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
Back to article page

Archives of Public Health

ISSN: 2049-3258