Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the selfperceived food literacy scale Self-Perceived Food Literacy Scale
Main Article Content
Keywords
literacy, food literacy, validity, reliability
Abstract
Purpose: The present study was aimed at adapting the Self-Perceived Food Literacy Scale into
Turkish and investigating its psychometric properties. Methods: This study was conducted with 391 adults
aged ≥18 years living in a provincial center. This five-point likert scale consists of 29 items and 8 sub-scales.
In the analysis of the study data, cronbach’s alpha values, ıntraclass correlation coefficient and item-total and
inter-scale correlation coefficients were calculated, and the confirmatory factor analysis and linear regression
analysis were performed. Results: The cronbach’s alpha value was 0.84, 0.70, 0.76, 0.61, 0.89, 0.69, 0.90, 0.92
for the subscales respectively (food preparation skills, resilience and resistance, healthy snack styles, social
and conscious eating, examining food labels, daily food planning, healthy budgeting, healthy food stockpiling)
and 0.83 for the overall scale. The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient is between 0.80 and 0.96.
The goodness of fit values of the confirmatory factor analysis are between 0.062-0.93. Conclusion: The Self-
Perceived Food Literacy Scale adapted to Turkish society is a valid and reliable scale.
References
2. Begley A, Paynter E, Dhaliwal SS. Evaluation tool development for food literacy
programs. Nutrients 2018; 10(11): E1617. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10111617
3. McGowan L, Pot GK, Stephen AM, et al. The influence of socio-demographic, psychological and knowledge-related variables alongside perceived cooking and food skills abilities in the prediction of diet quality in adults: A nationally representative cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2016; 13(1): 111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-016-0440-4
4. Palumbo R. Sustainability of well-being through literacy. The effects of food literacy on sustainability of well-being. Agric Agric Sci Pro 2016; 8: 99-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.013
5. Thomas H, Azevedo Perry E, Slack J, et al. Complexities in conceptualizing and measuring food literacy. J Acad Nutr Diet 2019; 119(4): 563-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2018.10.015.
6. Grea Krause C, Beer-Borst S, Sommerhalder K, Hayoz S, Abel TA. Short food literacy questionnaire (SFLQ) for adults: Findings from a Swiss validation study. Appetite 2018; 120: 275-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.08.039
7. Azevedo PE, Thomas H, Samra HR., et al. Identifying attributes of food literacy: a scoping review. Public Health Nutr 2017; 20(13): 2406-2415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S13689800170012768.
8. Incedal Sonkaya Z, Balcı E, Ayar A. University students food literacy and food safety knowledge, attitudes and behaviors Example of Amasya University Sabuncuoğlu Şerefeddin Health Services Vocational School. Turkish Bulletin of Hygiene and Experimental Biology 2018; 75(1): 53-64. 53–64. https://doi.org/10.5505/TurkHijyen.2018.99710
9. Aktaş N, Ozdoğan Y. Food and nutrition literacy. Harran Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences 2016; 20(2): 146-153. Available from: http://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/225581
10. Batmaz H. Development of a nutrition knowledge level scale for adults and validation reliability study (these). Istanbul: Marmara University; 2018.
11. Poelman MP, Dijkstra SC, Sponselee H. Towards the measurement of food literacy with respect to healthy eating: the development and validation of the Self Perceived Food Literacy Scale among an adult sample in the Netherlands. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2018; 15(1): 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-018-0687-z.
12. Arafat S. Cross cultural adaptation & psychometric validation of instruments: Step-wise description. Int J Psychiatry 2016; 1(1): 1-4. https://doi.org/10.33140/IJP/01/01/00001.
13. Tangney JP, Baumeister RF, Boone, AL. High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. J Pers. 2004; 72(2): 271-324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x.
14. Nebioglu M, Konuk N, Akbaba S, Eroğlu Y. The Investigation of validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Brief Self-Control Scale. Bulletin of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2012; 22(4): 340-351. https://doi.org/10.5455/bcp.20120911042732.
15. Patton JH, Stanford MS, Barratt ES. Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. J Clin Psychol 1995; 51: 768-774. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:63.0.co;2-1.
16. Tamam L, Güleç H, Karataş G. Short Form of Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11-SF) Turkish Adaptation Study. Archives of Neuropsychiatry 2013; 50: 130-134. https://doi.org/10.4274/npa.y 6296.
17. Price LR. Psychometric methods theory in to practice, The Guilford press: New York, USA, 2017. ISBN 9781462524778.
18. Cohen R.J, Swerdlik ME. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement, 9th ed, McGraw-Hill Education: London, England, 2018. ISBN 1259870502
Article Sidebar
Article Details
How to Cite
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Transfer of Copyright and Permission to Reproduce Parts of Published Papers.
Authors retain the copyright for their published work. No formal permission will be required to reproduce parts (tables or illustrations) of published papers, provided the source is quoted appropriately and reproduction has no commercial intent. Reproductions with commercial intent will require written permission and payment of royalties.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
