
(0.59, 0.89)
0.66 1.5 (0.9) 0.81
(0.72, 0.88)
0.71
  Social support for PA from peers [0–4 : 2] 1.1 (1.0) 0.74
(0.62, 0.82)
0.69 1.1 (1.1) 0.69
(0.57, 0.77)
0.72 1.2 (1.0) 0.78
(0.62, 0.89)
0.68
  Parental rules about PA [0–14 : 14] 7.0 (3.5) 0.75
(0.66, 0.86)
n/a 6.4 (3.6) 0.73
(0.49, 0.87)
n/a 7.5 (3.3) 0.76
(0.68, 0.84)
n/a
 Environmental correlates
  School physical activity equipment [0–6 : 6] 4.6 (1.1) 0.74
(0.60, 0.89)
n/a 4.6 (1.1) 0.75
(0.59, 0.90)
n/a 4.5 (1.1) 0.73
(0.58, 0.87)
n/a
  Physical activity equipment at home [0–10 : 10] 5.0 (2.4) 0.98
(0.95, 0.99)
n/a 5.1 (2.5) 0.89
(0.82, 0.93)
n/a 4.9 (2.4) 0.99*
(0.98, 1.00)
n/a
  Perceived neighbourhood traffic safety [1–4 : 6] 3.0 (0.4) 0.81
(0.71, 0.86)
0.59 3.1 (0.4) 0.80
(0.66, 0.88)
0.65 3.0 (0.4) 0.81
(0.68, 0.89)
0.53
  Perceived neighbourhood crime safety [1–4 : 8] 3.2 (0.5) 0.75
(0.68, 0.83)
0.82 3.4 (0.6) 0.78
(0.65, 0.83)
0.81 3.1 (0.5) 0.73
(0.61, 0.86)
0.82
  Physical activity friendly school policy [0–4 : 2] 2.5 (0.8) 0.70
(0.60, 0.78)
n/a 2.5 (0.9) 0.65
(0.53, 0.78)
n/a 2.6 (0.8) 0.78
(0.62, 0.89)
n/a
Sedentary behaviour (SB)
 Individual correlates
  Pros for engagement in SB [1–4 : 6] 2.6 (0.5) 0.71
(0.61, 0.82)
0.57 2.7 (0.5) 0.73
(0.60, 0.88)
0.59 2.6 (0.5) 0.70
(0.47, 0.84)
0.56
  Cons for engagement in SB [1–4 : 6] 2.5 (0.5) 0.66
(0.55, 0.76)
0.53 2.4 (0.5) 0.61
(0.49, 0.73)
0.52 2.6 (0.4) 0.69
(0.45, 0.85)
0.51
  Self-efficacy for reducing SB [1–5 : 7] 3.1 (0.8) 0.59
(0.48. 0.68)
0.76 3.0 (0.9) 0.60
(0.43, 0.75)
0.78 3.2 (0.7) 0.58
(0.44, 0.72)
0.74
  Enjoyment of SB [1–5 : 1] 3.9 (0.9) 0.77
(0.67, 0.86)
n/a 4.0 (0.9) 0.75
(0.62, 0.89)
n/a 3.9 (0.9) 0.80
(0.67, 0.88)
n/a
 Social correlates
  Social support for SB from adults [0–4 : 1] 2.2 (1.2) 0.68
(0.56, 0.80)
n/a 2.1 (1.2) 0.66
(0.53, 0.80)
n/a 2.4 (1.2) 0.69
(0.44, 0.86)
n/a
  Social support for SB from peers [0–4 : 2] 1.9 (0.8) 0.72
(0.62, 0.83)
0.55 1.9 (0.8) 0.68
(0.54, 0.82)
0.56 1.8 (0.8) 0.76
(0.62,0.87)
0.58
  Parental rules about SB [0–3 : 3] 1.0 (1.1) 0.80
(0.72, 0.89)
n/a 1.0 (1.1) 0.81
(0.67, 0.90)
n/a 1.0 (1.0) 0.80
(0.70, 0.87)
n/a
  Environmental correlates          
  Screen media in bedroom [0–6: 6] 1.9 (1.5) 0.96
(0.92, 0.99)
n/a 2.0 (1.6) 0.92
(0.85, 0.96)
n/a 1.8 (1.4) 0.99*
(0.98, 1.00)
n/a
  Personal electronics [0–4 : 4] 2.7 (0.9) 0.78
(0.68, 0.87)
n/a 2.7 (1.0) 0.77
(0.64, 0.87)
n/a 2.7 90.8) 0.78
(0.66, 0.89)
n/a
  1. aDifferences between means and internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α) at first and second assessments not statistically significant (all ps > 0.13). Thus, only means, standard deviations and Cronbach’s α values for data collected at the first assessment are reported
  2. *p < .05