Auxiliary measures to assess factors related to food insecurity: Preliminary testing and baseline characteristics of newly designed hunger-coping scales.
Auxiliary measures to assess factors related to food insecurity: Preliminary testing and baseline characteristics of newly designed hunger-coping scales.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.06.021
复制
发表时间：
2016-12
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Yaroch AL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Pinard C;Smith TM;Calloway EE;Fricke HE;Bertmann FM;Yaroch AL
本文的目的是描述新的量表的发展和初步测试，以评估饥饿应对行为在一个非常低收入的人口。极低收入成年人(≥=19岁)、至少一个孩子的照顾者(n=306)在社区环境(如图书馆)完成了一项调查。调查包括评估饥饿应对行为的新项目(例如，购买食物的权衡、伸展和获得食物的策略)、粮食不安全状况和生理性饥饿。饥饿应对量表的内部一致性、单因素方差分析、事后分析、变量间的Spearman相关。受访者中75%是女性，51%是非裔美国人，34%是白人，15%是西班牙裔，73%的人年收入20,000美元。出现了四个量表：应对饥饿的权衡、财务应对策略、配给应对策略和生理成人饥饿症状。所有量表均显示出可接受的内部一致性(α/KR-20)。预测效度、结构效度和内容效度通过饥饿应对量表和食品不安全(FI)之间的相关性得到证明，用美国农业部6个条目的HFSSM进行测量(rS=0.42-0.68，PS=0.001)。应对饥饿的权衡程度(F(2,297)F(2,297))、财务应对战略(F(2,287)F(2,287))和配给应对战略(F(2,284)F(2,284)=69.19，P<；(0.001))的水平较高，与F(2,287)F(2,287)和配给应对战略(F(2,284)F(2,284))相对应。这些初步结果支持在极低收入人口中使用新开发的饥饿应对量表，并可补充传统的粮食安全措施，以便为预防饥饿政策和方案编制提供信息。饥饿应对以前是定性地探讨的，这为本次调查提供了信息。应对饥饿的量表包括：权衡、财务和配给应对。较高的应对水平与较高的粮食不安全水平有关。应对饥饿可以为更好地解决粮食不安全问题的干预措施提供信息。
The objective of this paper is to describe the development and preliminary testing of new scales to assess hunger-coping behaviors in a very low-income population. Very low-income adults (≥ 19 years), caregivers to at least one child (n = 306) completed a survey in a community setting (e.g., libraries). The survey included novel items assessing hunger-coping behaviors (e.g., trade-offs to purchase food, strategies to stretch and obtain food), food insecurity status, and physiological hunger. Internal consistency of hunger-coping scales, one-way ANOVAs, post-hoc analyses, Spearman's correlations among variables. Respondents were 75% female, 51% African American, 34% White, and 15% Hispanic, and 73% earned <$20,000/year. Four scales emerged: hunger-coping trade-offs, financial coping strategies, rationing coping strategies, and physiological adult hunger symptoms. All scales demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α/KR-20 = 0.70–0.90). Predictive, construct, and content validity were demonstrated by correlations between hunger-coping scales and food insecurity (FI), measured with the USDA 6-item HFSSM (rs = 0.42–0.68, ps < 0.001). Higher levels of hunger-coping trade-offs (F(2,297) = 42.54, p < 0.001), financial coping strategies (F(2,287) = 70.77, p < 0.001), and rationing coping strategies (F(2,284) = 69.19, p < 0.001), corresponded with increasing levels of FI. These preliminary results support use of newly developed hunger-coping scales in a very low-income population and can compliment traditional food security measures to inform hunger prevention policy and programming. Hunger-coping was previously explored qualitatively, informing this survey. Hunger-coping scales included: trade-offs, financial, and rationing coping. Higher levels of coping were related to higher levels of food insecurity. Hunger-coping can inform interventions to better address food insecurity.