AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF
Janet K. Hopkins Beam for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in Public Health presented on May 2. 1994.
Title:Compliance with Food Category Consumption Guidelines
Based on Student Characteristics. Family Characteristics
and Decision-Making Factors
Redacted for Privacy
Abstract approved:
R
ecca J. Donatelle
Dietary excesses and imbalances play a prominent role
in five of the ten leading causes of death in the U.S.
Recognizing that many Americans tend to have poor dietary
habits, the government has implemented several nutrition
education strategies.
Although these efforts have
attempted to improve the nutritional status of Americans,
they do so without sufficient analysis of factors that
influence dietary behaviors.
The purpose of this study was to examine factors that
influence dietary practices through an assessment of
university students' nutrition knowledge, current and
previous eating behaviors.
In addition, this study was
designed to determine whether university students complied
with the U.S. Food Guide Pyramid recommendations.
Eight hundred ninety students from three public
universities were asked to provide information concerning
their nutrition knowledge, previous dietary behaviors,
current attitudes toward food choices, current eating
behaviors.
The overall students' nutrition knowledge mean score
was 51.8%.
The students' summative score for family eating
behaviors during their formative years was 42.28. The
students' current eating behavior summative score was
38.39.
Although women were more likely than men to comply
with the Food Guide Pyramid, the majority of both sexes
Significant sex differences in
were not in compliance.
consumption guidelines were shown in the milk
(x2(df=1)=37.5, p<.01) ; vegetables (x2(df=1)=8.4, p<.01)
fruit (x2(df=1)=32.4, p<.01) and meat (x2(df=1)=6.5, p<.01)
categories.
More females met the guidelines for
vegetables, fruit and meat than males,
while, males met
the milk consumption guidelines more often than females.
Younger students (x age=19.95) met the milk consumption
guidelines more often than older students (x age=20.4),
(t(881)=2.19, p<.05).
Overall, the results showed that
students who lived where food service was provided had
better reported rates of compliance than students who lived
in a house or apartment.
Analysis revealed that the
following variables influenced students' dietary practices:
the primary meal preparer; level of parental concern about
nutrition and health; and student's skills, resources, and
values in preparing and choosing healthful foods.
Compliance with Food Category Consumption Guidelines
Based on Student Characteristics, Family Characteristics,
and Decision-Making Factors
by
Janet K. Hopkins Beary
A DISSEaTATION
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Completed May 2, 1994
Commencement June 1995
Doctor of Philosophy thesis of Janet K. Hopkins Beary
presented on May 2. 1994
APPROVED:
Redacted for Privacy
Major Pro ;)­
essor, representing Public Health
Redacted for Privacy
'
Chair of Departme/nt of Public Health
Redacted for Privacy
/
Dean of Gr
ate S
I understand that my thesis will become part of the
permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries.
My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any
reader upon request.
Redacted for Privacy
Janet Kc.thglrkins Beary
Acknowledgements
I wish to extend my gratitude to the university
students who participated in this study.
My heartfelt
thanks are extended to Phil Huntsinger, Christine Snow-
Harter, Carl Peters and other faculty members who assisted
me in this project at Oregon State University, University
of Kansas, and Western Illinois University.
I sincerely thank members of my graduate committee,
Drs. Rebecca Donatelle, Marlette Brouwers, Anna Harding,
John Ringle and Henry Sredl for their valuable suggestions,
time and interest in this study.
For financial assistance, I wish to acknowledge the
College of Health and Human Performance at Oregon State
University.
I wish to thank my coworkers, Cheryl Graham, Faye
Trupka, and Jan Molina for their encouragement and
understanding in this lengthy undertaking.
To Suzi Maeresh
I extend my thanks in providing statistical support.
Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Dexter for
his love, humor and continual belief in me.
Table of Contents
Page
Chapter
I
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Study
Hypotheses and Research Questions.
5
6
Significance of Study
9
Limitations and Delimitation's
11
14
Definition of Terms
II
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
History of Food Guides
Food Frequency
Food Consumption Trends
Breads, Grains, and Cereals.
15
15
17
23
24
25
26
26
Fruit
Vegetables
27
Meat/Protein
28
Milk
28
Fats
29
Sweets
General Summary of Food Group
30
Consumption
Factors Affecting Food Behaviors..
Family Related Factors
Young Adult Related Factors.
32
32
35
Additional Influencing
39
Factors
III
IV
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Subjects
Universities/Regions
Students/Classes/Faculty.
Instrument
Data Collection
Design and Data Analysis
42
42
42
43
43
46
47
RESULTS
Characteristics of the Sample
49
49
Nutrition Knowledge Descriptive
Characteristics
Current Eating Behaviors of
University Students
Family Characteristics
Primary Meal Preparer
Employment Status of
Primary Meal Preparer
Perceived Concern for
Dietary Health
Family Income Level
52
55
59
59
60
60
61
Family Eating Behaviors During
the Formative Years
63
Table of Contents (continued)
Page
Chapter
Testing of Hypotheses
Hypothesis One
68
68
Overall Number of Servings
Consumed in Each Food
68
Category
69
Compliance by Sex
69
Bread
70
Dairy
Fruit
Vegetables
Meat/Protein
Fats
Sweets
Compliance by Academic
Status
Compliance of Each Food
70
71
72
72
73
75
Group Based on Students'
Age
Compliance by Type of
Living Arrangements
Compliance by Marital
Status
Hypothesis Two
77
78
80
81
Current Compliance by Past
81
Meal Preparer
Compliance by Employment
Status of Past Meal
82
Preparer
Compliance Based on Number
of Siblings in Family
Compliance by Parental
Concern for Healthful
Eating
Hypothesis Three
Sex
Academic Status
83
85
89
89
91
Current Living Arrangements
of Students
91
Dietary Opinions by Family
Characteristics
Primary Meal Preparer
94
94
Employment Status of
Primary Meal Preparer
95
Number of Siblings in
95
the Family
Students' Perception
Regarding Parental
Concern for Health 96
99
Hypothesis Four
Table of Contents (continued)
Page
Chapter
Compliance Levels Based on
Nutrition Knowledge...
Compliance with Food
Category Guidelines by
Skill Level of Students..
100
101
Compliance with Food
Category Guidelines Based
on Students' Perceived
103
Resources
Compliance with Food
Category Guidelines by
106
Values
108
Family Meal Practices
110
Self-Meals
112
Skipping Meals
114
Meals on the Run (MOR)
117
Hypothesis Five
Family Eating Behaviors...
Current Eating Behaviors...
Nutrition Knowledge
117
118
118
Perceived Current Emphasis
on Each Food Group Based
on Perceived Previous
Family Emphasis on Each
Food Group
V
119
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of the Study
Student Characteristics.
Family Characteristics
Students' Current
Consumption of Food Groups
Student Factors
Family Factors
128
128
128
129
130
131
133
Dietary Opinions Based on
Student Characteristics... 134
Student Dietary Opinions
Based on Family
135
Characteristics
Compliance Based on Nutrition
135
Knowledge
Compliance Based on Dietary
Opinions (Skills, Resources,
136
Values)
Compliance Based on Family
137
Practices
138
Conclusions
138
Research Question One
140
Research Question Two
Research Question Three
141
Table of Contents (continued)
Page
Chapter
Research Question Four
and Five
Discussion
Recommendations for Future
Research
142
144
149
BIBLIOGRAPHY
151
APPENDICES
Appendix A Cover Letter
Appendix B Survey
160
161
163
List of Tables
Table
Page
Demographic Characteristics of University
Students
51
4.2
Nutrition Knowledge Descriptive Statistics
54
4.3
Students' Current Eating Behaviors
57
4.4
Descriptive Statistics on University Students
Current Opinions about Their Eating Habits...
59
Family Characteristics of University
Students During Formative Years
62
Family Eating Behaviors During the Formative
Years
64
Differences Between Levels of Family Eating
Behaviors Based on the University Students
Skills Level and Values
67
4.1
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Overall Number of Servings Consumed by Female
and Male University Students
69
4.9
Compliance with Food Category Guidelines by
Sex
74
4.10 Compliance Regarding Food Guide Pyramid
Guidelines Based on Difference of Academic
Status
76
4.11 Compliance Regarding Food Guide Pyramid
Recommendations Based on Age of University
Students
78
4.12 Compliance with Food Guide Pyramid Guidelines
Based on Type of Living Arrangements
80
4.13 Current Compliance with Food Category
Guidelines Based on Employment Status of
Primary Meal Preparer
83
4.14 T-test to Show Difference in Students'
Compliance Based on Number of Siblings in the
Students' Family
85
List of Tables (continued)
Table
Page
4.15 Current Compliance with Food Category
Guidelines by Students' Positive or Negative
Response to Perceived Parental Concern Towards
Healthful Eating
87
4.16 Differences in Current Dietary Opinions of
University Students Based on Sex
91
4.17 Differences in Students' Current Dietary
Opinions Based on Living Arrangements
93
4.18 T-test Showing Differences Concerning Dietary
Opinions of Skills, Resources, and Values
Between Single and Married University Students
4.19 Differences in Students' Current Dietary
Opinions Toward Health Based on Parental
Concern for Nutrition and Good Health
94
97
4.20 Differences Between Students' Dietary Opinions
Based on Perception of Who in the Family
Showed Interest in Nutrition and Health
98
4.21 Nutrition Knowledge Based on Compliance
101
4.22 Difference in Compliance with Food Category
Guidelines by Skill Level of Students
103
4.23 Compliance with Food Category Guidelines Based
on Students' Perceived Resources
105
4.24 Students' Values on Nutrition and Health by
Compliance with Food Guide Pyramid
Recommendations
108
4.25 Students Reporting of Family Meal Practices
(FMP) During the Formative Years by Current
Compliance with Food Guide Pyramid
Recommendations
110
4.26 Students Reporting of Self-Meals During the
Formative Years by Current Compliance with
Food Guide Pyramid Recommendations
112
4.27 Students Reporting of Skipping Meals During the
Formative Years Based on Current Compliance
114
with Food Guide Pyramid Recommendations
List of Tables (continued)
Table
Page
4.28 Students Reporting of Meals on the Run During
the Formative Years Based on Current
Compliance with the Food Guide Pyramid
Recommendations
116
4.29 Differences Between Perceived Current Et basis
Placed on Each Food Group Based on the
Perceived Emphasis of Each Food Group During
the Formative Years
126
COMPLIANCE WITH FOOD CATEGORY CONSUMPTION GUIDELINES
BASED ON STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS, FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS
AND DECISION-MAKING FACTORS
CHAPTER I
Introduction
Dietary excesses and imbalances play a prominent
role in five of the ten leading causes of death in the
United States today (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services [DHHS] Report, 88-50210, 1988).
Coronary heart
disease, high blood pressure, strokes, some types of
cancer, and diabetes, which cause over two-thirds of all
deaths in the U. S., have been repeatedly associated with
poor dietary practices.
Several surveys were conducted
in order to determine the nutritional status associated
with these poor dietary practices.
These surveys
examined not only dietary intake but also nutriton­
related health conditions
1985,
(NCFS & CSFII, Report 85-1,
Brief el & Woteki, 1992, USDA & HNIFS, Report 86­
These studies suggest that: 1) many Americans tend
to consume a disproportionate amount of foods high in
fat, often at the expense of consuming fewer foods high
in complex carbohydrates and dietary fiber (DHHS Report,
88-50210, 1988); 2) many Americans do not consume foods
from one or more of the major foods groups on any given
2
day (DHHS Report, 88-50210, 1988, U.S. Department of
Agriculture [USDA & HNIFS] Report, 86-1, 1985); and
3)
there are consistent patterns of poor dietary habits
among the U.S. population. Evidence of these dietary
problems provides support for the development of large-
scale, low-cost health promotion and education
strategies designed to change nutrition-related
behaviors.
Recognizing the high intake of dietary fat and
consistent patterns of poor dietary habits, the U. S.
Federal Government has implemented several nutrition
education strategies to improve the nutritional status of
Americans.
For instance, the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans encouraged consumption of a variety of foods
while reducting consumption of dietary sugar, salt,
cholesterol and fat, particularly saturated fat.
In
addition, a recent report, "Healthy People 2000: National
Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives"
(Report 91-50213,1990) outlined a series of national
objectives designed to improve nutrition by the year
2000.
This report listed the following objectives: 1)
increase the consumption of vegetables, fruits and grain
products, 2) decrease sodium consumption, 3) increase
calcium intake for young people in particular 4) reduce
iron deficiency 5) improve labeling for all food
products, 6) increase the availability and identification
3
of low fat products, 7) increase the availability of low-
calorie food choices at restaurants, 8) provide more
nutrition education in the schools, and 9) provide a
stronger focus by primary care providers for the
nutritional care of their patients
(U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services [DHHS], Report 91-50213, 1990).
As a way to achieve these goals, the U. S.
Department of Agriculture launched in May 1992 the new
Food Guide Pyramid to promote healthy eating.
The
pyramid clearly illustrated the specific categories and
the amount of these foods Americans should be eating.
The largest part of our diet should consist of grain,
vegetable and fruit groups (50 percent of total calories
in our diet) followed by the dairy and protein group and
then sparingly, fats, oils and sweets.
Recognition of these food groups and their order of
importance influenced the health promotion movement
resulting in fewer infectious diseases. In addition, the
identification of lifestyle variables provided a
transition from infectious to chronic diseases (McLeroy,
Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988).
The transition from
infectious to chronic diseases, allowing people to live
longer, has also contributed to escalated health care
costs (McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988).
Epidemiological findings that link poor dietary habits to
some chronic diseases have led to extensive governmental
4
guidelines, the development and marketing of healthy food
choices, and the increase of society's awareness in
issues related to health (McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, &
Glanz, 1988).
Although these efforts attempted to improve the
nutritional status of individuals, they did so without
sufficient analysis of individual factors that prompt
specific dietary patterns.
Models assessing factors that
predispose, reinforce and/or enable negative or positive
dietary behaviors have not been sufficiently explored.
As a result, prevention planning efforts often fall far
short of optimum results.
The questions arise: 1) what
factors affect the knowledge, attitudes, values;
perceptions that facilitate current eating practices?
what factors help or hinder food selection?
2)
and 3) what
factors encourage or discourage healthy eating practices?
For far too long, health professionals have
historically focused on nutritional knowledge and skills
as the major determinants of subsequent health behavior.
While these factors are of considerable importance, they
do not account for the significant variability in
behaviors among selected groups.
In order to accurately
determine the dietary decision-making of selected
populations, factors that predispose, reinforce and
enable positive and negative dietary behavior must be
thoroughly investigated.
5
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine university
students' nutrition knowledge, eating patterns, current,
and previous eating behaviors.
In addition, this study
was designed to determine whether university students
were in compliance with U.S. Food Guide Pyramid
recommendations.
The objectives of the research were:
1)
To compare the eating patterns/practices of a
sample of university students with the Food
Guide Pyramid recommendations.
2)
To determine the nutrition knowledge of a
sample of university students.
3)
To determine whether university students had
the skills, resources and values necessary to
eat well-balanced meals.
4)
To determine whether there were differences
between students' knowledge and eating patterns
by selected demographic variables.
5)
To identify which factors influence the
university students' nutrition knowledge,
skills, and values.
6
Hypotheses and Research Questions
Five general questions were considered in this
study:
1)
Are the current eating patterns/practices
in compliance with the Food Guide Pyramid
recommendations?
2)
Do university students have the general
nutrition knowledge necessary to select
balanced meals?
3)
Do university students have the skills,
resources, and values to select or prepare
nutritionally balanced meals?
4)
What factors influence university students
knowledge, skills, and values concerning
eating behaviors?
5)
Is the emphasis on family and current eating
behaviors, and nutrition knowledge different
between male and female students?
7
The following null hypotheses were tested.
1)
There will be no significant differences in
level of student compliance with food category
guidelines based on the following demographic
variables:
*
*
*
*
*
2)
Sexes
Academic status
Age
Place of residence
Marital status
There will be no significant differences
in the level of student compliance with food
category compliance guidelines based on
selected family characteristics:
* Primary meal preparer while student was
growing up
* Employment status of primary meal preparer
* Number of siblings in the family
* Students'.perception of parental concern
about healthful eating and overall health
* Individual concern about healthful eating
* Socioeconomic status (family income)
8
3)
There will be no significant difference in the
current dietary opinions (skills, resources,
values) of students based on the following
selected demographic characteristics (student
and family):
Student Characteristics
*
*
*
*
Sexes
Academic Status
Place of residence
Marital Status
Family Characteristics
* Primary meal preparer while student was
growing up
* Employment status of primary meal
preparer
* Number of siblings in the family
* Perception by students of parental
concern for healthful eating
* Socioeconomic status (family income)
4)
There will be no significant difference between
compliance with food category guidelines
based on the following selected variables:
* Nutrition knowledge of students
* Dietary opinions (skills, resources,
values) by students
* Past emphasis of family practices placed
on the consumption of each food category
5(a) There will be no significant difference between
the following selected variables based on
sexes:
* perceived family eating behaviors
* perceived current eating behaviors
* students' nutrition knowledge score
5(b) There will be no significant difference between
the perceived current emphasis placed on each
food group based on the perceived emphasis
placed on each food group during the students'
formative years.
Significance of the Study
Knowles (1987) indicated that major health problems
in the United States could be controlled by modifying the
individual's behavior and dietary health habits,
particularly from 15 through 24 years of age.
In
addition, the Expert Panel on Nutrition Monitoring
(EPONM) identified young people as a national health risk
group who develop behaviors that may become permanent
(DHHS & USDA Report, 89-1255, 1990).
Knowles (1987) also
stated that awareness of these dangers is not acquired
until the mid-twenties and by then, patterns such as
eating behaviors are set.
As census data estimate this young adult population
to be about 27 million or approximately 11 percent of the
10
U.S. population (US Department of Commerce, Report CP-1­
1, 1990), it is particularly important to reach this
group during their formative dietary years.
By targeting
the young for appropriate prevention/intervention
strategies, it may be possible to improve the dietary
health of a whole generation of future Americans.
In the
context of the family attitudes and behaviors regarding
diet are often learned and maintained (DHHS Report, 91­
50213, 1990).
In order to determine the factors that
prompt specific dietary behaviors it is essential that a
representative sample be obtained that will assess the
eating behaviors of this young segment of the population.
For the purposes of this study, university students
were asked to provide information on their previous
dietary practices, current dietary practices, current
attitude towards food choices and views on nutrition and
health, food frequency questions and demographic
information.
Data collected from the students provide
invaluable information for university health educators
and health planners to develop specific health education
programs that can serve to reinforce positive dietary
habits.
In addition, the study can provide a data base
for dietary planners, representatives from the food
industry, government policy-makers and those interested
in planning dietary prevention and intervention
strategies designed to improve the nations' health.
11
Limitations and Delimitation's
Limitations of this study include the following:
1)
Self-reported data are only as valid as the
design of the questions.
The data represented
the perceptions of each individual based upon
his/her recall of his/her previous family
dietary practices and current practices.
Thus,
results are dependent upon the interpretation
of these findings.
2)
A convenience sample was drawn from three
public university core curriculum classes.
Randomization was not used in this study.
3)
The data were collected at a single point in
time and did not evaluate possible variation
perhaps related to seasonal changes in food
choices.
A longitudinal study could have given
a more comprehensive look at eating patterns
during the course of a year.
Delimitations of this study include the following:
1)
Only university undergraduate men and women
were sampled.
2)
Non-U.S. students were excluded in this data
analysis to eliminate the potential differences
in cultural food selection, family values and
eating practices.
12
3)
The sample consisted of three public
universities with similar enrollments in three
geographically distinct regions of the U.S.
because of limited financial support for the
study.
4)
To determine whether students met compliance
guidelines, the Food Guide Pyramid framework
was followed in establishing the estimated
number of servings needed for each food
category based upon the suggested caloric
requirements for gender, age, and activity
level.
5)
The Food Frequency section included a wide
variety of foods in each category to assist in
documenting an accurate eating pattern for each
student.
6)
Specific grams of fat were calculated for each
fat containing food in the modified Block Food
Frequency section using Bowes and Church's Food
Values and Portions for Commonly Used Foods
(Pennington, 1989).
7)
Specific number of teaspoons of sugar were
calculated for each food in the sweets category
of the modified Block Food Frequency section
using Bowes and Church's Food Values and
13
Portions for Commonly Used Foods (Pennington,
1989).
8)
Other specific nutrients were not analyzed as
the purpose of this study was to investigate a
general trend in the number of servings
consumed for each food category and whether the
individuals sampled met the compliance
standards suggested by the Food Guide Pyramid
framework.
14
Definition of Terms
Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII):
A smaller annual survey of individual food
consumption intended to provide dietary data more
frequently.
Food Frequency Recalls:
The food frequency technique
provides a list of various food items and asks
respondents about usual intakes in terms of
frequency per day, per week, or per month.
National Food Consumption Surveys (NFCS):
A national
probability sample of households that collects
detailed information about food purchases and
methods of preparation from the household member who
prepares the food.
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey(NHANES):
NHANES collects extensive health and nutrition
information from a national probability sample of
civilian, non institutionalized residents of the
United States.
15
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
Over the course of this century the nature of health
and disease among Americans has changed dramatically.
In
1900 the average life expectancy at birth among Americans
was about 47 years (McGinnis, 1992).
At that time
infectious diseases such as influenza, pneumonia,
tuberculosis and gastrointestinal infections provided
significant contributions to premature deaths.
As
conditions improved diet, sanitation, transportation and
the development of antibiotics and vaccines, the number
of premature deaths attributed to infectious diseases
declined (McGinnis, 1992).
Decreases in premature deaths
resulted in dramatic increases in life expectancy, with
the average life expectancy of 79.3 years for white
females, 72.6 for white males, 74.5 for black females,
and 66.0 for black males (National Center for Health
Statistics DHHS Report, 92-1120, 1992).
Recent studies
predict that life expectancy for a white female born in
1990 will exceed 83.4 years, and a white male born in
1990 can expect to live over 76 years (National Center
for Health Statistics Report, 92-1120, 1992).
While such
dramatic changes in the demography of Americans have been
16
heralded as being remarkable, quality of life is reduced
for far too many people who suffer from chronic and
costly diseases that can be attributed to diet excess and
deficiency.
During the 1960s and 1970s epidemiological studies
and clinical trials began to clarify the effects of risk
factors such as excess of dietary fat and sodium
consumption, low fiber diets and blood cholesterol levels
on chronic disease development (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services [DHHS] Report,88-50210, 1988).
Prior
to this time the primary concern of nutritionists was not
with diet excesses and deficits but rather with the
adequacy of the diet and its relationship to deficiency
(Baghurst, Hertzler, Record, Spurr, 1992).
These studies
have prompted a new focus on nutrition in disease
prevention and health promotion.
This focus on nutrition
and health led to the development of food guidance
systems that recommended adequate or baseline intakes of
nutrients such as protein, iron and calcium which were
thought to be low for certain sectors of the community
(Baghurst, et al, 1992).
Diet has a vital influence on these nutrients which
are important to our health.
The 1988 Surgeon General's
Report on Nutrition and Health found that for the 2 out
of 3 Americans who neither smoke nor drink, eating
patterns may shape their long-term health prospects more
17
than any other personal choice.
Five out of the ten
leading causes of death in the U.S. have been associated
with diet (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
[DHHS] Report,88-50210, 1988).
Scientific studies
concerning the five leading causes of death (coronary
heart disease, some types of cancer, stroke, diabetes
mellitus and atherosclerosis) have been associated with
poor dietary practices.
History of Food Guides
As early as 1884, W.O. Atwater, Director of
Experiment Stations for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, developed several standards of food
composition.
He is also credited with linking food
composition to dietary intake and health.
Soon after
these standards were established, Caroline L. Hunt
developed food guides which appeared in the USDA
publications (USDA ADM Report, 389, 1993).
Because of the economic constraints of the
depression in the 1930s, families needed advice not only
on food guides but also on how to select foods
economically by planning.
In order to develop these
family food plans, 12 major food groups were established.
These 12 major food groups consisted of milk; potatoes
and sweet potatoes; dry beans; peas and nuts; tomatoes
and citrus fruits; leafy green and yellow vegetables;
18
other vegetables and fruits; eggs; lean meat, poultry,
fish; flours and cereals; butter; other fats and sugars
(USDA Administration Report, 389, 1993).
In 1943 the Basic Seven food guide was issued.
The
guide included the following food groups: 1) green and
yellow vegetables, 2) oranges, tomatoes, and grapefruit,
3) potatoes and other vegetables and fruits, 4) milk and
milk products; 5) meat, poultry, fish, eggs, dried peas,
and beans; 6) bread flour cereals; and 7) butter and
fortified margarine (USDA Administration Report, 389,
1993).
This guide suggested alternative ways to limit
the number of food groups rather than the numbers of
servings in each food group.
Following the war, in 1946,
the "Basic Seven" was revised and issued in the National
Food Guide.
This food guide suggested the number of
servings of each food group needed daily but lacked
specificity regarding serving sizes.
During 1956 a new food guide containing four food
groups was published as part of the "Essential of an
Adequate Diet".
Later, the guide was published as a
leaflet, "Food for Fitness- A Daily Food Guide".
This
food guide recommended a minimum number of servings from
the four food groups.
The "Basic Four" was developed as
a guide for a foundation diet. It was intended to meet
only a portion of the caloric needs and a portion of the
RDA for nutrients.
Little guidance was provided on the
19
selection of fat and sugars or on appropriate caloric
intake.
In response to the public's desire for
authoritative, consistent guidance on diet and health,
the USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) issued
a pamphlet entitled, "Nutrition and Your
Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans"(1980).
The
Guidelines were revised and reissued in 1985 and 1990.
Axelson and Brinberg (1992) also noted that food
guides are an indispensable tool for communicating to the
public the complex body of knowledge needed to understand
human nutrition. In addition, these food guides provide
information concerning what food is needed to obtain
adequate amounts of nutrients.
The philosophical goals
of USDA's new Food Guide Pyramid, as shown in Figure 2.1,
were based on a study of the evolution of food guides and
on a needs assessment for the professional community.
The recommended goals of the Food Guide Pyramid are:
1. The new food guide should promote overall health
and well-being.
2. The new food guide should be based on up to date
nutrition research on recommended intakes of nutrients
and other food components.
3. The new food guide should focus on the total diet
rather than a foundation or core diet.
20
4. The new food guide must be useful to the target
audience.
5. The new food guide should meet its nutritional
goals in a realistic manner.
6. The new food guide should allow maximum
flexibility for consumers to eat in a way that suits
their taste and lifestyle while meeting nutritional
criteria.
7. The new food guide should demonstrate a practical
way to meet nutritional needs.
8. The food guide should build upon the successful
elements of previous guides.
The Food Guide Pyramid
A Cul& b no
Food Chokes
f21 lamunIN anima,
(added)
:ad octlal)
Illmsrabohoa Wad aidetllopn faeillersar
eodykaulsbnah.salsraspo., ba, lood.isahcr
P.....A .tht<le
LC 00111 RCM
Or ramp.
rlasbia Iran tbestrubleiroopco.pede
Fats
& Swct.
USE SPAREIGLY
sof slinimprh
Milk Yogor4 & Cheese Group
24 SERVINGS
Mcat. ?ochry. Fab,
Dry Beaus, Eggs.
& Not Group
3 SERVINGS
FOlitGmp
2490P /R40
Vegerabk Group
Ys SERVINGS
Bread. Cerrel. Rice.
& Pasta Group
6-11 SERVINGS
Looking ad the Pieces oldie Pyramid
FPM,
The fotd Gels Praelinttosias kals from the * and paapssbovn the *int 1Lcr sonionol tit
Pineid Sad QIN= food !+P porldmo.c.tml +M. dths
repce kat in wallet No wed tber major food goo, troy *vow tug mrebtolor pod boll you
wed then10.
Figure 2.1
Food Guide Pyramid
21
The goals for energy, protein, vitamin, and mineral
intake were based on the RDA established by the National
Academy of Sciences.
The goals for other food components
such as fat and added sugars were based on the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans.
The serving sizes took into
account nutrient profiles among the foods in each food
group so that the approximate nutrient content was
equivalent.
The range in the number of food servings of
the nutrient bearing food group were established to cover
the food pyramid of nutrient needs.
In order to
determine the general influence of these basic guidelines
on the nutritional and dietary status of Americans, a
nutrition monitoring system within the Departments of
Agriculture(USDA) and Health and Human Services (DHHS)
was established.
The monitoring system was conducted by
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).
In
addition the USDA also conducts a Continuing Survey of
Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII).
The USDA Survey
(1978-1980 and 1987-1988) consisted of sampled household
eating habits. These surveys sampled the household eating
habits by collecting data on the types, amounts and costs
of the food consumed (Pao, Mickle, and Burk, 1985).
The National Center for Health Statistics has also
conducted a National Health and Nutrition Examination
22
Survey (MANES) which included health histories, physical
examinations, laboratory measurements and diet related
interviews (Shipley-Moses & Dodd, 1987).
Brief el and
Woteki (1992) noted that the primary objective of the
recent NHANES III was to estimate the prevalence of food
insufficiency in the population due to inadequate
resources.
The survey also investigated the relationship
of food sufficiency to health and nutrition
(Brief el & Woteki, 1992).
The CSFII was designed to
provide timely information concerning the adequacy of
diets of selected population groups and early indications
of dietary changes within these groups.
These are
important considerations in planning educational programs
and administering a variety of public programs which
affect supply, safety and distribution of the nation's
food.
Surveys of the NNMS do not consistently cover all
the population groups, such as migrants, homeless,
military personnel, long term care facilities, college
students, prisons and Indian reservations (DHHS & USDA
Report, 89-1255, 1989).
Limited dietary assessments of
university students have been made on small scale studies
but have not been attempted on a national basis (DHHS &
USDA Report, 89-1255, 1989).
23
Food Frequency
In recent years, researchers have become
increasingly interested in the effects of diet on
disease.
Block (1982) identified that the chief
impediment to research on nutritional causes of disease
has been the uncertainty about the validity of existing
dietary assessments.
The appropriate method for
estimating dietary intake depends on the degree of
precision required of the data, the resources available
and the characteristics of the study population (Block,
1992, Eck, 1991, Larkin, 1989).
For individual subjects,
food records and recall methods are used and for large
populations, national food consumption data are used
(Krantzler, 1982).
The food frequency questionnaire
provides a reliable and accurate way to describe eating
patterns and relate those patterns to physiological and
behavioral measures (Frank, 1992, Clapp, 1991, Willet,
1987).
In addition, food frequency surveys (FFQ)
estimate the intake of dietary components that provide an
important source of information for assessing the
nutrient adequacy of diets in the U.S. population
(Jensen, 1992).
The food frequency questionnaire values
have greater validity because they purport to represent
behavior over a longer period (Larkin, 1989).
24
Eck (1991) and Block (1992) stress that the FFQ used
to estimate the usual diet of individuals must reflect
the foods eaten by the specific population being studied.
Food frequency questionnaires are commonly used because
they impose less burden on the respondent and are more
reflective of long term intake than are food diaries
(Larkin, 1989).
The food items listed in the FFQ must
adequately reflect individual age groups (Larkin, 1989).
Eck (1991) warned that care should be taken not to
include redundant items and cautioned that any
modification of the instrument could affect its
integrity.
One must also remember that the season of the
year could also impact the foods chosen (Eck, 1991).
Food Consumption Trends
Two terms that reflect the trends for food intake
are food "consumption" and "usual intake".
Putnam (1991)
defined food "consumption" as an estimate of the
available food supply.
Estimates of the U.S. total food
supply data records commodity flows from production to
end uses.
Jensen (1992) defined "usual intake" as the
average of daily intakes observed for an individual.
The dynamic nature of food demand is attributable in
part to changes in lifestyles of the U.S. population and
to technological forces (USDHHS & USDA Report,
89-1255, 1989).
Nutrition data collected during this
25
century have provided a consistent periodic measure of
nutrients used from the U.S. Food supply.
These data
have been collected and published by the Economic
Research Service (ERS) of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
The method used estimates the
quantities of various food in the U.S. food distribution
system.
A comparison of this food supply data, using the
early 1900s to 1980s for example, showed an increased use
of some major food groups for 1980s, such as meats, dairy
products, fats and oils, fruits, vegetables and sugars.
During this period there was a decrease in other foods,
such as eggs, potatoes and grain products (Raper, 1992,
Welsh, 1982).
The use of dry beans, peas, nuts and soy
products were relatively low and constant (Raper, 1992,
Welsh, 1982).
Bread, Grains, and Cereals
After dramatically declining from the first half of
the century, yearly grain consumption per person has
increased in recent years.
For example, the yearly grain
consumption during the years 1910-1915 was 287 pounds,
1970-1974 it was 135 pounds, whereas in 1990 it increased
to 185 pounds (Putnam, 1991).
Possibly, this increase
was due to Americans eating more pizza, pasta, pitas and
fajitas all of which have been made from wheat flour
(Putnam, 1991).
Other notable changes included the
26
increased intake of total grain products and grain
mixtures with larger increases seen for women (29%) than
for men (8%)
(USDHHS & USDA Report, 89-1255, 1989).
Fruits
Among all Americans, the yearly fresh fruit per
capita consumption rose from 18 pounds in 1970-1974 to a
total of 94 pounds in 1989 (Putnam, 1991).
The rise
possibly occurred from the popularity of non-citrus fruit
particularly bananas, apples, grapes, pears and
strawberries (Putnam, 1991).
Beerman (1990) found that
college students living on campus tended to eat more
fresh fruit than students living elsewhere.
Interestingly, Melby (1986) noted that 69 percent of the
students at a large midwestern university failed to eat
any fruit even once a day.
vegetables
In the CSFII study, men reported eating fewer
vegetables in 1985 than in 1977
(85 versus 89 percent).
A small decrease in the intake of vegetables by women
occurred in 1985 compared to 1977 (USDHHS & USDA Report,
89-1255, 1989).
Beerman (1990) found that students who
lived on campus tended to consume more fresh vegetables
than students living elsewhere.
Story and Resnick (1986)
reported that students tended not to consume fresh or
cooked vegetables because of the preparation time.
Melby
27
(1986) reported that 48 percent of the college students
at a large university failed to eat any vegetables even
once a day.
Meat/Protein GroulQ
The level of protein provided by the food supply was
about the same in 1988, 105 grams, as in 1909-14, 99
grams (Raper, N.R., Zizza, C. & Rauke, J. 1992).
However, considerable change had occurred in the types of
protein sources. The U.S. population on the average used
less red meat, eggs, whole milk, butter and lard (Putnam,
1991).
Raper et al (1992) noted that in 1988 animal
sources contributed two-thirds of the total protein
whereas at the beginning of this century animal and
vegetable sources contributed about equal shares.
Raper
et al (1992) further stated that this change was due to
increased use of cheese, poultry and a decreased use of
grain products.
In the CSFII (CSFII Report, 86-1, 1987) the mean
intake in 1985 of meat, poultry and fish for women was
162 grams.
The largest part of this intake was accounted
for by meat mixtures (75 grams) followed by beef (26
grams) and poultry (20 grams)(CSFII Report, 85-4, 1985).
Krebs-Smith, Cronin and Haytowitz (1992) found in their
study that many of the leading sources of protein in the
diets of women were animal products.
The CSFII study
28
also found that older men had lower intakes of total
meat, poultry, fish whole eggs and milk (CSFII report 85­
3, 1986).
Younger men tended to consume more legumes,
nuts and seeds (CSFII report 85-3, 1986).
Milk
Within the fluid milk category, there has been a 76
percent decline in the total fluid milk consumption
(Putnam, 1991).
With this decline, there has also been a
significant increase use of low fat and skim milk
(Putnam, 1991).
In the CSFII study (Report, 85-3, 1985)
the mean intake by men of milk and milk products was 287
grams; 205 grams of this was fluid milk.
Almost three-
fourths (73 percent) of the men reported use of milk and
milk products, and almost half (48 percent) reported use
of fluid milk.
The mean intake per day of milk and milk
products by women was 200 grams, including 66 grams of
whole milk and 81 grams of low fat and skim milk (CSFII
Report, 85-4, 1985).
The intake of low fat and skim milk
increased greatly (53 and 60 percent for men and women,
respectively)
(US DHHS & USDA Report, 89-1255, 1989).
Fats
Total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are
considered to be current public health issues because the
intakes by many Americans exceed recommended levels
(USDHHS & USDA Report, 89-1255, 1989).
Putnam (1991)
29
noted the decrease in the use of animal fats from 27
percent in 1970 to 17 percent in 1989 even though the per
capita consumption of fats and oils have increased by 22
percent.
For example, in 1970 52.6 pounds per capita was
consumed compared to 64.4 pounds in 1986.
Putnam (1991)
speculated that the total increase of fat consumption was
related to the great expansion of fast foods in food
service outlets and the increased use of oils on salads.
Krebs-Smith et al.
(1992) found that the greatest
contributors to the fat intakes of women were various
fats and oils.
Sweets
In the American population, between 1970-1990 the
total caloric intake from sweets increased 15 pounds per
person (Putnam, 1991).
General trends have shown that
corn sweeteners nearly quadrupled surpassing the use of
sugar. Putnam (1991) commented that the high consumption
of bakery and cereal products contributed to the
increase.
Beeman (1990) found that students living on
campus tended to consume more cookies than students
living elsewhere.
The CSFII survey reported that men consumed more
carbonated drinks in 1985 (433 grams) than in 1977
grams)(CSFII Report, 85-3, 1986).
(249
A further report also
found that women consumed more carbonated drinks in 1985
30
(179 grams) than in 1977 (140 grams)
1987).
(CSFII Report, 86-1,
Interestingly the substantial increase in the
consumption of carbonated soft drinks occurred by a large
proportion of both men and women (US DHHS & USDA Report,
89-1255, 1989).
General Summary of Food Group Consumption
Kant, Schatzkin, Block, Ziegler and Nestle (1991)
confirmed that a large proportion of the U.S. population
consumed diets that lacked one or more food groups.
In
the Kant, et al study (1991) one-fourth of all survey
respondents reported that their fruit consumption was the
most commonly omitted food group in their incomplete
dietary pattern.
Only nine percent of the population
studied used both dairy and fruit groups (Kant, et al,
1991)
.
A review of the per capita protein content in the
U.S. food supply showed that the 1985 level of 104 grams
per day was similar to the level available during most of
the century (US DHHS & USDA Report, 89-1255, 1989).
Based on the CSFII 1985-86 data, the mean intakes of
dietary protein in all groups were well above the
Recommended Dietary Allowances.
Low protein is not
considered to be a current public health issue (US DHHS &
USDA Report, 89-1255, 1989).
Protein intakes appear to
be adequate for almost all persons and there is no
31
evidence of health problems associated with deficiency or
excess (USDHHS & USDA Report, 89-1255, 1989).
The per capita amount of carbohydrates in the food
supply has declined since 1909.
In 1985, sugars and
sweeteners contributed 39.6 percent of the carbohydrates
in the food supply; grain products, vegetables, and
fruits provided 35.8, 9.2, and 6.6 percent respectively
(US DHHS & USDA Report, 89-1255, 1989).
Carbohydrate
intakes are lower than may be desirable, based on the
dietary pattern recommended in the U.S. dietary
guidelines, but evidence does not suggest that current
intakes pose a specific health problem (US DHHS & USDA
Report, 89-1255, 1989).
Food groups contributing fat in the food supply have
shifted.
The proportion of total fats from meat,
poultry, and fish has changed only slightly, equaling
31.4 percent in 1985.
The proportion of fat from whole
milk has declined steadily from a high of 10.4 percent to
3 percent, while the proportion from added fats and oils
has increased from 38 percent to 47 percent in the same
period (US DHHS & USDA Report, 89-1255, 1989).
Total
fat, saturated fat and cholesterol are considered to be
current public health issues.
The intakes of these food
components by many persons in the U.S. population exceed
the levels recommended (USDHHS & USDA Report, 89-1255,
1989).
These studies indicated that college age men and
32
women need to be surveyed in regards to eating habits in
order to determine the trends in food consumption.
The
results of such a study will make it possible to develop
the educational materials necessary to meet their
nutritional needs.
Factors Affecting Food Behaviors
Even though beneficial health effects have been
incorporated into nutrition messages, the decision making
behaviors for food choices are complex.
Many factors
influence the selection of foods that people choose to
consume, such as, availability, cost, time schedule,
situation, family characteristics and nutrition
knowledge.
Additional factors which should be considered
are classified as predisposing, enabling, and
reinforcing.
The categorization of individuals into
groups must be considered in order to improve the
targeting of nutrition education (Haines, Popkin, and
Guilkey, 1990).
Two groups, family and college students
with their factors are identified:
Family Related Factors:
Parents have a greater influence on the environment
in a home because they have power over factors that can
help or hinder a positive eating behavior change
(Crockett, 1988).
Kirk and Gillespie (1990) found that
mothers viewed food as a vehicle for bringing family
33
members together, for fostering relationships and for
giving meaning to life.
Children from large families are
1.4 times more likely to be nutritional deficient than
those in small families regardless of age, sex, race or
their mother's education attainment (Kucera & McIntosh,
1991).
Social support and feedback have been shown to
affect food and nutrition.
Gillespie and Achterberg
(1989) found that mothers and fathers take time to
discuss food and nutrition with their families and that
most of the time, families with young children eat the
evening meals together. Parents will be more likely to
institute eating pattern changes if they believe the
changes are beneficial (Crockett, 1988).
One of the major social and economic trends of the
last quarter century has been the increased participation
of women in the work force.
In 1960 the percentage of
women in the work force was 34.8 percent whereas in 1987
it increased to 55.4 percent (Senaurer, 1990).
This
increase of women working instead of being in the home
changed the distribution of the family income and of the
nature of food purchasing. This increase of work and
income also placed new emphasis on the value of time and
the need to pay for convenience and variety (USDHHS &
USDA Report, 89-1255, 1989).
Senauer (1990) found that
convenience was one of the most important attributes in
food product choice as indicated by the increasing
34
willingness to pay more to buy convenience.
New
technology in household food preparation, for example
microwave ovens, and concomitant innovations in food
processing continue to decrease the time needed for meal
preparation (USDHHS & USDA Report, 89-1255, 1989).
In an effort to reduce their total work time,
employed women were reducing the amount of time they
spend on work at home by decreasing meal preparation time
(Axelson, 1986) and this was accomplished by eating out
more often and using more prepared foods
MacDonald, Ackerman, & Goegel, 1981).
(Ortiz,
Mayer (1989)
indicated that 8 out of 10 American households report
eating out regularly with an average of 3.7 times per
week per individual.
Ries, Kline, and Weaver (1987)
found that patronage at fast-food places was 44% for
persons 22 years of age or younger compared to only 19%
for persons over 50.
Kirk and Gillespie (1990) found
that commercially prepared foods were used for many
workday meals, and more elaborate meals and cooking from
scratch tended to be done on weekends.
Male food
preparers spend less of the food dollar on non
convenience items than do female food preparers and also
spend more on complex and manufactured convenience foods
(Pearson, Capps, & Axelson, 1986).
35
Young Adult Related Factors:
In recent years the prevailing view of young adults
toward good nutrition has been shown that eating
healthfully has been difficult because they were too busy
and pressured to think much about food (Story & Resnick,
1986). They also stated that they lacked the self-
discipline needed to eat healthful foods since their
preference was junk foods (Story & Resnick, 1986).
Other
reasons given for poor eating habits were skipping meals,
unbalanced meals and too much snacking (Story & Resnick,
1986).
Lewis, Sims and Shannon (1989) found that taste
enjoyment was a strong predictor in the frequency of
consumption.
The great majority of individuals are
guided in their food selections by considerations
unrelated to health, but rather by factors such as taste,
cost, convenience, messages from others, lures of
advertising, packaging and store displays (Kayman, 1989).
The reason offered most often for not making a dietary
change was that people enjoy the food that they are
presently eating (Cotugna, Subar, Heimendinger, & Kahle,
1992).
University student health problems clearly related
to the consumption of foods and beverages have been noted
(Crockett, 1988) but generally, diet-related health
problems develop gradually and do not present immediate
36
or dramatic symptoms (Glanz & Mullis, 1988).
The
potential and importance of changing the eating patterns
of young adults aimed at intervention have not been
widely studied (Crockett, 1988).
These factors all play some role in ultimate food
choices, but surprisingly little is known about the
general interest in food preferences and aversions and
their implications for health (Contento & Murphy,
Lewis, Sims, & Shannon, 1989, Logue, 1986).
1990,
These food
preferences have caused a resistance to changing eating
behaviors. There is a need for theory-based research that
identifies factors which would exert influence on eating
behavior (Shannon, Bagby, Wang, & Trenkner, 1990).
Convenience was only one of the reasons given by
college students who ate at food establishments.
Hertzler and Frary (1992) surveyed college students who
identified reasons they ate out. The reasons given were:
to save time planning, buying, preparing, and cleaning
up.
Other reasons given were that they could eat foods
that they were unable to prepare; to try something new; a
chance to get out; and to socialize with friends.
It was
also stated that the food tasted better and sometimes
they needed a reward.
Place of residence also appeared to affect the
nutrient intakes and food choices of college students.
Ries et al.
(1987)
reported that the nutrient density of
37
food eaten "away-from-home" was lower than that of food
eaten at home.
As defined in the NFCS, "away-from-home"
eating included meals and snacks obtained and eaten in a
variety of settings: restaurants, fast-food
establishments, cafeterias at work or school, snack bars
in grocery or drugstores, other people's homes; in fact,
anywhere but at home (Ries, et al, 1987).
The density of
fat was significantly higher for food consumed at
commercial establishments than for food consumed at home
(Ries, Kline and Weaver, 1987). College students who
lived off campus were more likely to eat at fast-food
restaurants on a daily basis (Beerman, 1990).
In fact,
young adults stated that they were attracted to fast-food
places and to convenient foods (Story & Resnick, 1986).
Melby (1986) assessed dietary behaviors of college
students and found that residence hall students consumed
significantly more fruits and vegetables than students
who lived elsewhere. Vegetables and fruits (fresh or
canned) were least likely to be consumed daily by
students who lived off campus (Beerman, 1990).
In this
same study Beerman found that 31 percent of the off
campus students reported they ate fresh vegetables daily,
whereas 56 percent of the dormitory residents and 55
percent of the students living in sororities or
fraternities ate vegetables.
Meat consumption patterns
38
were about the same no matter where the students resided
(Beeman, 1990).
A recent study found that college students
identified high-starch items such as pasta, potatoes,
rice and bread as being high in calories but low in the
important nutrients (Cypel & Prather, 1993).
The
students also believed that foods of animal origin gave
more power, vigor, prestige and wealth than high-starch
food (Cypel & Prather, 1993).
An interesting study by
Crockett and Stuber (1992) found that freshman students
perceived the most prestigious foods included wheat
bread, strawberries, orange juice, broccoli, cauliflower,
chicken, skim milk, and fresh fruit as dessert.
Lieux and Manning (1992) found that college men
chose foods with higher levels of nutrients in all
categories.
Fat grams for energy were highest among
female students (Lieux & Manning, 1992).
Lieux and
Manning also found that college women used the salad bar
more frequently and selected more items than men.
A
recent research article by Falciglia and Norton (1994)
found that inherited genes might also influence
preferences for certain foods.
These foods were found to
be orange juice, broccoli, cottage cheese, chicken,
sweetened cereal and hamburger.
Individuals who ate alone consumed less total food
energy (carbohydrates and protein) than individuals who
39
had eaten with others (De Castro and De Castro,
1989).
Crandall (1987) found that women disliked solitary meals.
Hayes and Ross (1987) found that women preferred to eat
with other young women who had similar eating habits.
Females tended to eat better than men because they were
more concerned with their appearance (Hayes and Ross,
1987).
Mitchell (1990) found that college women used
self-prescribed diets and had low understanding of
carbohydrates and misunderstandings of the composition of
common foods.
Additional Influencing Factors:
Green and Kreuter (1991) identified three specific
group of factors that must be considered in the
development of a successful health-directed education
program.
The three groups of factors Green and Kreuter
(1991) identified were predisposing, enabling, and
reinforcing factors.
Predisposing factors which influence eating patterns
and nutritional knowledge of university students are
based on attitudes, beliefs, values and perceived needs.
A variety of demographic factors, such as socioeconomic
status, age, gender, and family size can also be
considered when identifying eating patterns (Green &
Kreuter, 1991).
40
Enabling factors are the second category that
targets nutritional messages.
These factors are
environmental conditions that facilitate the performance
of an action by individuals (Green & Kreuter, 1991).
Some enabling factors which also influence the eating
patterns are living conditions, availability of
transportation, eating facilities and finances (Green &
Kreuter, 1991).
Green and Kreuter (1991) suggested that the third
group of factors that affect the decision-making process
in food choices were reinforcing factors.
Reinforcing
factors are consequences of action that determine whether
the student receives positive (or negative) feedback and
is supported socially after the action occurs.
Green and
Kreuter (1991) identified reinforcing factors as physical
consequences of the behavior.
Some of the factors that
could determine food choices include the social benefits
(recognition), physical benefits (stamina and health),
tangible rewards and vicarious rewards (such as improved
appearance, self-respect, or association with an admired
person who demonstrates a certain eating pattern).
Many Americans who desire to follow more healthful
eating patterns have found that changes are difficult to
achieve (Glanz & Mullis, 1988).
In order to achieve
health improvement goals by promoting healthful diets,
nutrition intervention must reach large segments of the
41
population and effectively influence the diverse factors
that determine eating patterns (Glanz & Mullis, 1988).
The literature has indicated that eating behaviors and
patterns result from complex interrelationships among
demographic, cultural, family and environmental
variables.
42
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the research design and
methodology of the study.
The sample came from public
universities within the continental United States. The
convenience sample consisted of 890 undergraduate
university students from three universities with
approximately 300 students from each university.
Subjects
Universities /Regions
The initial step was selecting three state supported
coed universities.
The size of the undergraduate sample
of universities ranged from 12,000 to 20,000.
The first
sample surveyed Oregon State University which is located
in the Pacific Northwest region of the U.S.
The second
sample was from the University of Kansas which is located
in the south central region of the U.S.
The final
sample was from Western Illinois University which is
located in the north central region of the U.S.
43
Student /Classes/Faculty
The students chosen for the project were from
various disciplines of study and class standing.
Health
and sexuality classes were targeted for distribution and
collection of the questionnaires.
The faculty who
assisted in the study were selected based upon their
willingness to assist in this investigation.
Faculty
with advanced degrees in public health administered the
questionnaire utilizing a standard set of written
protocols.
The protocols for administering the
questionnaire included (1) a cover letter explaining the
purpose of the study,
(2) a statement that participation
in the study was voluntary and the student could choose
not to participate, and (3) the assurance of
confidentiality of results.
In addition, the convenience
sample was to come from a core curriculum class that
included a variety of majors.
Instrument
Because a questionnaire that was appropriate for
this study was unavailable it was necessary to develop
one.
The following steps were taken.
1) A draft of the survey was prepared after an
exhaustive literature search concerning university
students' eating patterns and behaviors.
Studies by
Barr(1987), Block (1992), Cotugna(1992), CYP el(1993), De
44
Castro(1989), Eck(1992), Frank (1992), Gillespie(1989),
Gortmaker(1990), Hertzler(1992), Johnson(1992),
Pearson(1986), Perron(1985), Shannon(1990), Skinner
(1979) and Story(1986) provided some of the framework for
the identification of significant variables.
Telephone
calls were made to four researchers in the country who
specialized in this area of interest.
In addition,
questions based upon practical dietary instruction were
developed by the principal investigator who works with
college age students.
The questionnaire was divided into seven distinct
sections, each of which solicited specific information
relevant to this study.
The first section of the
instrument included questions about past and present
emphasis on consumption of the specific food groups.
The
second section consisted of multiple choice questions
that examined general nutrition knowledge of the student.
The third section used a Likert scale to assess the
student's perceptions of parental dietary practices while
they were living at home.
Students were asked to recall
how their family handled cooking preparation methods,
meal times, skipping meals, grocery responsibilities,
snacking and eating out as they were growing up.
The
fourth section analyzed the student's current perceptions
regarding their eating practices while attending the
university using a five point Likert scale.
Students
45
were asked to answer specific questions about where they
eat meals, social settings, skipping meals, snacking
habits, and the decision making processs for food
choices.
The fifth section of the questionnaire used a
Likert scale to determine the student's current opinions
of their skills on preparing meals, attitudes toward the
time, cost and convenience of cooking meals, and their
interest concerning nutrition and health. The sixth
section included the modified Block food frequency
questions (FFQ).
Students were asked to recall their
usual eating habits and indicate the number of times per
day or week they consumed the foods listed.
Also for
each food category, another was listed so the students
could write in a food that was consumed that may not have
been listed.
The seventh section solicited demographic
information on student and family background
characteristics such as:
age, academic major, academic
status, ethnic background, marital status, place of
residence and whether they were U.S. citizens.
Environmental factors included the number of siblings
within the family, the primary person who prepared meals,
employment status of the meal preparer, perceived concern
for dietary health, and family income level.
2)
Recommendations by Dillman (1978) and Aday
(1989) were applied in designing the questionnaire.
3)
The researcher received assistance from staff at
46
Oregon State University's Office of Survey Research.
4)
A panel of experts in nutrition education and
committee members from the Department of Public Health
reviewed the instrument to check for content, readability
and appropriateness of questioning format.
5)
The survey was pretested and posttested at
Oregon State University with university students in a
health education class for further feedback to check for
content, readability and reliability.
Response stability
or test-retest reliability showed that 98.67% (p >.05) of
the questions were not significantly different between
the pre-test and post-test comparisons.
6)
Following the pretest and posttest, revisions
were made to the instrument.
Data Collection
Information was obtained from male and female
university students by a self-administered questionnaire.
The survey was distributed in a classroom by a professor
in health who gave the class of participants verbal
instructions that included the purpose of the study and
assured the students that their participation was
voluntary, responses would be kept confidential and the
survey would take 25 minutes to complete. After the
students completed the survey they dropped it into a box
47
provided by the professor.
The survey is available in
Appendix A.
Design and Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using the SPSS/PC+ V4.0.1
statistical package for IBM personal computers (SPSS,
INC., 1990).
Prior to analysis the data from the
questionnaires were numerically coded for computerized
entry.
Analysis techniques included the measure of
central tendency (mean), frequency distribution, Chi-
square, t-test, Pearson's product moment correlation,
analysis of variance (F-test), and multiple range test
(Neuman-Keuls procedure).
Alpha was set at .05 for
determining levels of statistical significance.
Appropriate statistical tools were used to test the
specified hypotheses.
the nominal data.
Chi-square tests were used with
Chi-squares are based on analyzing the
discrepancy between frequencies actually observed in the
sample of subjects measured and frequencies expected
according to the stated hypotheses (Joseph and Joseph,
1984)
.
T-tests were used when the data were interval and
there were only two groups to be compared.
The t-tests
determined if there were significant differences in group
means (Joseph and Joseph, 1984).
48
Pearsons product moment correlations were calculated
to test the relationships between interval data.
This
method was used to look for linear relationships between
the variables (Joseph and Joseph, 1984).
A one-way analysis of variance was used when there
was one independent variable with two or more categories
and one dependent or measurable variable.
One way
analysis of variance (F-tests) tested to determine if
there were differences in group means. The Neuman Keul's
procedure was used to test for comparisons of means
obtained in the analysis of variance (Joseph and Joseph,
1984).
This post hoc procedure tested the difference in
means between the subjects and within subjects.
49
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This research examined university students'
nutrition knowledge, eating patterns and behaviors, and
the students' family eating practices during the
formative years.
A 26 item questionnaire was
administered to 890 students who were U.S. citizens from
three major universities. In this chapter, a description
of the study sample is provided, followed by the results
of the statistical analysis for each of the hypotheses
tested.
For all testing, a significance level of p<.05
was used.
Characteristics of the Sample
Study participants were university students from
three public U.S. universities.
Demographic information
was collected from each participant.
Of the 890 U.S.
students analyzed, 433 (48.7%) were males and 457 (51.3%)
were female (Table 4.1).
The mean age of the students
was 20.14 years with SD ± 2.98.
ranged from 17 to 43 years.
Age of the total sample
The sample of students
consisted of 425 (47.8%) freshmen, 165 (18.6%)
sophomores, 156 (17.5%) juniors, 134 (15.1%) seniors and
9 post-baccalaureate students (1%).
50
Of the total number of students sampled, over 48
percent lived in residence halls, 27.6% lived in houses
or apartments, 3.3% lived with parents, 18.9% lived in a
fraternity/sorority and 1.5% resided in other areas
(homeless, with friends, etc.).
Approximately 94 percent
of the students responded that they had never married,
3.1% were married, 2.4% were living with a partner, .1%
were widowed, and .8% were divorced. When asked to report
ethnic background, 744 (84.2%) reported that they were
Caucasian, 48 (3.4%) African American, 17 (1.9%) Hispanic
(Mexican, Latino, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American),
55 (6.2%) Asian/Pacific Islander, 10 (1.1%) Native
American (American Indian)/Alaskan Eskimo and 10 (1.1%)
other (Table 4.1).
51
Table 4.1 Demographic Characteristics of
University Students
Variable
N
%a
457
51.3
48.7
Sex
Females
Males
Academic Status
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Other
Residence
Dormitory
Apartment/House
With Parents
Greek Houses
Other
Marital Status
Single
Married
With Partner
Widowed
Divorced
Ethnicity
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific
Native American
Other
433
425
165
156
134
9
434
246
47.8
18.6
17.5
15.1
1.0
9
48.8
27.6
3.3
18.9
1.0
833
28
21
93.6
3.1
2.4
1
7
.1
.8
744
48
84.2
5.4
1.9
6.2
1.1
1.1
29
168
17
55
10
10
a Missing data were excluded in calculating percentages
52
Nutrition Knowledge Descriptive Characteristics
University students were asked to answer questions
concerning their nutritional knowledge. Table 4.2
identifies nutrition knowledge of the sample in terms of
percentages of correct and incorrect answers on a set of
standardized nutrition knowledge questions.
The majority
of the students, 97.3%, identified the food containing
the best source of calcium.
Ninety-six percent also
identified the juices containing the greatest amount of
vitamin C.
Nearly 93% of the students identified the
meal containing the lowest fat concentration.
The
majority (82%) were aware of the foods containing the
best source of fiber the least amount of nutrients.
When
asked which food type would contribute the most calories,
80.8% responded correctly.
Only 64% correctly identified
which food had the greatest amount of complex
carbohydrates.
A little more than 61% of the sample knew
which nutrient contained the most calories.
About half,
54% of the students, correctly identified the food that
provides a complete protein.
Although students scored
greater than 50 percent knowledge in the aforementioned
categories, only 28.3% of them identified the food from
which iron can be most readily absorbed.
As expected,
the majority (82%) were unable to accurately identify
foods that together make up a complementary protein.
53
Nearly 91% of the students missed the correct answer when
asked which food contains cholesterol.
Only 6% of the
sample correctly identified the vitamin that may be
insufficently absorbed due to a low fat diet.
When asked
about a nutrient that may be in short supply in the
meatless vegetarian diet, only 6% of the students
responded correctly.
The mean score for overall
nutrition knowledge of the university student population
sampled was 51.8%.
This is low, considering that a score
of 100% is perfect and would be a failing score by
academic standards.
54
Table 4.2 Nutrition Knowledge Descriptive Statistics
Nutrition
Knowledge
Incorrect
Which of the following is
a good source of vitamin A?
818
91.9
72
8.1
Orange juice or grapefruit
contains what vitamin we
need daily?
35
3.9
855
96.1
Mich of the following has
the greatest concentration
of complex carbohydrates?
321
36.1
569
63.9
Which food contains the best
source of fiber?
158
17.8
732
82.2
Mich food provides a
413
46.4
477
53.6
Which nutrient contains the
most calories per gram?
343
38.5
547
61.5
Which food contains
Cholesterol?
811
91.1
79
8.9
rich food uuntains the best
source of calcium?
24
2.7
866
97.3
Mich carbohydrate
160
18.0
730
82.0
A low fat diet can result in
which of the following
nutrients being absorbed in
insufficient amounts?
837
94.0
53
6.0
In a meatless vegetarian diet,
which nutrient will probably
be in short supply?
836
93.9
54
6.1
Mich meal do you think would
have the lowest total fat
65
7.3
825
92.7
638
71.7
252
28.3
Correct
N %
complete protein?
the least amount of nutrients?
concentration?
Iron is most readily absorbed
from which of the following
foods?
(table continued on next page)
55
Table 4.2 Nutrition Knowledge Descriptive Statistics (continued)
Nutrition
Knowledge
Incorrect
VAlidh of the following is
an example of complementary
proteins?
731
82.1
159
17.9
Midi of the following food
would contribute the most
171
19.2
719
80.8
Correct
N %
calories to the diet?
Current Eating Behaviors of University Students
For each statement regarding current eating
behaviors of university students, a mean score is
displayed in Table 4.3.
The answers were scaled 1.0 to
4.0 where 1.0 represents a negative eating behavior and
4.0 represents a positive eating behavior.
As shown in
this table the meal most often skipped was breakfast
(R=2.42, SD+ 1.07).
The students stated that they often
ate at fast food, carry out or restaturants (X=2.90, SD+
.60).
They enjoyed eating snack or "junk foods" (R=2.54,
SD+ .79).
Most of the students admitted that they did
not eat nutritionally balanced meals (R=2.62, SD+ .69),
and fresh ingredients (x =2.70, SD+ .79).
read food labels (R=2.29, SD+ 1.08).
They did not
Very few of the
students planned meals (R=1.97, SD+ .81).
They had a
practice of eating when not hungry (R=2.87, SD+ .70).
Most of the students did not eat at the university food
service (R=2.34, SD+ 1.20). Eating with family and
56
friends and eating mean score was 3.13 (SD+ .79),
in
front of the television (X=2.81, SD+ 1.02) or reading
while eating (i=3.02, SD+ .78).
The total overall
summative score was 38.39 which is somewhat low
considering a score of 56 would represent ideal student
eating behaviors.
57
Table 4.3
Students' Current Eating Behaviors
Eating Practices
Eating meals while watching TV.*
Response
N
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
Eat meals while reading.*
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
Skip breakfast.*
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
Skip lunch.*
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
Skip dinner.*
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
Snack on "junk" food.*
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
Used fresh ingredients.
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
Eat at Fast Food, Carry Out or
Never
Restaurant.*
Seldom
Often
Always
Eat nutritionally balanced meals. Never
Seldom
Often
Always
Read food labels to make food
Never
choices.
Seldom
Often
Always
Eat when not hungry.*
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
(table continued next
%
278 31
270 30
223 25
114 13
263 30
402 45
204 23
21
2
185 21
217 24
275 31
213 24
354 40
380 43
138 16
18
2
557 63
291 33
39
45
310
5
7
1
3
418
41
47
80
9
265 30
256 29
209 24
158 18
139 16
524 59
198 22
27
1.02
3.02*
.78
2.42*
1.07
3.20*
.77
3.58*
.59
2.54*
.79
2.70
.79
2.90*
.60
2.62
.69
2.29
1.08
47
34
10
397
137
112
587
184
page)
2.81*
.2
8
35
45
15
13
66
20
29
363
SD
4
2
75
422
302
91
Mean
Score
3
2.87*
.70
58
Table 4.3
Students' Current Eating Behaviors
(continued)
Eating Practices
Eat with family or friends.
Plans meals ahead of time.
Eat at university food service.
Mean
Score
Response
N
%
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
25
148
401
316
265
418
161
40
340
123
226
201
3
SD
3.13
.79
17
45
35
30
47
18
1.97
.81
2.34
1.20
.7
38
14
25
23
*Reverse recoded so higher score reflects positive eating
practices. (1) Negative Behavior
(4) Positive Behavior
The students were next asked to respond to
statements which best described their attitudes or
opinions about their current diet (Table 4.4).
Overall,
they were quite confident that they could prepare, choose
and eat balanced meals, but reported that the cost of
food and lack of time prevented them from eating
healthfully.
Even though healthy food choices were an
important priority they were divided on which was the
most important, taste or nutrition.
The majority, 81%,
were concerned about preventing health problems related
to nutrition and 79% stated that healthy food choices
were an important priority to them.
59
Table 4.4
Descriptive Statistics an University Students Current
Opinions about Their Eating Habits
Statements
N
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Lack of time prevents me
to have healthy eating
habits.
852
10.33
36.5
39.44
13.7
Cost of food prevents me
850
from healthy food choices.
14.35
44.82
26.94
13.88
Healthy foods are less
convenient to cook.
813
15.49
39.48
35.18
9.8
I can prepare balanced
meals when a kitchen is
available.
860
2.3
15.58
50.23
31.86
I can choose healthy
foods when eating cut.
869
2.1
21.29
55.58
21.06
I eat nutritionally
balanced meals.
855
2.3
33.8
53.1
10.8
Healthy food choices are
an important priority to
853
1.9
18.64
52.75
26.73
Taste is more important
837
than how healthy the food.
6.8
47.19
39.55
6.5
35.55
45.64
14.91
3.9
me.
I am not concerned about
eating habits until
health problem occur.
872
Family Characteristics
Primary Meal Preparer
Table 4.5 displays the familial characteristics of
meal preparers in the sample.
For 86% of the sample, the
60
primary meal preparer while living at home was the
respondents' mother/step-mother (86%).
Other primary
meal preparers were father/step-father (4.8%), siblings
(.3%), self (6.2%), and other (housekeeper/cook)
(2.7%).
Employment Status of Primary Meal Preparer
During their formative years, five hundred and
sixty-two (63.6%) of students surveyed indicated that
their primary meal preparer (usually the mother) worked
outside the home.
Of the one hundred fifty-eight
students who specifically reported the number of hours
the primary meal preparers worked, 69% of the primary
meal preparers worked part time and 31% worked full time.
While the average hours of employment for the primary
meal preparer were 36.55 hours per week, there was great
variability in the number of hours employed, ranging from
4 to 70 hours.
Perceived Concern for Dietary Health
When asked who they perceived to be most concerned
about their dietary practices during the formative years,
52.1% of the students believed that their mothers were
the most concerned.
Approximately 41% of the students
indicated that both parents were concerned about whether
they ate healthful foods.
Only 4.6% reported that their
fathers were the most concerned about healthy foods and
61
1.8% other, that was grandma, grandpa, uncle, aunt or
siblings.
Family Income Level
Students indicated that 5.7% of their families
earned less than $20,000, 21.4% earned between $20,000
and $40,000, 24.4% earned between $40,000 and $60,000,
21.4% earned between $60,000 and $80,000, 14.3% earned
between $80,000 and $110,000 and 12.8% earned more than
$110,000.
As previously stated, approximately 63 percent
of the students reported that the primary meal preparer
worked outside the home, suggesting a large number of
dual income families.
62
Table 4.5 Family Characteristics of University
Students During Formative Years
Variable
Major Meal Preparation Responsibility
Mom
765
Dad
43
Siblings
3
Self
86.0
4.3
.3
55
24
6.2
2.7
321
562
36.4
63.6
Perceived Concern for Dietary Health
Mom
Dad
Mom and Dad
Other
283
25
225
10
52.1
4.6
41.4
1.8
Family Income Level
<$19,999
$20,000
$39,999
$40,000
$59,999
$60,000
$79,999
$80,000
$109,000
>$110,000
47
175
200
175
117
105
5.7
21.4
24.4
21.4
14.3
12.8
Other
Work Status of Meal Preparer
No
Yes
Full Time (n=49, 31%)
Part Time (n=109, 69%)
63
Family Eating Behaviors During the Formative Years
In section six of the questionnaire, the students
were asked to respond to a series of statements that
reflected family eating behaviors during their formative
years.
The scores ranged from 1, which reflected
negative behavior, to 4, which reflected positive
behavior.
The answers given were never=1, seldom (1 to 3
times per week)=2, often (4 to 6 times per week)=3 and
always(daily)=4.
As seen by the scores displayed in
Table 4.6, most of the responses were above 3, indicating
a positive response.
Only five of the 14 statements
received less than a 3 score.
These included responses
such as, ate meals while watching television, skipped
breakfast, snacked on "junk foods", expected to eat meals
with family and prepared meals as a teenager.
It is
interesting to note that the meal most often skipped was
breakfast and that the family often ate fast food, carry
out or at a restaurant.
The overall summative score was
42.28 for students' eating behaviors during the formative
years.
A score of 56 would represent ideal behavior for
students' formative eating behaviors.
64
Table 4.6 Family Eating Behaviors During the Formative
Years
Eating
Practices
Reponse
N
Parents cooked at least one meal per Never
29
day for me.
Seldom 117
Often 286
Always 458
Never
231
Seldom 562
Often
88
Always 8
Parents used fresh ingredients.
Never
17
Seldom 130
Often
439
Always 302
Family ate meals at the kitchen or
Never
80
dining room table.
Seldom 198
Often 272
Always 340
Family ate meals while watching TV.* Never
4
Seldom 213
Often
276
Always
72
Family used convenience foods.*
Never
229
Seldom 494
Often
149
Always
16
Skipped breakfast.*
Never
250
Seldom 264
Often
243
Always 133
Skipped lunch.*
Never
439
Seldom 369
Often
72
Always
9
Skipped dinner.*
Never
1
Seldom 621
Often
22
Always
10
Snacked on "junk" food.*
Never
61
Seldom 451
Often
271
Always l01
Expected to eat meals with family.
Never
108
Seldom 215
Often
368
Always 196
Family ate one meal per day at fast
food, carry out or restaurant.*
(table continued on next page)
Mean SD
Score
%
3
3.32
.82
3.14*
.61
3.16
.74
2.98
.98
13
32
51
26
63
10
1
2
15
49
33
9
22
31
38
.4
2.77*
.91
24
31
8
26
55
3.05* .70
17
2
28
30
2.71* 1.03
27
15
49
42
3.39*
.68
3.65*
.59
2.54*
.78
2.74
.94
8
1
.1
70
3
1
7
51
30
11
12
24
41
22
65
Table 4.6 Family Eating Behaviors During the Formative
Years (continued)
Eating
Practices
Reponse
Shopped for groceries.*
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
Prepared meals as a child.*
Prepared meals as a teenager.*
Mean
SD
Score
N
%
306
420
140
34
47
16
19
2
334 38
437 49
105 12
J2
61
7
398
369
45
42
62
7
3.15*
.76
3.23*
.70
2.52*
.73
1
*Reverse recoded so higher score reflects positive eating
practices.
(1) Negative Behavior
(4) Positive Behavior
The Pearson-Product Moment Correlation was used to
test the association between students' overall nutrition
knowledge and the family eating behavior during the
formative years.
A weak significant linear relationship
was demonstrated between these two variables r(890)=.07,
p<.02.
Less than 1% of the students' current nutrition
knowledge can be explained by the family eating behaviors
during the students' formative years.
A chi-square analysis was performed to determine if
differences were found between students' skill level and
family eating behaviors during the formative years (Table
4.7).
Of the 272 students who perceived having low
skills, 37.5% of the students indicated low family eating
behaviors, 30.5% average and 32% high family eating
66
behaviors.
Of the 332 students who perceived having
average skill level, 34.3% indicated low family eating
behaviors, 29% average family eating behaviors and 36.1%
high family eating behaviors.
Of the 285 students who
expressed having high skills in choosing and preparing
nutritious food, 27% reported low family eating
behaviors, 27.7% average family eating behaviors and
45.3% high family eating behaviors.
When the students'
skill levels were cross tabulated with family eating
behaviors significant differences were found between
students' skill level and the level of family eating
behaviors x2(df=4)=12.20, p<.02.
As Table 4.7 indicates,
as the students' high skill level in choosing and
preparing nutritious meals increased, the level of family
eating behavior increased.
A chi-square analysis was performed to determine if
differences were found between students' values and
family eating behaviors during the formative years (Table
4.7).
Of the 363 students who reported low values on
nutrition and health, 35% indicated low family eating
behaviors, 32.8% reported average family eating
behaviors, and 32.2% high family eating behaviors.
Of
the 288 students who have average values on nutrition and
health, 34.4% reported low family eating behaviors, 26.7%
average family eating behaviors, 38.8% high family eating
behaviors.
Of the 238 students who placed high values on
67
nutrition and health, 28.2% indicated low family eating
behaviors, 26.9% average family eating behaviors and 45%
high family eating behaviors.
When the students' value
levels were cross tabulated with the family eating
behaviors significant differences were found between
values and levels of family eating behaviors
x2(df=4)=11.21, p<.02.
As students' values on nutrition
and health increased, the level of family eating
behaviors increased.
Table 4.7 Differences Between Levels of Family Eating
Behaviors Based on the University Students
Skills Level and Values
Students
N
Level
Skills
Values
*p<.05
Low
Family Eating
Average
High
272
332
285
Low
37.5
Average 34.3
High
27
30.5
29.5
27.7
36.1
45.3
363
288
238
Low
35
Average 34.4
High
28.2
32.8
26.7
26.9
32.2
38.9
45
32
x2
P-Value
12.20
.02*
11.21
.02*
68
Testing of Hypotheses
Hypothesis One:
There will be no differences in compliance with food
category guidelines based on selected demographic
variables.
*
*
*
*
*
Sex
Academic status
Age
Place of residence
Marital status.
Overall Number of Servings Consumed in Each Food Category
The mean number of servings displayed in Table 4.8
compares the actual number of servings of foods consumed
by university students with the standard number of
servings recommended by the Food Guide Pyramid.
As noted
in this table both sexes reported consuming fewer
servings of bread, vegetable and sugar than Food Guide
Pyramid recommendations.
Males tended to be
substantially below the recommended bread and vegetable
servings while females were slightly below in the sugar
servings.
Both sexes exceeded the recommended number of
servings for meat, milk and especially the fat category.
The only category in which the females were over and
males were under the Food Guide Pyramid servings
recommendation was in the fruit category.
69
Table 4.8 Overall Number of Servings Consumed by Female
and Male University Students
Females
Servings
N
Category
Males
Servings
Food Guide
SD Pyramid
Servings
N
x
_
_
x
SD
Food Guide
Pyramid
Servings
Bread
454
4.8
3.3
9
417
4.7
3.1
11
Vegetables
455
2.4
1.9
4
420 2.4
2.1
5
Fruit
456
3.4
2.6
3
423 3.0
2.6
4
Milk
455
2.2
1.5
2
424
2.8
1.9
2
Mat
454
3.2
2.4
2
420 4.3
3.6
3
Fat grams
454
93.4
54.9
73
418 127.5 80.5
93
Sugar tsps. 454
11.6
13.9
12
420
18
16.2
14.0
Compliance Levels by Sexes
A chi-square analysis was performed to determine if
differences existed in compliance with each food category
guideline based on sexes.
Bread
Chi-square analysis did not show a significant
difference between the sexes (x2(df=1)=2.9, p>.05).
As shown in Table 4.9 only 6.4% of the females and 3.8%
of the males met the recommended number of servings for
bread.
Thus
93.6% of the females and 96.2% of the males
70
did not comply with the guidelines for the bread
category.
Dairy
In the dairy group the number of servings
recommended by the Food Guide Pyramid for females and
males was two servings.
As shown in Table 4.9, the males
(67.9%) consumed a significant difference in amounts of
dairy products than females (47.5%)(x2(df=1)=37.5,
p<.01).
Males were more likely than females to meet the
dairy guidelines. Males who met the guidelines consumed
an average of 3.7 servings with a standard deviation of
1.7. Females consumed an average of 3.4 dairy servings
with a standard deviation of 1.3 servings.
failed to comply with the dairy guidelines
Females who
(52.5%)
consumed an average of 1.1 servings with a standard
deviation of .5.
guidelines (32.1%)
Males who did not meet the dairy
consumed an average of .9 servings
with a standard deviation of .60.
Fruit
The Food Guide Pyramid recommended number of fruit
servings is three servings for women and four servings
for men.
As shown by the responses, there was a
significant difference between the sexes in the
consumption of fruit.
Slightly over half of the females
did not comply with the recommended number of servings
71
with a standard deviation of .90.
Approximately 70% of
the males failed to meet the guidelines with a standard
deviation of 1.1.
The chi-square analysis showed a
significant difference between the sexes (x2(df=1)=32.4),
p<.01)
.
Vegetables
The Food Guide Pyramid recommended number of
vegetable servings is four servings for females and five
servings for males.
Vegetable consumption patterns were
significantly different between sexes (x2(df=1)=8.4,
p<.01).
Females who met the recommended number of
vegetable servings (15.8%) consumed an average of 5.7
servings with a standard deviation of 2.2.
Males who met
the recommended number of vegetable servings (9.3%)
consumed an average of 7.4 servings with a standard
deviation of 2.8. The majority of the sample failed to
consume the recommended number of vegetable servings
which was four for females and five for males.
The
females (84.2%) who did not meet the recommended number
of vegetable servings consumed an average of 1.8 servings
per day with a standard deviation of .95.
Males (90.7%)
who failed to meet the recommended number of servings
consumed an average of 1.9 servings with a standard
deviation of 1.1.
72
Meat/Protein
The amount of meat recommended by the Food Guide
Pyramid guidelines for females is two servings (six
ounces) and three servings (seven ounces) for males.
Meat /protein consumption patterns were significantly
different between females and males (x2(df=1)=6.5,
p<.05).
Females were more likely to meet the
meat/protein guidelines than males. Of the university
students who met the guidelines, females (68.9%) consumed
4.0 servings with a standard deviation of 2.4 and males
(60.7%) consumed 5.7 servings with a standard deviation
of 4.1.
Of the students who failed to comply with the
recommended guidelines, females (31.1%) consumed 1.5
servings with a standard deviation of
.4
and males
(30.3%) consumed 2.2 servings with a standard deviation
of .6.
Fats
The Food Guide Pyramid recommended daily amount of
fat is 73 grams for females and 93 grams for males.
There were no significant differences in compliance with
the fat consumption guidelines based on gender
(x2(df=1)=2.0, p>.05).
However, 59.5% of the females
consumed approximately 121.2 grams, mean score of fat
with a standard deviation of 55.0 which was much higher
73
than the recommended daily consumption.
Likewise 64.1%
of the males consumed 160.6 grams, mean score of fat with
a standard deviation of 82.9.
Only 40.5% of the females
were under the recommended daily amount of fat.
The same
was true for men with only 35.9% consuming 68.2 grams,
mean score with a standard deviation of 17.1.
In summary, the majority of both sexes complied with
the meat and sweet groups.
Two thirds of the males met
the dairy guidelines whereas slightly under half of the
females met the guidelines.
Almost half of the females
met the fruit guidelines but only about one third of the
males met these guidelines.
Both sexes consumed an
inadequate amount of vegetables and compliance in the
bread category was low for both sexes.
Approximately one
third of both sexes met the fat guidelines which means
that the majority of men and women consume considerably
more than the recommended number of fat grams.
Sweets
To avoid getting too many calories from sugars, the
recommended allowance for females is 12 teaspoons of
sugar and 18 teaspoons of sugar for males.
Sugar
consumption patterns were not significantly different
between females (67.2%) and males (65.7%)
p>.05).
(x2(df=1)=.21,
Females who used sugar sparingly consumed 5.2
teaspoons of sugar with a standard deviation of 3.5.
74
Males consumed 8.4 teaspoons with a standard deviation of
5.5.
Females (32.8%) who had an excess amount of sugar
in the diet consumed 24.8 teaspoons with a standard
deviation of 17.5.
Males (34.3%) who had an excess
amount of sugar in the diet consumed 31.2 teaspoons of
sugar with a standard deviation of 13.1.
Table 4.9
Compliance with Food Category Guidelines
by Sex
COMPLIERS
FOOD
SEX
NUMBROF
SOWINGS
MEET
x2
GUM-MAIMS
P -VALUE
S.D.
Bread
Female
Male
13.6
15.2
6.3
6.1
29
16
Milk
Female
Male
3.4
3.7
1.3
1.7
216
288
47.5 37.5
67.9
.00**
Fruit
Female
Male
5.3
6.1
2.3
2.5
225
125
49.3 32.4
30.5
.00**
Vegetable Female
Male
5.7
2.2
2.8
72
39
15.8
9.3
8.4
.00**
Meat
Female
Male
4.0
2.4
4.1
313
255
68.9
60.7
6.5
.01*
Fat
Female
Male
52.2 13.7
68.2 17.1
184
150
40.5
35.9
2.0
.16
Sweets
Female
Male
5.2
8.4
3.5
5.5
305
276
67.2
65.7
.21
.65
Significant at p<.05
** Significant at p<.01
*
7.4
5.7
6.4
3.8
2.9
.09
75
Compliance by Academic Status
A chi-square analysis was performed to determine if
significant differences existed between groups of
different academic standing with respect to compliance
with food category guidelines.
A significant difference
was found between groups in milk consumption patterns
(x2(df=3)=15.2, p<.01).
The underclassmen (freshmen and
sophomores) met the milk consumption guidelines more
often than the upperclassmen (juniors and seniors).
There was a significant difference in compliance with
vegetable guidelines based on academic status
(x2(df=3)=10.3, p<.05).
The underclassmen (freshmen and
sophomores) complied with the vegetable consumption
guidelines more than upperclassmen (juniors and seniors).
There were no significant differences in compliance with
food guidelines based on academic status in the remaining
food categories (bread (x2(df=3)=5.1, p>.05), fruit
(x2(df=3)=2.6, p>.05), meat/protein (x2(df=3)=1.5,
p>.05), fat (x2(df=3)=2.9, p>.05), and sweets
(x2(df=3)=1.0, p>.05).
76
Table 4.10
FOOD
Bread
Compliance Regarding Food Guide Pyramid
Guidelines Based on Difference of Academic
Status
TOTAL
STATUS
N
Freslman
Sophomore
413
162
152
134
23
12
Sop/more
Junior
Senior
421
163
153
132
262
100
74
Freshman
419
171
S4411ariore
163
Junior
Senior
153
134
63
55
60
Junior
Senior
Milk
Fruit
Freshman
Vegetable Freshman
Sophomore
Meat
Fat
Sweets
**
MEET
GUIDELINES
ACADITaC
416
162
x2
P-VALUE
5.6
7.4
2.0
4.5
5.1
62.2
61.3
48.4
47.7
15.2
40.8
38.7
35.9
44.8
2.6
12.0
19.8
9.2
9.7
10.3
1.5
.69
85
63.6
67.9
67.3
63.4
3
6
63
50
32
14
.16
.00*
.47
.02*
Junior
Senior
153
134
Fran
415
Sop/Knore
162
Junior
Senior
153
134
Freshman
ScOlarrze
154
56
66
54
37.3
34.6
43.1
40.3
2.9
.41
Junior
Senior
413
162
153
134
Freshman
415
Junior
Senior
153
134
33.7
34.6
30.1
31.3
.93
162
140
56
46
42
1.0
Soplicuore
Significant at p<.05
Significant at p<.01
13
264
110
103
77
Compliance of Each Food Group Based on Students' Age
As shown in Table 4.11, two tailed t-tests were
performed to determine if significant differences existed
in compliance of each food group based on students' ages.
A significant difference was shown in age between those
who did and those who did not meet the
guidelines (t(881)=2.19, p<.05).
milk consumption
The mean age of
students meeting the milk guidelines was 19.95 with a
standard deviation of 2.93. Among students not meeting
the milk consumption guidelines the mean age was 20.40
with a standard deviation of 3.06.
No significant
differences between compliers and non-compliers with
respect to student ages were shown in the remaining food
categories (bread
(t (871) =.78,
p>.05); fruit(t(881)=.18,
p>.05); vegetable (t(875)=-.84, p>.05); meat (t(874)=.43
p>.05); fat (t(774)=.02, p>.05); sweets (t(774)=-.85,
p>.05)
.
78
Table 4.11 Compliance Regarding Food Guide Pyramid
Recommendations Based on Age of
University Students
COMPLIANCE
GUIDELINES
N
x Age
S.D.
Bread
No
Yes
826
45
20.18
19.82
2.97 .44
3.60
Fruit
No
Yes
525
354
20.17
20.13
2.82 .86
3.23
Vegetable No
Yes
764
111
20.11
20.47
2.75 .41
4.36
Milk
No
Yes
375
504
20.40
19.95
3.06 .03*
2.93
Meat
No
Yes
306
568
20.16
20.16
2.92 .98
3.04
Fat
No
Yes
538
334
20.10
20.26
3.13 .45
2.79
Sweet
No
585
289
20.09
20.29
2.72 .39
3.51
CATEGORY
Yes
T-test
P-VALUE
*Significant at p<.05
Compliance by Type of Living Arrangements
The food service (F.S.) category included students
who lived in residence halls, fraternities, sororities,
cooperative houses or with their parents.
In the
apartment or house (A.H.) category the students were
responsible for preparation of their own meals.
There was
a significant difference in compliance with the milk
consumption guideline based on whether students lived
where food service was provided or if they lived in an
79
apartment or house (x2(df=1)=8.45, p< .01).
Students who
lived where food service (F.S.) was available had higher
reported rates of compliance for milk consumption than the
students who lived in a house or apartment. No significant
differences were shown between students who lived where
food service was provided and the students who lived in a
house or an apartment.
However, higher reported rates of
compliance with the remaining food categories existed in
settings where students had food service provided for
them.
80
Table 4.12
FOOD
Bread
Compliance with Food Guide Pyramid Guide­
lines Based on Type of Living Arrangements
RESIDE
TOTAL N
F.S.
613
245
36
5.9
3.3
2.45
.12
8
621
245
253
96
40.7
39.2
.18
.67
617
245
85
23
13.8
9.4
3.08
.08
622
244
376
121
60.5
49.6
8.45
.00**
616
245
405
151
65.7
61.6
1.30
.25
614
245
223
105
36.3
42.9
3.17
.08
616
245
206
76
33.4
31.0
.47
.50
A/H
Fruit
F.S.
A/H
Vegetable
F.S.
A/H
Milk
F.S.
A/H
Meat
F.S.
A/H
Fat
F.S.
A/H
Sweets
F.S.
A/H
MEET
GUIDELINES
x2
P-VALUE
Significant at p<.05
* * Significant at p<.01
Compliance by Marital Status
A chi-square analysis was performed to determine if
significant differences existed between those who
complied and those who did not comply with the food
category guidelines by marital status.
This analysis
revealed no significant difference in compliance with the
food category guidelines based on marital status.
In summary, hypothesis one tested for differences in
student compliance with food category consumption
81
guidelines based on selected demographic variables.
Because differences were shown by sex, academic status,
age, and residence the first null hypothesis was
rejected.
Hypothesis Two:
There will be no difference in the level of
student compliance with food category
guidelines based on selected family
characteristics.
* Primary meal preparer while student was
growing up
* Job status of primary meal preparer
* Number of siblings in the family
* Student's perception of the level of parental
concern about nutrition and healthful eating
* Socioeconomic status (family income)
Current Compliance by Past Meal Preparer
A chi-square analysis was performed to determine if
students' current consumption with each food category
differed significantly based on who the primary meal
preparer was during the students' formative years.
There
were no significant differences shown in each food
category between compliers and non-compliers based on who
the primary meal preparer was in the family.
The chi-
squares for each food category are shown as follows:
Bread x2 (df=3)=2.5, p=.48; Fruit x2 (df=3)=4.6, p=.20;
Vegetable x2 (df=3)=2.2, p=.53; Milk x2 (df=3)=2.1,
82
p=.56; Meat x2 (df=3)=4.5, p=.22; Fat x2 (df=3)=2.2,
p=.54; Sweets x2 (df=3)=5.7, p=.13.
Compliance by Employment Status of Past Meal Preparer
Displayed in Table 4.13, a chi-square analysis was used
to determine if students' current consumption for each
food category was different depending upon whether or not
the primary meal preparer worked outside the home.
There
was a difference in sugar consumption between compliers
and non-compliers based on the employment status for
primary meal preparers (x2(df=1)=4.56, p<.05).
The
results showed that students who previously lived where
the primary meal preparer did not work outside the home
were less likely to consume sweets and more likely to
comply with the Food Guide Pyramid recommendations.
83
Table 4.13 Current Compliance with Food Category
Guidelines Based on Employment Status
of Primary Meal Preparers
FOOD
WORK
S"
Bread
TOTAL N
TS
MEET
GUIDELINES
9­
N
0
No
Yes
317
864
No
320
552
138
212
40.5
Yes
319
549
40
70
Milk
No
Yes
319
549
Meat
No
Fruit
Yes
Vegetable
No
Yes
Fat
No
Yes
Sweets
No
Yes
*
14
4.4
5.5
x2
P-VALUE
.47
.49
1.88
.17
12.5
16.7
.01
.93
188
310
57.8
49.0
.68
.41
319
548
208
353
65.0
64.6
.05
.82
317
548
125
207
38.2
39.6
.23
.63
319
548
227
351
71.2
4.56
64.1
.03*
30
36.7
Significant at p<.05
Compliance Based on Number of Siblings in Family
Two tailed t-tests were used to determine if
significant differences were found in complying with the
Food Guide Pyramid recommendations based on the number of
siblings in the students' family.
As shown in Table
4.14, the only significant difference between students
who met the guidelines and students who did not meet the
guidelines was in the fruit category t(826)=1.12, p<.05.
84
The students who complied with the fruit guidelines had
mean of 2.29 (SD+ 1.62) siblings. The students who did
not comply with the fruit category guidelines had 2.04
siblings (SD+ 1.53).
There were no significant
differences in the remaining food categories between
compliers and non-compliers based on the number of
siblings in the students' family (bread (t(818)=1.11,
p>05); vegetables (t(822)=.-36, p>.05); milk (t(826)=.89,
p>.05); meat (t(881)=1.23, p>.05); fat (t(819)=-.04,
p>.05); sweets (t(822)=-1.65, p>.05).
85
Table 4.14 T-test to Show Difference in Students'
Compliance Based on Number of Siblings
in the Students'Family
CATEGORY
COMPLIANCE
N
MEAN #
S.D.
T-test
P-VALUE
Siblings
Bread
No
Yes
774
44
2.16
1.89
1.59 .11
1.04
Fruit
No
Yes
491
335
2.04
2.29
1.53 .03*
1.62
Yes
714
108
2.14
2.19
1.57 .72
1.52
Milk
No
Yes
343
483
2.21
2.11
1.66 .37
1.52
Meat
No
287
534
2.24
2.09
1.74 .22
1.46
Yes
508
311
2.14
2.15
1.50 .97
1.67
No
Yes
278
543
2.02
2.21
1.27
.10
1.69
Vegetable No
Yes
Fat
Sweet
No
*Significant at p<.05
Compliance by Parental Concern for Healthful Eating
Students were asked to respond by answering yes or
no to the question, "Are your parents concerned about
healthful eating practices?"
A chi-square analysis was
conducted to determine if differences were shown with
food category compliance guidelines between compliers and
non-compliers based on the perception by students of
parental concern toward healthful eating.
A significant
86
difference was indicated between compliers and non-
compliers with the milk guidelines based on the
perception by students of parental concern toward
healthful eating (x2(df=1)=13.24, p<.01)
4.15).
(see Table
Sixty percent of the students who met the milk
consumption guidelines answered yes to the question that
their parents were concerned about healthful eating.
No
significant differences were shown in the remaining food
categories between compliers and non-compliers
based on
the perception by students of parental concern toward
healthful eating.
The chi-squares for the remaining food
categories are as follows: Bread x2(df=1)=.36, p=.55;
Fruit x2(df=1)=2.75, p=.10; Vegetable x2(df=1)=.26,
p=.61; Meat x2(df=1)=.07, p=.79; Fat x2(df=1)=2.05,
p=.15; Sweets x2(df=1)=.70, p=.4.
87
Table 4.15 Current Compliance with Food Category
Guidelines by Students' Positive or Negative
Response to Perceived Parental Concern
Towards Healthful Eating
FOOD
STUDENT'S
VIEW OF
PAREarAL
TOTAL N
x2
MEET
GUIDELINES
P-VALUE
CONCERN
Bread
Yes
704
165
38
712
165
296
Yes
No
708
Yes
No
712
165
430
60.4
74
44.8
Meat
Yes
No
707
165
462
106
65.3
64.2
.07
.79
Fat
Yes
705
165
261
71
37.0
43.0
2.05
.15
707
165
474
105
67.0
63.6
No
Fruit
Yes
No
Vegetable
Milk
No
Sweets
Yes
No
165
5.4
4.2
.36
.55
41.6
34.5
2.75
.10
57
92
19
13.0
11.5
.26
.61
7
13.24
.70
.00**
.4
*
Significant at p<.05
** Significant at p<.01
There were no differences between student compliers or
non-compliers with the Food Guide Pyramid recommendations
based on the student's perception of which family member
was the most concerned about healthful eating.
The chi-
square values for the food categories are listed as
follows: (bread x2(df=1)=.97, p>.05); fruit
x2(df=1)=2.19, p>.05; vegetable x2(df=1)=6.99, p>.05;
88
milk x2(df=1)=2.46, p>.05, meat x2(df= l) =.90, p>.05; fat
x2(df=1)=1.18, p>.05; sweets x2(df=1)=1.00, p>.05).
A chi-square analysis was conducted to determine if
there were differences between compliers and non-
compliers with the Food Guide Pyramid guidelines
regarding levels of parental income.
There were no
significant differences between compliers and non-
compliers with the food consumption guidelines regarding
the levels of parental income. Chi-square for each food
group are the following: bread x2(df=5)=4.03, p>.05;
fruit x2(df=5)=3.34, p>.05, vegetable x2(df=5)=.66;
p>.05; milk x2(df=5)=2.85, p>.05; meat x2(df=5)=6.43,
p>.05; fat x2(df=5)=5.44, p>.05; sweets x2(df=5)=8.89,
p>.05).
In summary, hypothesis two tested for differences
between compliers and non-compliers with the food
category consumption guidelines based on the family
characteristics reported by the students.
Because there
were noted differences between compliers and non-
compliers with food category guidelines based on some of
the family characteristics (number of siblings in the
family, and students' perception concerning parental
interest in healthful eating) the second null hypothesis
was rejected.
89
Hypothesis Three:
There will be no difference in the current dietary
opinions (skills, resources, values) of students
based on the following selected demographic
characteristics (student and family).
Student Characteristics
* Sex
* Academic status
* Place of residence
* Marital status
Family Characteristics
* Primary meal preparer while student was
growing up
* Employment status of primary meal preparer
* Number of siblings in the family
* Perception by students of parental concern
for healthful eating
* Socioeconomic status (family income)
Dietary Opinions Based on Student Characteristics
Sex
Two tailed t-tests were conducted to determine if
there were significant differences in the dietary
opinions (Skills, Resources, values) of students by sex.
The Skills variable included the perception by students
of their ability to choose and prepare nutritionally
balanced meals.
As shown in Table 4.16 the perception of
skills differed significantly for female and male
students (t(889)=5.24, p<.01).
Females indicated more
confidence in preparing and choosing healthful foods.
90
The variable labeled Resources included a
combination of responses: the lack of time for having
healthful eating habits, cost of food, and less
convenience in the preparation of healthful foods.
Opinions about the lack of time, cost and convenience of
healthful eating were not different based on sex
(t(889)=.17, p>.05).
The variable labeled Values included the students'
perception of the taste of foods affecting their food
choices and the level of concern about their eating
habits related to health.
Regarding taste affecting
healthful food choices and the level of importance placed
on health, a significant difference was noted (t(889)=6.6,
p<.01).
Females reported that they valued healthful
foods and overall health more than males.
91
Table 4.16 Differences in Current Dietary Opinions
of University Students Based on Sex
T-test
P-VALUE
VARIABLE
SEX
N
MEAN
Skills
Male
Female
432
457
3.55
3.82
.80 .00**
.76
Resources Male
Female
433
457
3.07
3.08
.94 .86
.99
Values
432
457
3.29
3.71
Male
Female
S.D.
1.02
.00**
.89
**Significant at p<.01
Note: The items for resources and values were recoded so that
a high score reflected the more positive response. No
reverse recoding was necessary for skills.
Academic Status
A one way ANOVA tested for differences in current
dietary opinions (Skills, Resources and Values) between
students of differing academic levels.
There were no
significant differences in mean scores of students'
dietary opinions based on academic levels. The values for
each dietary opinion are as follows: Skills F(878)=.88,
p>.05; Resources F(879)=.84, p>.05; Values F(878)=.85,
p>.05.
Current Living Arrangements of Students
Two tailed t-tests were performed to determine if
there were signficant differences in the current dietary
92
opinions of students by different type of living
arrangements.
As shown in Table 4.17, there was a
significant difference in students' current opinions
regarding their skills based on type of living
arrangements (t(876)=-2.17, p<.05).
Students who
prepared their own meals at home or apartments had a
higher mean score (ii=3.78) than students in living groups
(56=3.65) for skills in choosing and preparing balanced
meals.
Dietary opinion differed significantly between
students who prepared their own meals and those for whom
a food service program was provided (t(876)=2.93, p<.01.
Students who had their meals prepared for them had a
Resource mean score of 3.13 for healthful eating habits,
choosing healthful foods and believing that healthy foods
were convenient to cook.
Students who lived in an
apartment or house had a Resource mean score of 2.92
In
the Values category dietary opinion differed
significantly, students who prepared their own meals
placed greater importance (x=3.61) on healthful food and
overall health than students whose meals were prepared
for them (t(876)=-2.17, p<.05).
93
Table 4.17 Differences in Students' Current Dietary
Opinions Based on Living Arrangements
VARIABLE
Skills
RESIDENCE
N
MEAN
F.S
630
246
631
246
630
246
3.65
3.78
3.13
2.92
3.45
3.61
A/H
Resources F.S.
A/H
Values
F.S.
A/H
S.D.
T-test
P-VALUE
.79 .03*
.76
.93
.00**
1.03
.99
.03*
.92
* Significant at p<.05
**Significant at p<.01
Note: The items for resources and values were recoded so that
a high score reflected the more positive response.
No
reverse recoding was necessary for skills.
F.S.=Residence Halls, Live with Parent/Guardian,
Greek or
Cooperative House (food service provided)
A.H.Apartment or House (fix own meals)
In Table 4.18, the student perceptions of their
Skill level differed significantly by marital status
(t(889)=-1.98, p<.05.
Married students expressed greater
confidence in choosing and preparing healthful foods.
No
significant differences were shown in perception of
Resources (time to have healthful eating habits, choosing
and cooking convenience of healthful foods) in terms of
marital status (t(890)=-1.77, p>.05).
Single and married
students did not differ significantly in their values
about healthful food and overall health (t(889)=-1.47,
p>.05)
.
94
Table 4.18 T-test Showing Differences Concerning
Dietary Opinions of Skills, Resources,
and Values Between Single and Married
University Students
MARITAL
STATUS
N
Single
Married
840
49
3.68
3.91
Resources Single
Married
841
49
3.06
3.31
Values
840
49
3.49
3.70
VARIABLE
Skills
Single
Married
MEAN
S.D.
T-test
P-VALUE
SCORE
.79 .04*
.78
.96
.08
1.04
.98 .14
.96
* Significant at p<.05
Note: The items for resources and values were recoded so that
a high score reflected the more positive response. No reverse
recoding was necessary for skills.
Dietary Opinions by Family Characteristics
Primary Meal Preparer
One-way ANOVAs reflected no significant differences
in current dietary opinions of students for the variables
(Skills, Resources and Values) based on who the primary
meal preparer was during the students' formative years
(Skills F(864)=.31, p>.05; Resources F(865)=.91, p>.05;
Values F(864)=.93, p>.05).
95
Employment Status of Primary Meal Preparer
Respondents were asked whether the primary meal
preparer was employed outside the home while growing up.
Two tailed t-tests revealed that no difference existed
between students whose primary meal preparer worked
outside the home and those students whose primary meal
preparer did not work outside the home based on current
dietary practices, Skills (t(882)=-1.19, p=.23),
Resources (t(882)=.31, p=.76) and Values (t(882)=-.20,
p=.84).
Number of Siblings in the Family
The Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used to
test the association between current perception of skills
in choosing and preparing nutritious meals and the number
of siblings in the family.
No significant linear
relationship was demonstrated between these two variables
(r(836)=.012, p=.731).
There was no significant
correlation between the current perception by students
concerning Resources (time available for healthful eating
habits, choosing and cooking convenience of healthful
foods) and the number of siblings in the family (r(837)=
-.014, p=.685).
No linear relationship was shown between
the value placed on good nutrition and health based on
96
the number of siblings in the family (r(837)=.046,
p=.182).
Students' Perception Regarding Parental Concern for
Health
Students responded by answering yes or no to the
question, "While you lived at home, were your
parents/guardian interested in nutrition and healthful
eating?"
Two-tailed t-tests were performed to determine
if significant differences existed between current
dietary opinions and the students' perception regarding
parental concern for health.
Students who perceived that
their parents had concern for healthful eating believed
they had better skills in choosing and preparing
healthful meals (t887(df=1)=6.01, p<.01)
.
Students who
believed that their parents were concerned about
nutrition and health also placed a greater value on
healthful eating and overall health (t887(df=1)=3.57,
p<.01).
Students who responded that their parents were
not interested in good nutrition and health also placed
less value on healthful eating and health.
No
significant difference was found between parental concern
for nutrition and health and the students' current
opinion regarding their resources (t887(df=1)=1.02,
p>.05).
97
Table 4.19 Differences in Students' Current Dietary
Opinions Toward Health Based on Parental
Concern for Nutrition and Good Health
T-test
P-VALUE
VARIABLE
PARENTAL
CONCERN
N
MEAN
Skills
Yes
No
719
168
3.77
3.37
.75 .00**
.87
Resources Yes
No
719
168
3.09
3.01
.98 .31
.93
Values
719
168
3.56
3.26
.97 .00**
.98
Yes
No
S.D.
Significant at p<.05
** Significant at p<.01
*
Note: The items for resources and values were recoded so
that a high score reflected the more positive response.
LloLemerae._refs2flingkaaiieaeasaryfarakill_
Displayed in Table 4.20, a one way ANOVA found a
significant difference between the students' dietary
opinion regarding their Skills and who in the family
emphasized healthful eating and overall health
(F(543)=3.45, p<.05).
The Newman Keuls multiple
comparison procedure was used to indicate where the
differences existed among the four categories (mom, dad,
other, mom and dad). The highest skill mean score
(R=3.87) was found to be in the mom and dad category.
Students who expressed greater confidence in choosing and
preparing healthful foods indicated that both parents
were interested in nutrition and healthful eating.
Further assessment of the skills mean scores, the next
98
highest mean score for skills was 3.76 in the "dads"
category.
This might suggest that dads who had an
interest in nutrition and healthy eating could influence
their children to develop greater confidence in choosing
and preparing healthful foods.
There were no significant
differences in the variables Resources (F(542)=1.26,
p>.05) or Values F(542)=.757, p>.05) in terms of who in
the family the student perceived showed concern about
nutrition and overall health.
Table 4.20 Differences Between Students' Dietary
Opinions Based on Perception of Who in the
Family Showed Interest in Nutrition and
Health
One-way
ANOVA
N
VARIABLE
PERSON
Skills
Mom
283
Dad
25
Other
10
Mom & Dad 225
MEAN
S.D.
P-VALUE
3.65a
3.76
3.65
3.87b
.79
.94
.70
.71
.02*
Resources Mom
283
Dad
25
Other
10
Mom & Dad 225
3.04
2.77
2.90
3.14
.96
.92
.29
Values
3.49
3.62
3.35
3.61
Mom
283
Dad
25
Other
10
Mom & Dad 225
1.09
.99
.99
.95
.76
.97
.52
* Significant at p<.05
Note: Means fallow sd by the care letter are rrit statistic-Tally cliffereat
Note: The items for resources and values were recoded so that a high score
reflected the more positive response. No reverse recoding was necessary for
skills .
99
A one-way ANOVA was conducted on current dietary
opinion Skill scores by parental income.
No significant
difference was shown in Skills by levels of parental
income (F(818)=1.066, p>.05).
No significant difference
was indicated in current dietary opinion toward the
Resources of time, cost and convenience in the choice and
preparation of healthful food among levels of parental
income (F(818)=.782, p>.05).
No significant difference
was shown in values placed on healthful eating and
overall health based on levels of parental income
(F(818)=.479, p>.05).
In summary, hypothesis three tested for significant
differences in dietary opinions (Skills, Resources,
Values) based on selected demographic variables.
Because
there were significant differences in selected variables,
the null hypothesis was rejected.
Hypothesis Four:
4)
There will be no significant difference between
compliers and non-compliers with food category
compliance guidelines based on the following
selected variables:
* Nutrition knowledge by students
* Dietary opinions (Skills, Resources,
Values) by students
* Past emphasis of family practices placed
on the consumption of each food category
100
Compliance Levels Based on Nutrition Knowledge
As shown in Table 4.21, two tailed t-tests were
performed to determine if significant differences existed
between compliers and non-compliers with the food
category compliance guidelines regarding the nutrition
knowledge score of students.
A significant difference
was shown between compliers and non-compliers
with the
fruit category compliance guidelines based on the
nutrition knowledge score of the students (t(879)=-2.64,
p<.01).
The students who complied with the fruit
guidelines had significantly higher nutrition knowledge
scores (x= 53.88) than the non-compliers (x= 51.62).
A
significant difference was shown in the vegetable
category between the compliers and non-compliers based on
the students' nutrition knowledge score (t(874)=-2.10,
p<.05).
In the vegetable category students who complied
with the guidelines had higher mean nutrition knowledge
scores (ic=54.77) than those who did not comply (x=52.25).
Table 4.24 also indicates that there were no significant
differences in nutrition knowledge scores between those
who did or did not comply with the remaining food
categories guidelines.
101
Table 4.21
Nutrition Knowledge Based on Compliance
Knowledge
T-test
CATEGORY
COMPLIANCE
N
MEAN
S.D.
Bread
No
Yes
826
45
52.59
52.30
12.26
.88
13.03
Fruit
No
Yes
525
354
51.62
53.88
11.81 .00**
12.84
Vegetable No
Yes
764
111
52.25
54.77
12.33 .04*
11.77
Milk
No
Yes
375
504
52.50
52.51
12.20 .99
12.35
Meat
No
Yes
306
568
52.09
52.84
11.89 .39
12.49
Fat
No
Yes
538
334
52.49
52.73
12.43 .78
12.08
Sweet
No
Yes
293
581
51.65
53.05
11.88 .11
12.47
P-VALUE
Significant at p<.05
** Significant at p<.01
*
Note: The items for Resources and Values were recoded so
that a high score reflected the more positive response. No
reverse recoding was necessary for Skills.
Compliance with Food Category Guidelines by Skill Level
of Students
As shown in Table 4.22, there were significant
differences between those who did and did not comply with
food category compliance guidelines based on their
perceived Skills.
Students who complied with the fruit
category guidelines felt more confident in choosing and
102
preparing healthful meals (R=4.00) than the non-compliers
(R=3.49) t(879)=-9.86, p<.01.
Students who complied with
the vegetable guidelines had higher mean score (R=4.00)
for their ability to select and prepare healthful foods
than the mean score (R=3.66) of the non-compliers
(t(876)=-4.37, p<.01.
In the milk category a significant
difference was found between compliers and non-compliers
with respect to Skill level t(879)=-2.39, p<.05.
Students who complied with the milk guidelines had
reported more confidence in choosing and preparing
healthful foods (R=3.75) than students who did not meet
the dairy consumption guidelines (R=3.62).
A significant
difference between compliers and non-compliers was shown
with regard to Skill level
t(874)=-2.25, p<.05. Students
who met the compliance guidelines of meat/protein
reported feeling more confident towards choosing and
preparing healthful meals (R=3.74) than students who did
not comply (R=3.62). In the sweets category a significant
difference existed between compliers and non-compliers
regarding Skill t(874)=-3.76, p<.01.
Students who
consumed less sugar expressed having better skills at
choosing and preparing healthful foods (R=3.77) than
those students who exceeded the recommended guidelines
(R=3.56).
No significant differences were shown between
compliers and non-compliers in the bread (t(871)=-1.81,
103
p>.05) and fat (t(8720=-1.33, p>.05) category guidelines
based on Skills.
Table 4.22 Difference in Compliance with Food Category
Guidelines by Skill Level of Students
MEAN
T-test
P-VALUE
VARIABLE
CATEGORY
°COMPLIANCE
N
Skills
Bread
No
826
3.69
45
3.91
.79
.63
.07
Yes
No
Yes
525
354
3.49
4.00
.81
.65
.00**
Vegetable No
Yes
764
111
3.66
4.00
.78
.76
.00**
Milk
No
Yes
375
504
3.62
3.75
.83
.75
.02*
Meat
No
Yes
306
568
3.62
3.74
.81
.77
.03*
Fat
No
Yes
538
334
3.67
3.75
.77
.19
No
Yes
293
581
3.56
3.77
.79
.78
Fruit
Sweet
SKILLS
S.D.
.81
.00**
Significant at p<.05
** Significant at p<.01
*
Compliance with Food Category Guidelines Based on
Students' Perceived Resources
A two-tailed t-test was performed to determine if
significant differences were shown with the food category
guidelines between compliers and non-compliers' based on
their perceived Resources (cost, time and convenience
preparing healthful foods). Students who met the fruit
104
category guidelines had a higher Resource score (x =3.19)
of the cost, time and convenience in preparation of
healthful foods than the non-compliers Resource score
(R=3.01) t(879)=-2.80, p<.01.
Students who complied with
the fruit category guidelines expressed greater
confidence in purchasing healthful foods and taking the
time to prepare healthful foods.
Students may realize
that fresh fruit requires very little preparation time.
A significant difference between compliers (x =3.27) and
non-compliers (R=3.05) was shown in the vegetable
category with respect to Resources t(876)=-2.19, p<.05.
Students who met the vegetable category compliance
guidelines were more likely to take the time in choosing
and cooking vegetables than those students who did not
comply with the guidelines.
Students who complied with
the milk consumption guidelines had a significantly
higher mean score (R=3.15) than the non compliers
(R=2.98) regarding Resources t(879)=-2.59, p<.05.
Students who complied with the fruit, vegetable and milk
guidelines responded more positively to the statements
that healthful foods were affordable and convenient to
prepare within a reasonable amount of time.
No
significant differences were reported between compliers
and non-compliers in the remaining food categories based
on students' Resources.
The reported t-tests are as
follows: bread (t(871)=-1.76, p>.05); meat (t(874)=-.53,
105
p>.05); fat (t(872)=-1.04, p>.05); sweets (t(874)=-1.28,
p>.05).
Table 4.23 Compliance with Food Category Guidelines Based
on Students' Perceived Resources
VARIABLE
MEAN
T-test
0014=GCE N
RERYMMIS S.D.
P -VALUE
No
Yes
826
45
3.06
3.30
.97
.12
No
Yes
525
354
3.01
3.19
.97
.96
.00**
Vegetable No
Yes
764
111
3.05
3.27
.96
.98
.03*
Milk
375
504
2.98
3.15
1.00
Yes
No
Yes
306
568
3.05
3.09
1.00
No
Yes
538
334
3.05
3.12
1.03
No
Yes
293
581
3.02
3.11
.94
.98
mammy
Resources Bread
Fruit
Meat
Fat
Sweet
No
.85
.00**
.94
.59
.95
.93
.31
.20
Significant at p<.05
** Significant at p<.01
Note: The items for resources and values were recoded so that
a high score reflected the more positive response. No reverse
recoding was necessary for skills.
106
Compliance with Food Category Guidelines by Values
As indicated in Table 4.24, two-tailed t tests were
performed to determine if differences existed between
compliers and non-compliars with Food Guide Pyramid
recommendations based on values.
There was a significant
difference between compliers and non-compliers in the
fruit category with regards to Values t(879)=-7.62,
p<.01.
Students who complied with the consumption
guidelines for fruit placed greater value (x =3.80) on
healthful eating and overall health than those students
who did not comply with the guidelines (X=3.31). There
was a significant difference between compliers and non-
compliers regarding vegetable consumption based on
Values, t(876)=-4.63, p<.01.
Students who complied with
the vegetable guidelines expressed more concern (R=3.88)
for healthful eating and overall health than the non-
compliers (R=3.46).
A significant difference was
indicated between compliers and non-compliers in the fat
category with regards to Values (t(872)=-4.13, p<.01).
Students who did not consume an excessive amount of fat
placed more emphasis on nutritious eating and health
(R=3.68) than those who did not comply with the fat
guidelines (X=3.41).
A significant difference was shown
between compliers and non-compliers in the consumption of
sweets based on Values t(874)=-6.38, p<.01.
Students who
107
complied with the guidelines and did not consume an
excessive amount of sweets expressed more concern for
healthful eating and good health (x =3.66) than non-
compliers (R=3.21).
No significant differences were
shown between compliers and non-compliers in the
consumption of the remaining food categories (milk
t(879)=-1.93, p>.05; meat t(874)=-.30, p>.05) with
regards to Values placed on healthful eating and good
health.
108
Table 4.24 Students' Values on Nutrition and Health by
Compliance with Food Guide Pyramid
Recommendations
VARIABLE
CNIEWRY
031=ECE N
MEAN
VALUES
S.D.
Values
Bread
No
Yes
826
45
3.51
3.51
1.01
No
525
354
3.31
3.80
.99
.87
.00**
764
111
3.46
3.88
.97
.89
.00**
375
504
3.44
3.57
.99
.96
.05
Yes
No
Yes
306
568
3.50
3.52
.97
.76
Fat
No
Yes
538
334
3.41
3.68
.99
.92
.00**
Sweet
No
293
581
3.21
3.66
.97
.94
.00**
Fruit
Yes
Vegetable No
Yes
Milk
Meat
No
Yes
.97
T-test
P VALUE
.99
.98
Significant at <.05
** Significant at <.01
*
Note: The items for resources and values were recoded so that
a high score reflected the more positive response.
No reverse
recoding was nprpssary for skills.
Family Meal Practices
The family meal practices (FMP) variable included
the following items 1) parents cooked at least one meal
per day for student, 2) parents used fresh ingredients,
3) family ate at least one meal per day together and 4)
the student was expected to eat with the family (see
109
Appendix B, Question 6 a-c, d&k).
The groupings of
similar items were confirmed with a factor analysis
based on the idea that the students' family had taken
time to prepare foods and quality mealtime.
A factor
analysis was used as a confirmative measure for those
preconceived groupings.
As noted in Table 4.25, the two
tailed t-tests were performed to determine if significant
differences existed between compliers and non-compliers
in the food categories based on family meal practices
(FMP) during the formative years.
A significant
difference in meal practices score was shown between
compliers (R=3.12) and non-compliers (R=3.01) in the
fruit category with regards to family meal practics
t(879)=-2.26, p<.05.
A significant difference existed
between compliers (x =3.25) and non-compliers (R=3.03) in
the vegetable category regarding previous family meal
practices.
Students whose parents took the time to
prepare and eat their meals together as a family have
currently met the vegetable consumption guidelines
t(876)=-3.45, p<.01.
No significant differences were
shown between non-compliers and compliers in the
remaining food categories with regards to family meal
practices (bread t(871)=.10, p>.05; milk t(879)=-1.36,
p>.05; meat t(874)=-.53, p>.05; fat t(872)=1.88, p>.05)
and sweets t(874)=1.19, p>.05.
110
Table 4.25 Students Reporting of Family Meal Practices
(FMP) During the Formative Years by Current
Compliance with Food Guide Pyramid
Recommendations
MEAN
VARIABLE
CALEKDIRY
004=CCE N
FMP
FMP
Bread
No
S.D.
T-test
P VALUE
826
45
3.05
3.04
.69
.68
.92
Yes
No
Yes
525
354
3.01
3.12
.69
.69
.02*
Vegetable No
Yes
764
111
3.03
3.25
.70
.62
.00**
Milk
No
Yes
375
504
3.02
3.08
.70
.68
.17
Meat
No
Yes
306
568
3.04
3.06
.68
.70
.60
Fat
No
538
334
3.09
3.00
.66
.74
.06
293
581
3.09
3.03
.67
.70
.24
Fruit
Yes
Sweet
No
Yes
Significant at p<.05
** Significant at p<.01
*
Self -Meals
The Self-meal variable included the following group
items: 1) students who shopped for the groceries, and 2)
prepared their meals as a child and/or teenager (see
appendix B, Question 6 L-N).
The groupings of similar
items were confirmed with a factor analysis based on the
idea that often the child was responsible for their
111
meals.
In the fruit category the students who shopped
and prepared their own meals complied with the fruit
guidelines more often than those students who did not
shop or prepare their own meals t(879)=3.64, p<.01.
No
significant differences between compliers and non-
compliers were shown in the remaining food categories
with respect to the Self-meal variable (bread
t (871)=1.07, p>.05; vegetable t(875)=.59, p>.05; milk
t (879)=-.35, p>.05; fat t(872)=.19, p>.05; sweets
t (874)=.19, p>.05).
112
Table 4.26 Students Reporting of Self-Meals During the
Formative Years by Current Compliance with
Food Guide Pyramid Recommendations
VARIABLE
camumy
034=PNCE N
Self -meal
Bread
No
MEAN
SELF
MEALS
S.D.
T-test
P VALUE
826
45
2.97
2.87
.56
.62
.24
Yes
No
Yes
525
354
3.02
2.88
.53
.59
.00**
764
111
2.97
2.93
.56
.58
.55
375
504
2.96
2.97
.56
.56
.73
Yes
No
Yes
306
568
2.96
2.97
.55
.79
Fat
No
Yes
538
334
2.97
2.96
.55
.57
.85
Sweet
No
Yes
293
581
2.97
2.96
.55
.56
.85
Fruit
Vegetable No
Yes
Milk
Meat
No
.57
Significant at < .05
** Significant at <.01
*
Note: Self meals were reverse recoiled so a high score reflects a positive
outccrne.
Skipping-Meals
The Skipping meals variable included the following
grouped items: student skipped breakfast, student skipped
lunch, student skipped dinner (see Appendix B, Question 6
G-I).
The groupings of similar items were confirmed with
a factor analysis based on the child skipping their
113
meals.
A confirmatory factor analysis was used to
measure for similar groupings.
In Table 4.27, a
significant difference was shown between compliers and
non-compliers with the milk category guidelines based on
skipping meals t(879)=-3.45, p<.01.
Students who
currently complied with the milk category guidelines
seldom skipped their meals on a regular basis during
their formative years.
No
differences were shown
between compliers and non-compliers with the remaining
food categories (bread t(871)=-.78, p>.05; fruit t(879) =­
1.74, p>.05; vegetable t(875)=-1.01, p>.05; meat t(874) =­
1.00, p>.05; fat t(872)=1.47, p>.05; sweets t(874)=-.83,
p>.05) based on skipping meals during the formative
years.
114
Table 4.27 Students Reporting of Skipping Meals During the
Foumitive Years Based cn airrent Carpliance with Food
Guide Pyramid Reccrrmendaticns
VARIABLE
CPLIMORY
0011PLIANCE
N
MEAN
S.D.
T-Test
P VALUE
SKIP
MEALS
Skip Meal
Bread
No
Yes
826
45
3.25
3.33
.57
.67
.36
Fruit
No
525
354
3.23
3.30
.57
.58
.08
Yes
Vegetable No
Yes
764
111
3.25
3.31
.57
.57
.31
Milk
No
Yes
375
504
3.18
3.31
.55
.58
.00**
Meat
No
306
568
3.23
3.27
.56
.58
.32
Yes
Fat
No
Yes
538
334
3.28
3.22
.57
.57
.14
Sweet
No
293
581
3.23
3.27
.57
.57
.41
Yes
** Significant at p<.01
Note: Skip meals were reverse recodei so a high score reflects a positive
outcome.
Meals on the Run (mor)
The Meals on the Run variable grouped the following
items together: 1) family ate their meals at restaurant,
2) while watching T.V., 3) used microwaveable dinners,
and 4) snacked on chips and cookies, etc.
B, Question 6 B,E,F,J).
(see Appendix
The groupings of similar items
115
were confirmed with a factor analysis based on the idea
that the family did not eat "traditional" meals around
the family dinner table.
A factor analysis was used as a
confirmative measure for those preconceived groupings.
This analysis was done in order to make sure that the
items grouped together were similar.
The confirmatory
factor analysis did indeed show that the items were
similar in content.
As displayed in Table 4.28, a
significant difference was shown to exist between
compliers and non-compliers with the fruit t(879) =­
3.58,p<.01, vegetable t(876)=-2.81, p<.01, fat t(872) =­
2.69, p<.01 and sweets t(874)=-5.21, p<.01 categories
with regards to Meals on the run. Students who seldom ate
at a restaurant, used microwaveable dinners, or snacked
on chips, cookies, and pop, complied with the consumption
guidelines for the fruit and vegetable categories and did
not consume excessive amounts of fats and sugary foods.
Students who often ate their meals on the run were less
likely to comply with the food guidelines.
These
students consumed less fruits and vegetables and more fat
and sugar.
116
Table 4.28 Students Reporting of Meals on the Run During
the Formative Years Based on Current
Compliance with the Food Guide Pyramid
Recommendations
T-test
P VALUE
VARIABLE
CATEGORY
COMPLIANCE
N
MEAN
Meals
Bread
No
Yes
826
45
2.88
2.81
.47
.51
.30
Fruit
No
Yes
525
354
2.83
2.95
.46
.50
.00**
764
111
2.87
3.00
.47
.00**
Yes
Milk
No
Yes
375
504
2.85
2.90
.47
.48
Meat
No
Yes
306
568
2.90
2.87
.486 .44
.471
Fat
No
Yes
538
334
2.84
2.94
.466 .00**
.488
Sweet
No
Yes
293
581
2.76
2.94
.493 .00**
.456
on Run
Vegetable No
S.D.
.48
.13
** Significant at p<.01
Note: Meals an run were reverse recoiled so a high score reflects a positive
outcome.
In summary, hypothesis four tested for significant
differences between compliers and non-compliers with Food
Guide Pyramid recommendations based on the student's
nutrition knowledge, Skills, Resources, Values, current
emphasis placed on consumption of each food category and
family practices during the formative years.
Because
there were significant differences for the variables,
117
students' nutrition knowledge score, current dietary
opinions (skills, resources, values) and previous family
practices, the fourth null hypothesis was rejected.
Hypothesis Five:
5(a) There will be no significant difference between
the following selected variables based on
gender:
* perceived family eating behaviors
* perceived current eating behaviors
* students' nutrition knowledge
5(b) There will be no significant difference between
the perceived current emphasis placed on each
food group based on the perceived emphasis
placed on each food group during the students'
formative years.
Family Eating Behaviors
Students circled one response (never, seldom, often
always) for fourteen statements that best described their
perceived family eating practices during the formative
years.
The fourteen statements were developed from the
literature review, suggestions by the researcher's
doctoral committee and work experience in the field of
dietetics.
A t-test was performed and significant
differences were found between family eating behaviors
during the formative years based on sex t(890)=2.01,
118
p<.01.
The mean score response by females was 2.99 (SD+
.39) and for males 3.04 (SD+ .37) thus indicating a
gender difference in responding to the family eating
practices.
Current Eating Behaviors
Students were asked to respond to fourteen
statements similar to the family eating behaviors
section.
For each statement students circled one
response (never, seldom, often, always).
A t-test was
conducted and significant differences were shown between
females' current eating behaviors and males current
eating behaviors t(890)=2.78, p<.01.
Females had a
higher mean score (x =2.77, SD+ .33) than males (X=2.71,
SD+ .38).
The higher score for females reflected that
their perceived current eating practices were better than
the responses given by the male university students.
Nutrition Knowledge
Fifteen general nutrition questions were given to
the students to determine what their applied nutrition
knowledge was in order to make informed food choices.
The nutrition knowledge score was computed as the number
correct divided by fifteen and multipled by 100.
A
perfect nutrition score (100%) was measured to be that
all 15 questions were answered correctly.
A two-tailed
t-test was performed to determine if significant
119
differences existed between nutrition knowledge scores of
female and male students.
A significant difference in
nutrition knowledge score based on gender was indicated
t(890)=7.04, p<.01.
49%.
Females scored 55% and male students
Even though females scored higher than males on
nutrition knowledge, both scores were very low in
nutrition knowledge.
In summary, males had a significantly better eating
behavior score during the formative years (x =3.04) than
females (i=2.99).
Currently while attending the
university, males have a lower eating behavior score
(X=2.71) than females (R=2.71) and were less
knowledgeable in nutrition (score=49%) than females
(score=55.1%).
Perceived Current EMphasis on Each Food Group Based on Perceived
Previous Family EMphasis on Each Food Group
In Table 4.29, of the 87 students who perceived that
parental emphasis on bread was not important, 34.5% of the students
indicated that bread was not important, 55.2% sameWhat important
and 10.3% very important.
Of the 518 students who perceived that
parents emphasized bread consumption as sameWhat important, 5.8% of
the students indicated current emphasis of bread group was not
important, 60.4% somewhat important, and 33.4% very important.
'Iran
hundred sixty six students perceived that parents emphasized bread
consumption as being very important, 2.6% of the students viewed
their current emphasis as not important, 33.5% as sameWhat
120
important, and 63.2% as very important.
When the parental emphasis
on the bread category was truss tabulated with the student's
current emphasis in bread ccnsurrpticn significant
differences were
found between level of parental emphasis and students current
emphasis x2 (df=9)=362.76, p< .01)
.
As Table 4.29
indicates, the
level of emphasis students placed on the consurrpticn of bread
increased as parental emphasis increased.
As parental emphasis on
bread ccnsurrpticn decreased, the students' level of emphasis
decreased on bread consumption as well.
Of the 12 students who perceived that parental
emphasis on vegetables were not important, 25% of the
students indicated that vegetables were not important,
33.3% somewhat important, and 41.7% very important.
Of
the 189 students who perceived that parents emphasized
vegetable consumption as somewhat important, 7.9% of them
indicated that current emphasis of vegetable group was
not important, 50.3% responded that consumption was
somewhat important, and 41.3% indicated that vegetable
consumption was very important.
Of the 678 students who
perceived that their parents emphasized vegetable
consumption as very important, 4.9% reported their
current emphasis as not important, 32.2% responded that
consumption was somewhat important, and 63.7% as very
important.
When the perceived parental emphasis of the
vegetable category was cross-tabulated with student's
current emphasis in vegetable consumption, significant
121
differences were found between the level of parental
emphasis and student emphasis (x2(df=9)=393.07, p<.01).
As the parental emphasis on vegetable consumption
increased, the emphasis students placed on vegetable
consumption increased.
Of the 26 students who believed that parental
emphasis of fruit consumption was not important, four
indicated that fruit consumption was not important, 11
believed that it was somewhat important and 11 considered
it very important.
Of the 276 students who perceived
that parental emphasis on fruit consumption was somewhat
important, 7.2% indicated current emphasis of fruit group
was not important, 43.1% said it was somewhat important,
and 49.3% considered it very important.
Of the 574
students who believed that their parents emphasized fruit
consumption as very important, only 1.6% of them
responded that current consumption was not important,
24.6% considered it was somewhat important, and 73.0%
responded that fruit consumption was very important.
When parental emphasis of the fruit category was cross-
tabulated with the student's current emphasis for fruit
consumption, significant differences were found between
the levels of emphasis of parents and students
(x2(df=9)=219.72, p<.01).
As parental emphasis on fruit
consumption decreased, the emphasis students placed on
fruit consumption decreased.
If parents emphasized fruit
122
consumption as very important, students indicated fruit
consumption as very important.
Of 32 students who perceived that parental emphasis
for milk was not important, 12 of them indicated that it
was not important, 13 responded that it was somewhat
important and seven believed milk consumption was very
important. Of the 283 students who responded that parents
emphasized milk to be somewhat important, 11.3% of them
currently emphasized the milk category as not important,
54.1% said it was somewhat important, and 33.2%
considered milk consumption to be very important. Of 559
students who perceived that parents emphasized milk
consumption as being very important, 4.7% viewed their
current emphasis on milk consumption as not important,
34.3% responded that their consumption was somewhat
important, and 60.3% indicated that milk consumption was
very important. When the parental emphasis of the milk
category was cross-tabulated with the student's current
emphasis on milk consumption, significant differences
were found in levels of emphasis (x2(df=9)=258.77,
p<.01).
Current emphasis by students on milk consumption
as very important (60.3%) was highest among those who
perceived parental emphasis as very importat.
Thus, if
parents regarded milk consumption as not important,
students (37.5%) concurred.
123
Of the 38 students who perceived that parental
emphasis on meat/protein consumption was not important,
15 (39.5%) of them indicated that meat/protein was not
important, 15 (39.5%) responded that it was somewhat
important and eight (18.4%) indicated that it was very
important.
Of the 345 students who perceived that their
parents emphasized meat/protein consumption as being
somewhat important, 8.7% of them indicated current
emphasis of meat/protein category was not important,
59.7% indicated that meat consumption was somewhat
important, and 31.0% responded that meat consumption was
very important.
Four hundred ninety one students
perceived that their parents placed great emphasis on
meat consumption as being very important; 2.4% of them
viewed their current emphasis as not important, 33.0%
responded that meat was somewhat important, and 64.4%
indicated that it was very important. When the parental
emphasis of the meat/protein category was cross-tabulated
with the student's current emphasis on meat/protein
consumption, significant differences were found
(x2(df=9)=556.83, p<.01).
Students were more likely to
consider meat/protein consumption as very important
(60.3%) if they perceived their parents to believe it was
important.
Of the 394 students who perceived that parental
emphasis on fat/oil consumption was not important, 70.8%
124
of them indicated that fats/oils were not important,
16.8% said it was somewhat important and 11.7% indicated
that fats/oils consumption was very important.
Of 381
students who perceived that parental emphasis on
fats/oils consumption was somewhat important, 26.5%
indicated current emphasis of fats/oils category was not
important, 47.8% regarded it as somewhat important, and
25.7% said it was very important.
Eighty six students
who believed that their parents emphasized fats/oils
consumption to be very important; 5.8% of them viewed
their current emphasis as not important, 45.3% regarded
it as somewhat important, and 48.8% believed fats/oils
consumption to be very important. When perceived parental
emphasis of the fats/oil consumption was cross-tabulated
with the student's current emphasis, significant
differences were found (x2(df=9)=521.60, p<.01)
.
Current
student emphasis on fats/oils consumption was highest
among those students (48.8%) whose parents considered it
very important.
Conversely, students were likely to
believe fats/oils consumption was not important (70.8%)
if they perceived their parents to feel this way.
When parental emphasis on sweets was perceived to be
not important, 232 (61.6%) of the students regarded it as
not important, 108 (28.8%) said it was somewhat important
and 32 (8.5%) responded that sweets were very important
to them.
Of the 372 students who believed that their
125
parents' emphasis on sweets consumption was somewhat
important, 24.7% of them responded that their current
emphasis of sweets category was not important, 53.2% said
it was somewhat important, and 21.8% indicated that
sweets were very important.
Of 121 students who believed
that their parents emphasized sweets consumption as being
very important, 7.4% of them viewed their current
emphasis as not important, 41.3% as somewhat important,
and 51.2% as very important.
When the parental emphasis
of the sweets category was cross-tabulated with the
student's current emphasis on sweets, significant
differences were found (x2(df=9)=438.09, p<.01)
.
Parental emphasis influenced the level of importance
students placed on the consumption of sweets.
If the
parents felt sweets were not important, 61.6% of the
students reported that sweets were not important.
If
parental emphasis on sweet consumption was very
important, 51.2% of the students responded that their
current emphasis on sweet consumption was very important.
126
Table 4.29 Differences Between Perceived Current Emphasis
Placed on Each Food Group Based on the
Perceived Emphasis of Each Food Group During
the Formative Years
Parental Emphasis
Fbod Group
N
Students
Curnait
Not
Important
Sanewhat
Important
Very
x2
P-value
Important
Errphasis
Bread
Not
Somewhat
Very
34.5
55.2
10.3
5.8
60.4
33.4
2.6
33.5
63.2
362.76
.001*
518
266
12
189
Not
Somewhat
4.0
32.2
63.7
.001*
Very
7.9
50.3
41.3
393.07
678
25.0
33.3
41.7
26
Not
Somewhat
Very
15.4
42.3
42.3
7.2
43.1
49.3
1.6
219.72
.001*
276
574
24.6
73.0
Milk
32
283
559
Not
Somewhat
Very
37.5
40.6
18.8
11.3
54.1
33.2
4.7
34.3
60.3
258.77
.001*
Meat
38
345
491
Not
Somewhat
39.5
39.5
18.4
8.7
59.7
31.0
2.4
33.0
64.4
556.83
.001*
70.8
16.8
26.5
47.8
25.7
5.8
45.3
48.8
521.60
.001*
24.7
53.2
21.8
7.4
41.3
51.2
438.09
.001*
87
Vegetables
Fruit
Fats
Very
394
Not
381 Somewhat
86
Sweets
375
372
121
Very
11.7
Not
Somewhat
Very
61.6
28.8
8.5
* Significant at p<.05
In summary, hypothesis five tested for significant
differences in the following:
5(a) perceived family eating behaviors based on
gender
127
5(b) perceived current eating behaviors based on
gender
5(c) students' nutrition knowledge score based on
sex
5(d) perceived current emphasis placed on
consumption of each food group based on
perceived emphasis placed on each food group
during the formative years.
Because there were significant differences, the null
hypothesis was rejected.
128
CHAPTER V
Summary, Conclusions, Discussion and Recommendations
This chapter provides a discussion of the students'
results.
These findings determined what differences, if
any, existed between compliance with Food Guide Pyramid
recommendations and specific demographic, family and
student eating practices.
Data for the study were collected during the spring
term 1993.
Four major research questions were developed
to examine compliance by university students with Food
Guide Pyramid recommendations and the factors that
affected the students' eating practices.
Based on the results of the study Chapter 5 will
address:
(1) a summary of the study,
(2) conclusions,
(3)
discussion, and (4) recommendations.
Summary of the Study
Student Characteristics
The participants in this study were 433 males and
457 females.
The mean age of the students was 20.14 with
a standard deviation of 2.98.
The breakdown in
academic
levels consisted of 47.8% Freshmen, 18.6% sophomores,
17.5% juniors and 15.1% seniors.
The university students
overall nutrition knowledge mean score was 51.8% with a
129
standard deviation 12.7.
Using a Likert type scale
(strongly disagree to strongly agree), the students were
asked to respond to a series of statements concerning
their current eating practices such as skipping meals,
eating while watching T.V. or reading a book, and looking
at food labels.
The current eating practices total
overall summative score was 38.39 which is somewhat low
considering a score of 56 to be the ideal score.
Family Characteristics
When asked who the primary meal preparer was during
students' formative years, 86% of the students reported
that their mother was the primary meal preparer.
Approximately 64% of the primary meal preparers worked
outside the home.
The students indicated that their
mothers (52.1%) was the most concerned about their
health, followed by both parents (41.4%).
Students used
a Likert type scale (1) Never, 2) Seldom, 3) Often, and
4) Always) to answer questions about previous family
eating behaviors that included convenience foods,
skipping meals, eating with the family, snacking.
The
overall summative score for family eating behaviors was
42.28 (SD+ 5.32), ranging from 23.94 to 55.02 which a
score of 56 was the ideal.
130
Students' Current Consumption of Food Groups
Generally, females consumed a mean value of 4.8
bread servings (SD + 3.3) and males 4.7 servings (SD +
3.1) which was below the Food Guide Pyramid nine servings
for females and 11 servings for males.
Females consumed
2.4 servings of vegetables (SD + 1.9) and males 2.4
servings (SD + 2.1) which was short of the 4 servings
recommended for females and 5 servings for males.
In the
fruit category females consumed 3.4 servings (SD + 2.6)
and males 3 servings (SD + 2.6).
The recommended number
of fruit servings for females was three and for males the
number was four. Studies by Beeman (1990) and Melby
(1986) had similar conclusions regarding a low conumption
of vegetables and fruit by university students.
The mean
number of milk servings consumed by females was 2.2
servings (SD + 1.5) and males 2.8 (SD + 1.9).
The
recommended number of milk servings was 2.0 for both
sexes.
In the meat/protein category females consumed 3.2
serving (SD + 2.4) and 4.3 servings for males (SD + 3.6).
The recommended number of meat/protein servings was 2
servings for females
and 3 servings for males.
Similar
results found by Raper et al (1992) was shown that
protein consumption levels were adequate and stable.
The
recommended number of fat grams for females was 73 grams
and 93 grams for males.
The mean number of fat grams
131
consumed by females was 93.4 grams (SD + 54.9 grams) and
for males it was 127.5 grams (SD + 80.5).
Studies by
Putnam (1991), Kreb-Smith (1992) and USDHHS & USDA (1989)
found fat consumption exceeded the recommended amounts
for males and females.
The mean number of teaspoons of
sugar consumed by females was 11.6 (SD + 13.9) and 16.2
teaspoons (SD + 14) for males.
The recommended number of
teaspoons of sugar for females was 12 teaspoons and 18
teaspoons for males.
Studies by Putnam (1991) and
Beerman (1990) found that sugar consumption has increased
unlike the results found in this study.
Perhaps students
completing the food frequency questions underreported the
amounts of pop, candy and bakery products actually being
consumed.
Student Factors
Differences between compliers and non-compliers were
determined for each food category based on sex.
Males
had higher compliance levels (67.9%) than females(47.%%)
in the consumption of milk (x2(df=1)=37.5, p<.05).
CSFII study (1985) showed similar results.
The
Approximately
49% of females met the fruit guidelines as opposed to
30.5% for males (x2 (df =1) =32.4, p<.05)
.
Females (15.8%)
complied better with vegetable guidelines than males
(9.3%)
(x2(df=1)=8.4, p<.05).
As indicated previously,
Beerman (1990) and Melby (1986) also found that
132
university students' consumption of fruits and vegetables
to be inadequate. In the meat/protein group, 68.9% of the
females complied with the recommended guidelines and only
60.7% of the males complied (x2(df=1)=6.5, p<.05).
The
majority of the university students did meet the
guidelines of the Food Guide Pyramid (see Table 4.7).
Freshmen and sophomores met the milk consumption
guidelines more often than juniors and seniors
(x2(df=3)=37.5, p<.05).
The underclassmen (freshmen and
sophomores) complied with the vegetable guidelines more
often than upper classmen (juniors and seniors)
x2(df=3)=10.3, p<.05.
Hertzler and Frary (19920 cited
students reasons given for eating out such as the ability
to eat foods unable to prepare, variety of food, and
saving time to prepare and shop for food. The results of
this study support that students who live where food
service was available consumed more fruits, vegetables,
milk and had higher reported rates in the consumption of
all food groups.
No significant differenced were shown
between the remaining food categories based on academic
levels.
The mean age of students meeting the milk guidelines
was 19.95 with a standard deviation of 2.93 (t(881)=2.19,
p<.05).
Among students not meeting the milk consumption
guidelines the mean age was 20.4 with standard deviation
3.06.
No significant differences were indicated looking
133
at food categories regarding the ages of university
students.
Students (60.5%) who lived where food service (F.S.)
was available had higher reported rates of compliance for
the milk category than the students (49.6%) who lived in
a house or apartment (x2(df=1)=8.45, p<.05).
Even though
not significant, there existed a higher rate of
compliance in the remaing food categories where students
had food service provided for them.
Beerman (1990) and
Melby (1986) found that the students' place of residence
affected their eating behaviors.
Family Factors
The results indicated that students who previously
lived where the primary meal preparer did not work
outside the home, were less likely to consume sweets and
more likely to comply with the Food Guide Pyramid
guidelines x2(df=1)=4.56, p<.05.
A significant
difference was indicated in the fruit category between
those students who met the guidelines and those students
who did not meet the guidelines t(826)=1.12, p<.05.
The
mean number for compliers was 2.29 with a standard
deviation of 1.62.
The mean number of siblings for non-
compliers was 2.04 with a standard deviation of 1.53.
It
was interesting to note that 60% of the students who met
the milk consumption guidelines perceived that their
134
parents highly regarded healthful eating practices
x2(df=1)=13.24, p<.05.
Studies by Kirk and Gillespie
(1990) and Gillespie and Achterberg (1989) found that
parents regard for health and nutrition foster positive
eating behaviors.
Dietary Opinions based on Student Characteristics
The skill level to choose and prepare food differed
significantly for female and male students t(889)=5.25,
p<.05.
Females indicated more confidence in preparing
and choosing healthful foods.
This suggests that the
male university students in the kitchen during their
formative years.
Perhaps one could speculate that the
primary meal preparer (predominately the mother) was more
attentive in caring for their sons and the daughters were
"expected" to help in the kitchen and fulfill the
stereotypical role.
Females valued healthful foods and
overall health more than males t(889)=6.6, p<.05.
Students who prepared their own meals at home or an
apartment placed greater importance upon healthful food
and overall health.
They were also confident in choosing
and preparing meals t(889)=2.17, p<.05.
Those living in
housing groups, who had their meals prepared for them
indicated that they had healthful eating habits and that
healthful foods were convenient to cook t(889)=2.93,
p<.05.
The difference was that those preparing their own
135
food did not find time to prepare balanced meals whereas
those living in groups, had balanced meals but had no
perception of the time needed to prepare these meals.
Student Dietary Opinions Based on Family Characteristics
Students who perceived that their parents had
concern for healthful eating expressed that they also had
skills in choosing and preparing healthful meals because
they too were concerned about good nutrition and health
t(887)=6.01, p<.05.
A significant difference was
indicated in the students' dietary opinion regarding
their skill level and the emphasis of parental concern
for healthful eating and overall health F(543)=3.45,
p<.05.
The mom and dad category had the highest mean
(R=3.87) suggesting that the influence of both parents
was the most important in assisting in food choices and
preparation of healthful foods.
Compliance Based on Nutrition Knowledge
Significant differences were shown between compliers
and non-compliers with the fruit and vegetable guidelines
based on knowedge.
Students who complied with the fruit
guidelines had a higher nutrition knowledge mean score
(:=53.88) than non-compliers (R=51.62).
In the vegetable
category students who complied also had a higher mean
nutrition knowledge score (R=54.77) than non-compliers
136
(x= 52.25).
A two-tailed t-test was performed to
determine if differences existed between nutrition
knowledge score based on gender.
Females significantly
had higher nutrition knowledge score (55%) than males
(49%) t(890)=7.04, p<.05.
The overall nutritional
knowledge score of university students was low
considering 100% to be perfect.
Catpliance Based on Dietary Opinions (Skills, Resources, values)
In order to determine the benefits derived from
student skills, resources, values and family practices a
two tailed t-test was performed to determine if
differences existed between the compliers and non-
compliers for each food category in the above areas (see
Tables 4.22, 4.23, 4.24, and 4.25)
As observed in Table 4.22, the students who complied
with the fruit, vegetable, milk, meat/protein and sweet
categories had better skills in choosing and preparing
foods.
Concerning resources of cost, time and
convenience it can be observed that compliers in the
fruit, vegetable and milk were significantly different
than the non-compliers (Table 4.23).
In regards to
values a significant difference exists between the
compliers and non-compliers for the fruit, vegetable, fat
and sweets groups (Table 4.24).
Besides these individual
differences in regards to compliers and non-compliers an
137
overall score of current eating behaviors was calculated
based on gender.
Females had a higher score (X=2.77)
than males Ci=2.71).
The higher score for females
indicated that females currently reported better eating
practices than did males.
Compliance Based on Family Practices
Students who reported that their parents prepared
meals and that their family ate meals together when they
were growing up, met the fruit and vegetable
requirements.
Whereas students who reported that their
family did not eat together failed to meet the Food Guide
Pyramid guidelines.
The students indicated that they ate
mostly at restaurants, snacked and prepared microwaveable
foods.
It is also interesting to note that these non-
compliers also ate excessive amounts of fats and sugary
foods.
A significant difference was also noted between
compliers and non-compliers in the milk category.
Those
who met the milk category guidelines seldom skipped their
meals on a regular basis during their formative years.
The difference between the level of parental
emphasis was cross tabulated with the level of students
current emphasis for each food category.
This analysis
indicated that if parents regarded the food group as
being very important to consume, the students likewise
regarded the food group as very important.
If the
138
parents regarded a particular food group as not being
important to consume the students current emphasis in
that food group was not important as well.
The above differences contribute to important
baseline information about the dietary habits and
perception of this sample of university students.
One
important finding was that the majority of these
university students did not comply with the Food Guide
Pyramid consumption guidelines (see Table 4.9).
Generalizations based on the findings of this study are
made however in reference only to the sample of students
who participated in this study.
Conclusions
Five research questions concerning university
students' eating behaviors were addressed in this study.
They were as follows:
Research Question One:
Are the students current eating
patterns/practices in compliance with the Food Guide
Pyramid recommendations?
Using the Food Guide Pyramid as a tool in evaluating
the overall number of servings consumed in each food
group by university students, this study found that
students significantly need to improve their eating
practices (see Table 4.7).
Overall consumption for the
bread group by both males and females was below the
139
recommended number of servings.
Males did not meet the
guidelines for fruit or vegetables.
Females met the
guidelines for fruit but not vegetables.
However, both
males and females consumed an adequate amount of foods in
the meat/protein group.
Both females and males barely
met the milk guidelines and exceeded the recommended
number of fat grams to be consumed per day.
Reported
sugar consumption by both male and female students was
not in excessive amounts.
No sex differences were found in the compliance
guidelines for bread, fat and sweets, however,
significant differences were indicated for the milk,
fruit, vegetable and meat/protein categories (see Table
Two thirds of the males met the milk guidelines
4.8).
whereas 47% of the females consumed the recommended
number of milk servings.
Nearly 50% of the females
complied with the fruit servings as compared to 30%
males.
Approximately 16% of the female students complied
with the vegetable guidelines and 9% of the males met the
recommended number of vegetable servings.
Approximately
69% of the females and 61% of the males complied with the
meat/protein guidelines.
The underclassmen (freshmen and sophomores) complied
with the fruit and vegetable consumption guidelines more
than upperclassmen (juniors and seniors).
Significant
differences existed between students' ages regarding
140
meeting the guidelines for milk.
Students who lived
where food service was provided complied with the milk
consumption guidelines and had higher reported rates of
compliance.
Research Question Two:
Do university students have the
principles of general nutrition knowledge necessary to
select balanced meals?
The overall nutrition knowledge mean score for the
student population sampled was 51.8% which was low
considering a score of 100% to be perfect.
The majority
of the students identified the best food source that
contained calcium and the food source for vitamin C (see
Table 4.2).
Students seemed aware of fiber containing
foods and foods with the least amount of nutrients.
However, fewer number of students answered correctly
questions concerning complex carbohydrates, complete
proteins, cholesterol, iron and B 12.
Although the
overall nutrition knowledge scores were low, when testing
for significant differences for each food group based on
nutrition score, significant differences were especially
noted in the fruit and vegetable categories.
Students
who complied with the Food Guide Pyramid recommendations
had higher scores than non-compliers.
141
Research Question Three:
Do university students have the
skills, resources, and values to select or prepare
nutritionally balanced meals?
The total overall mean score of students'
current
eating behaviors was 38.39 which is somewhat low
considering 56 to be the ideal score.
Females (R=2.77,
SD + .33) had a significantly higher eating behavior mean
score than males (k=2.7l, SD + .38).
The results show
that female students were expected to help in meal
preparation during the formative years and male students
were not.
The higher score for females reflected that
their perceived current eating behaviors were better than
those reported by males.
The conclusion suggests that
females, during their formative years learned more about
meal preparation from their mothers who were the primary
meal preparers.
The results indicate that male students
were probably exempt from helping in meal preparation
during their formative years which now adversely affects
their ability to choose and prepare nutritionally
balanced meals for themselves.
Students who expressed having higher skill levels in
choosing and preparing balanced meals complied with the
fruit, vegetable, milk, meat and sweet categories (see
Table 4.22).
Students who had higher resource (cost,
time and covenience preparing healthful foods) mean
scores met the fruit, vegetable and milk categories (see
142
Table 4.23).
Students who had higher values mean score
complied with the fruit, vegetable, fat and sweet groups
(see Table 4.24).
The results show that the vast
majority of students need improvement in the consumption
of each food group (see Table 4.8) which is evidenced by
their overall nutrition knowledge score of approximately
50%.
The sample of students questioned need more
information to improve their perceived dietary opinions
regarding skills, resources and values.
Studies by Cypel
and Prather (1993) and Mitchell (1990) found that
students misunderstood nutrition concepts regarding food
and meal preparation.
Research Question Four and Five:
What factors prompt
university students knowledge, skills, and values
concerning eating behaviors? and Is the emphasis on
family and current eating behaviors, and nutrition
knowledge different between male and female students?
The major influence that impacts the university
students' knowledge, skills and values concerning eating
habits continues to be their parents. Two variables were
cross tabulated using chi-square analysis.
One variable
was the students' current level of importance in
consuming each food group.
The second variable was the
parents level of importance during the students'
formative years.
The analysis indicated that when the
143
students rated the food group to be important, the
parents likewise emphasized the food group to be
important.
In like manner, students who regarded a
certain food group to be unimportant reflected their
parents attitude toward that particular food group.
Parental emphasis either positive or negative regarding
each food group continues to be a major factor affecting
the perception of students (see Table 4.28).
Similar
conclusions were shown by Gillespie and Achterberg (1989)
and Crockett (1988).
Students characteristics such as sex and living
arrangements also affected students knowledge, skills and
values.
For example, family eating behaviors based on
the gender of university students showed a significant
difference t(890)=2.10, p<.01. During the formative years
for both genders, males mean score (R=3.04, SD + .37) was
significantly higher than females (R=2.99, SD + .39) in
response to family eating behaviors.
However, college
females (R=2.77, SD + .33) scored significantly higher
than the males 02.71, SD + .38) in response to the same
questions concerning these same eating behaviors.
The
higher score for females indicated that their current
eating practices were better than those of the male
students.
Females learned more than males during their
formative years in choosing and preparing meals.
Significant differences in nutrition knowledge based on
144
sex also was shown. Females nutrition knowledge mean
score (55%) was higher than males (49%).
Students who prepared their own meals at home or an
apartment placed greater importance upon healthful food
and overall health.
They were also confident in choosing
and preparing meals t(889)=2.17, p<.05.
Those living in
housing groups, who had their meals prepared for them
indicated that they had healthful eating habits and that
healthful foods were convenient to cook t(889)=2.93,
p<.05.
The difference was that those preparing their own
food did not the find time to prepare balanced meals
whereas those living in groups had balanced meals but had
no perception of the time needed to prepare these meals.
Discussion
The responses of the university students falls short
of the nutrition objectives set forth by the report
"Healthy People 2000".
In addition, the majority of
university students did not meet the Food Guide Pyramid
standards.
There were no surprises when differences in
compliance with regards to sex were compared.
Female
students complied better with the recommended number of
servings than males in the fruit and vegetable groups.
Studies by Beeman (1990) and Melby (1986) had similar
conclusions.
The responses of the students indicated
that the overall consumption of complex carbohydrates
145
rich in dietary fiber were consumed in inadequate amounts
(Table 4.8) which has been implicated in increasing the
risk of certain cancers.
The U.S. Surgeon General's
Report indicated that consumption of high fiber foods
(such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains) has been
correlated with lowering the risk of certain types of
cancers such as the breast, prostate and colon.
Both
sexes consumed an excessive amount of fat which is not
only linked to certain cancers but also to cardiovascular
diseases.
Cardiovascular disease continues to be the
number one killer in the U.S. due to a high fat diet
which has been strongly stated for many years (USDHHS
Report, 88-50210, 1988).
Another alarming result of this
study indicates that both sexes and particularly females
need to consume more calcium rich foods like those found
in the milk group.
Younger students who lived where
foodservice was provided did better in meeting the
recommended number of milk servings than older students.
As shown by the responses, when older students began to
prepare meals for themselves the number of milk servings
decreased.
Low calcium intake continues to be a major
concern for health professionals because of the chronic
bone disease osteoporosis.
This major skeletal disease
in which poor nutrition plays a role afflicts 15 to 20
million Americans (USDHHS Report, 88-50210, 1988).
The
total direct and indirect cost from osteoporosis to the
146
U.S. economy has been estimated to be between $7 to 10
billion (USDHHS Report, 88-50210, 1988).
The primary meal preparer during the students
formative years was the mother but now mothers are also
working outside the home.
found that 55.4%
A study by Senauer (1990)
women are now in the work force and
this increase of women working instead of being in the
home has changed the distribution of the family income
and the nature of food purchasing.
This increase of work
and income has placed a new emphasis on the value of time
and the need to pay for convenience and variety foods
(USDHHS Report, 88-50210, 1988).
To reduce their total
work load employed women decrease meal preparation time
(Axelson, 1986) and eat out and use more packaged foods
(Ortiz, MacDonald, Ackerman & Goegel, 1981).
This study also strongly suggests that this sample
of students were confused about nutrition and eating
healthfully.
The students overall nutrition knowledge
score was low and would be a failing score if tested by
academic standards.
This study found that the students
were not knowledgeable concerning the basics in general
nutrition such as complex carbohydrates, complete
proteins, cholesterol and B12.
The study also indicated
that students current eating behaviors were poor.
These
behaviors included skipping meals, not planning their
meals, snacking and eating when not hungry.
The total
147
overall summative score for current eating behaviors was
somewhat low (38.39) considering the score of 56 to be
the ideal.
The family characteristics of the sampled students
indicated that 86% of the students reported that their
mothers were the primary meal preparers during the
formative years.
The frequency of parental income
suggested that dual incomes are the norm.
The overall
summative score for family eating behaviors during the
formative years was low 42.28.
This score is only
average based upon a possible score of 56.
Crockett
(1988) found that parents can help or hinder their
children's eating behaviors.
In this study, students
whose parents were concerned with good nutrition and
health complied better with the recommended number of
servings for each food group based upon the Food Guide
Pyramid.
Gillespie and Achterberg (1989) found that if
mothers and fathers took the time to fix and eat
nutritious meals that their children modeled these
postive eating practices.
In reality the majority of
students sampled fell short of the standards set by the
Food Guide Pyramid recommendations outlined by the U.S.
government (see Table 4.7). Students who currently
believe they have the necessary skills to choose and
prepare meals were unable to apply their skills based
upon the actual analysis of the food frequency questions.
148
Students who valued nutrition and health did not
recognize their poor dietary habits and were unable to
attain to the standards set forth by the Food Guide
Pyramid.
This was possibly due, in part, to the
knowledge and skill levels of their parents.
Current
death rates due to these poor dietary practices attest to
these conclusions.
This study shows that the eating behaviors have not
improved for this segment of the American population even
though nutrition education programs have been available.
Young adults continue to consume high fat foods and foods
low in complex carbohydrates and fiber.
Documented
diseases such as heart disease, cancer and osteoporosis
will continue to be costly health problems for the
American people.
The solution to combat these diseases
is by nutrition campaigns and education.
We can not
continue using the current methods that are now
available.
Something must change in order to target poor
eating behaviors and improve the desire to eat healthful
and wholesome food.
Females should no longer be designated as the ones
doing the meal preparation.
Males must also assume meal
preparation responsibilities because of the increase of
women in the workforce.
Two distinct education programs
are needed now for university students.
One nutrition
program should target students in residence halls and
149
Greek houses.
These students need to be taught how to
select a balanced diet and how to make informed choices
in the cafeteria.
The second nutrition education program
must teach basic meal planning and meal preparation.
Finally, the nutritionists and health educators must
boldly speak out against the increased use of packaged
and processed foods.
Urgency to decrease the use of
convenience foods in the American diet is a must and more
emphasis should be placed toward the increased use of
whole grain foods, fruits, vegetables and smaller amounts
of protein rich foods.
Recommendations for Future Research
1.
A longitudinal study to include seasonal differences
would give a more comprehensive and accurate picture of
students' compliance of the Food Guide Pyramid
guidelines.
2.
Sampling from all regions in the U.S. would produce
a larger sample for generalizeable results.
3.
Further refinement of the questionnaire should
include specifics on family practices and current dietary
practices.
4.
Questions on general nutrition knowledge of each
student should be refined.
150
5.
In a future study, specific questions on self-
efficacy and environmental factors such as peer pressure
and media influences could be included.
6.
Specific biochemical assessments such as blood and
urine analysis could identify the students who are at
risk for nutritional deficiencies or excesses.
151
Bibliography
Aday, L.A. (1989). Designing and Conducting Health
Surveys: A Comprehensive. Josey-Bass Publishers, San
Francisco.
Axelson, M.L. (1986).
The impact of culture on food-
related behavior. Annual Review of Nutrition,
345-363.
Axelson, M.L. & Brinberg, D. (1992). The measurement and
conceptualization of nutrition knowledge. Journal of
Nutrition Education, 24(5):239-246.
Baghurst,
Hertzler, A.A., Reord, S.J. and Spurr, C.
(July/August, 1992). The development of a silple
dietary assessment and education tool for use by
individuals and nutrition educators. Journal of
Nutrition Education, 24(4): 170,171.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Though and
Action. A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1977). Towards a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191­
215.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification.
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. New York.
Barr, S.I. (1987). Nutrition knowledge of female varsity
athletes and university students. Journal of
American Dietetic Association, 87(12):1660-1664.
Beerman, K.A., Jennings, G. & Crawford, S.(1990). The
effect of student residence on food choice.
Journal of American College Health, 38(5):215-220.
Blaylock, J.R. & Smallwood, D.M. (1992). Per capita food
spending up and 25 percent in 4 years.
Food Review,
7-11.
152
Block, G. & Subar, A.F. (1992). Estimates of nutrient
intake from a food frequency questionnaire: The 1987
National Health Interview Survey. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 92(8):969-977.
Block, G., Thompson, F.E., Hartman, A.M., Larkin, F.A., &
Guire, K.E. (1992). Comparison of two dietary
questionnaires validated against multiple dietary
records collected during a 1-year period. Journal of
the American Dietetic Association, 92(6): 686-693.
Block, G. (1982). A review of validations of dietary
assessment methods, American Journal of
Epidemiology, 115(4):492-505.
Brief el, R.R. & Woteki, C.E. (1992). Development of food
sufficiency question for the third National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey. Journal of
Nutrition Education, 24(1):24s28s.
Clapp, J.A. McPherson, R.S., Reed, D.B. & Hsi, B.P.
(1991). Comparison of a food frequency questionnaire
using reported vs standard portion sizes for
classifying individuals according to nutrient
intake. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 91(3):316-320.
Contento, I.R. & Murphy, B.M (1990). Psycho-social
factors differentiating people who reported making
desirable changes in their diets from those who did
not. Journal of Nutrition Education, 22(1):6-13.
Cotugna, N., Sular, A.F., Heimendinger, J. & Kahle, L.
(1992).
Nutrition and cancer prevention knowledge,
beliefs, attitudes and practices: The 1987 National
Health Interview Survey. Journal of American
Dietetic Association, 92(8):963-977.
Crandall, C.S. (1987). Do men and women differ in
emotional and ego involvement with food. Journal of
Nutrition Education, 12(5):229-235.
Crockett, S.J. & Stuber, D.L. (1992). Prestige value of
foods: Changes over time. Ecology of Food and
Nutrition, 27:51-64.
153
Crockett, S.J., Mullis, R.M. & Perry, C.L. (1988). Parent
nutrition education: a conceptual model. Journal of
School Health, 58(2):53-57.
Cypel, Y.S. & Prather, E.S. (1993). Assessment of the
food perceptions of university students. Journal of
the American Dietetic Association, 93(3):330-332.
De Castro, J.M. & de Castro, E.S. (1989). Spontaneous
meal patterns of humans: influence of the presence
of other people. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 50:237-247.
Diliman, D.A. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total
Design Method. New York: Wiley, 1978.
Eck, L.H. & Willet, W.C. (1991). Considerations in
modifying a semiquantitative food frequency
questionnaire. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 91(8):970-973.
Falciglia, G.A. & Norton, P.A. (1994). Evidence for a
genetic influence on preference for some foods.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association
94(2):154-158.
Finnegan, J.R., Viswanath, K., Rooney, B., McGovern, P.,
Baxter, J., Elmer, P., Graves, K., Hertog, J.,
Mullis, R., Pirie, P., Trenkner, L. & Potter, J.
(1990). Predictors of knowledge about healthy eating
in a rural midwestern U.S. city. Health Education
Research, 5(4):421-431.
Frank, G.C., Nicklas, T.A., Webber, L.S., Major, C.,
Miller, J.F., Berenson, G.S. (1992). A Food
frequency questionnaire for adolescents defining
eating patterns Journal of American Dietetic
Association, 92(3):313-318.
Gillespie, A.H. & Achterberg, C.L. (1989). Comparison of
family interaction patterns related to food and
nutrition. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 89(4):509-516.
154
Glanz, K. & Mullis, R.M. (1988). Environmental
interventions to promote healthy eating: A review of
models, programs, and evidence. Health Education
Ouarterly, 15(4):395-415.
Gortmaker, S.L., Dietz, W.H., & Cheung, L.W.Y. (1990).
Inactivity, diet, and the fattening of America.
Journal of American Dietetic Association,
2a(9):1247-1252.
Green, L.W. & Kreuter, M.W. Health Promotion Planning: An
Educational and Environmental Approach. Mountain
View, California: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1991.
Haines, P.S., Popkin, B.M., & Guilkey, D.K. (1990).
Methods of patterning eating behaviors of American
women. Journal of Nutrition Education, 22(3):124­
131.
Hayes, A.E. (1989). United States government policies and
programs in nutrition and physical fitness. American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1.:1039-1041.
Hayes, D. & Ross, C.E. (1987). Concern with appearance,
healthy beliefs, and eating habits. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 2(1):120-130.
Hertzler, A.A. & Frary, R. (1992). Dietary status and
eating out practices of college students Journal of
American Dietetic Association, 92(7):867-869.
Jensen, H.H., Nusser, S.M., Riddick, H. & Sands, L.
(1992). A critique of two methods of assessing the
nutrient adequacy of diets. Journal of Nutrition
Education, 24(3):123-129.
Johnson, R.K., Smicikias- Wright, H. & Crouter, A.C.
(1992).
Effects of maternal employment on the
quality of young children's diets: The CSFII
experience. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 92(2):213-214.
Joseph, M.L. & Joseph, W.D. (1984). Research Fundamentals
in Home Economics. Burgess Publishing Company,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
155
Kant, A.K., Schatzkin, A., Block, G., Zregler, R.G., &
Nestle, M. (1991). Food group intake patterns and
associated nutrient profiles of the U.S. population.
Journal of American Dietetic Association,
al(12) :1532 -1537.
Kayman, S. (1989). Applying theory from social psychology
and cognitive behavioral psychology to dietary
behavior change and assessment. Journal of American
Dietetic Association, 89(2):191-193.
Kirk, M.C. & Gillespie, A.H. (1990). Factors affecting
food choices of working mothers with young families.
Journal of Nutrition Education, 22 (4):161-168.
Knowles, J.H. (1987). The responsibility of the
individual. In contemporary critical debates.
Nations Health, 376-386.
Krantzler, N.J., Mullen, B.J., Comstock, E.M., Holden,
C.A., Schutz, H.G., Grivetti, L.E., Meiselman, H.L.
(1982). Methods of food intake assessment-an
annotated bibliography. Journal of Nutrition
Education, 'A: 108-119.
Krebs-Smith, S.M., Cronin, F.J. & Haytowitz, D.B., &
Cook, A.
(1992). Food sources of energy,
macronutrients, cholesterol, and fiber in diets of
women. Journal of American Dietetic Association,
92(2):168-174.
Kucera, B. & McIntosh, W.A. (1991). Family size as a
determinant of children's dietary intake: A dilution
model approach. Ecology of Food and Nutrition,
26:127-138.
Larkin, F.A., Metzner, H.L., Thompson, R.E., Flega, K.M.,
& Guire, K.E. (1989). Comparison of estimated
nutrient intakes by food frequency and dietary
records in adults.
Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, a2(2):215223.
Larson, B.J. (1991). Relationship of family communication
patterns to Eating Disorders Inventory scores in
adolescent girls. Journal of American Dietetic
Association, 91(9):1065-1067.
156
Lewis, C.J., Sims, L.S. & Shannon, B. (1989). Examination
of specific nutrition/health behaviors using a
social cognitive model.
Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, 89(2):194-202.
Lieux, E.M. & Manning, C.K. (1992). Evening meals
selected by college students: Impact of the
foodservice system. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 22(5):560-566.
Logue, A.W. (1986). The Psychology of eating and drinking.
W.H. Freeeman and Company, New York, Chapter 6, pp
63.
Mayer, J.A., Dubbert, P.M., & Elder, J.P. (1989).
Promoting nutrition at the point of choice. Health
Education Quarterly, 1(1):31-43.
McGinnis, J.M. Richmond, J.B., Brandt, E.N., Windom, R.E.
& Mason, J.O. (1992). Health progress in the United
States. Journal of the American Medical Association
268(18):2545-2552.
McLeroy, K.R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A. & Glanz, K.
(1988, Winter). An ecological perspective on health
promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly,
j(4) :351 -377.
Melby, C.L., Femea, P.L., Sciacca, J.P. (1986). Reported
dietary and exercise behaviors, beliefs and
knowledge among university undergraduates. Nutrition
Research, L:799-808.
Mitchell, S.J. (1990). Changes after taking a basic
nutrition course. Journal of American Dietetic
Association, 90(7):955-961.
National Center for Health Statistics, 1989. Monthly
Vital Statistics report; vol 40(8) supp2.
Hyattsville, Maryland: Public Healtha Service, 1992.
DHHS Pub No (PHS)92-1120.
157
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey of Food Intakes by
Individuals. Women 19-50 years and Their Children 1­
5 years 1 day. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service,
Nutrition Monitoring Division: 1985. NFCS, CSFII
report no. 85-1.
Ortiz, B., MacDonald, M., Ackerman, N., Goebel, K.
(1981).
The effect of homemaker's employment on
meal preparation time, meals at home, and meals away
from home. Home Economics Research Journal, 2: 200­
206.
Pao, E.M., Mickle, S.J., & Burk, M.C. (1985). One-day and
3-day nutrient intakes by individuals-Nationwide
Food Consumption Survey findings, spring 1977.
Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 85(3):313 -324.
Pearson, J.M., Capps, O., & Axelson, J. (1986).
Convenience food use in households with male food
preparers. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 86(3):339-344.
Pennington, J.A.T. (1989)
Bowes and Church' s Food Values
of Portions Commonly Used. Harper Perennial 15th
edition.
.
Perron, M. & Endres, J. (1985). Knowledge, attitudes, and
dietary practices of female athletes. Journal of
American Dietetic Association, 85(5):573-576.
Portney, L.G. & Watkins, M.P. (1993). Foundations of
Clinical Research: Applications to Practice.
Appleton & Lange: Prentice Hall.
Putnam, J.J. (1991 July September).
1970-90.
Food Review, 2-11.
Food consumption,
Raper, N.R., Zizza, C. & Rourke, J. (1992). Nutrient
content of the U.S. food supply 1909-1988.
Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Home
Economics Research Report No. 50, 105 pp.
Ries, C.P., Kline, K. & Weaver, S.O. (1987). Impact of
commercial eating on nutrient adequacy. Journal of
American Dietetic Association, 87(4):463-468.
158
Schafer, R.B. & Schafer, E.
(1989). Relationship between
gender and food roles in the family. Journal of
Nutrition Education, 21(3):119-126.
Schapira, D.V., Kumar, N.B., Lyman, G.H., & McMillan,
S.C. (1990). The value of current nutrition
information. Preventive Medicine, 12:45-53.
Senauer, B. (1990).
Major consumer trends affecting the
US food system.
Journal of Agricultural Economics,
AI(3): 422-430.
Shannon, B., Bagby, R., Wang, M.Q., & Trenkner, L.
(1990). Self-efficacy: A contributor to the
explanation of eating behavior. Health Education
Research, 5(4) :395-407.
Shipley-Moses, E. & Dodds, J.M. (1987). Nutrition
surveillance and monitoring. Journal of Nutrition
Education, 19(3): 125-127.
Skinner, J.
(1979)
Teacher Characteristics Related to
Effective Nutrition Education for Adolescents.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State
University.
SPSS., Inc. (1990).
SPSS/PC + V2.0 base manual.
Chicago:
SPSS.
Story, M. & Resnick, M.D. (1986). Adolescents views on
food and nutrition. Journal of Nutrition Education,
1$(4) :188 -192.
U.S. Department of Commerce Economic and Statistics
Administration.
(1990, November). 1990 Census of
Population General Population Characteristics,
United States, 1990 CP-1-1.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Human Nutrition
Information Service. (1993). USDA's Food Guide:
Background and Development (USDA & HNIFS
Administrative Report, 389. Hyattsville, Maryland.
159
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (August, 1987).
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. Continuing
Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals Women 19-50
years and Their Children 1-5 Years 4 days(USDA &
HNIFS No. 85-4). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1985). Nationwide Food
Consumption Survey. Continuing Survey of Food
Intakes by Individuals Women 19-50 years and Their
Children 1-5 Years 1 day. (USDA & HNIFS No. 86-1).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1990).
Healthy People 2000: National Health, Promotion and
Disease Prevention Objectives.
(DHHS Publication
No.
(PHS) 91-50213). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1989).
Nutrition Monitoring in the United States: An Update
Report on Nutrition Monitoring.
(DHHS & USDA No.
(PHS) 89-1255), Hyattsville, Maryland.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1988).
The Surgeons General's Report on Nutrition and
Health. (DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 88-50210).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Welsh, S.O. & Marston, R.M. (1982). Review of trends in
food use in the United States, 1909 to 1980. Journal
of the American Dietetic Association, al(1):120­
125.
Willet, W.C., Reynolds, R.D., Cottrell-Hoehner, S.,
Sampson,
L., & Browne, M.L. (1987). Validation of a
semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire:
Comparison with a 1 year diet record. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 87(1):43-47.
160
Appendices
161
Appendix A Cover Letter
162
March 29, 1993
HELLO!
You have been selected to participate in a survey
about young adult nutrition.
The purpose of this study is
to assess the nutrition knowledge, eating habits, and
factors that influence male and female university students
eating patterns and dietary practices.
The results of this
project will be used to improve nutrition education programs
for university students.
Students from three public
universities have been selected to participate in this
study.
Your participation is voluntary and results will be
confidential.
When you have completed the questionnaire,
please place the questionnaire in the box provided by the
faculty member who is assisting in this research project.
Thank you for your help,
Janet K. Beary, M.S., R.D., CHES
Graduate Student
Department of Public Health
Oregon State University
Rebecca J. Donatelle, Ph.D. CHES
Associate Professor
Department of Public Health
Oregon State University
163
Appendix B Survey
164
SURVEY
PRACTICES
DIETARY
1. When selecting your food, how often do you think about the health risks
associated with your choices? (Circle one response)
a
NEVER
b
SELDOM
c
OFTEN
d
ALWAYS
2. When you were a child, what emphasis (importance) did your parents or
guardians place on your consumption of each of the following food groups?
(Circle one number for each)
HOW
IMPORTANT?
SOMEWHAT
NOT
VERY
DOESN'T
APPLY
(a) Bread Group
(b) Vegetable Group
(c) Fruit Group
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Milk Group
Meat/Protein Group
Fats/Oils Group
Sweets/Desserts Group
3. What emphasis (importance) do you place on your current consumption of each
of the following food groups? (Circle one number for each)
HOW
NOT
IMPORTANT?
SOMEWHAT
VERY
DOESN'T
APPLY
(a) Bread Group
(b) Vegetable Group
(c) Fruit Group
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Milk Group
Meat/Protein Group
Fats/Oils Group
Sweets/Desserts Group
4. How does your current consumption now for each food group compare to your
(Circle one number for each)
consumption while growing up?
LESS
(a) Bread Group
(b) Vegetable Group
(c) Fruit Group
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Milk Group
Meat/Protein Group
Fats/Oils Group
Sweets/Desserts
SAME
MORE
DON'T
KNOW
4
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
(PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE)
I
165
5. Please circle the response that best completes questions a. through o.
a. Which of the following is a good source of vitamin A?
1
CAULIFLOWER
2
PINEAPPLE
PUMPKIN
3
RED CABBAGE
4
5
I'M NOT SURE
b. Orange juice or a grapefruit contains what vitamin that we need daily?
2
A
B12
3
C
4
D
5
I'M NOT SURE
1
c. Which of the following has the greatest concentration of complex carbohydrates?
MILK
VEGETABLES
MEAT
CEREALS
I'M NOT SURE
1
2
3
4
5
d. Which food contains the best source of fiber?
ORANGE JUICE
1
2
LETTUCE
WHEAT BREAD
3
TURKEY
I'M NOT SURE
4
5
e. Which food provides a complete protein?
RICE
VEGETABLES
1
2
3
4
5
EGGS
PASTA
I'M NOT SURE
f. Which nutrient contains the most calories per gram (unit weight)?
PROTEIN
1
2
FAT
3
VITAMINS
4
CARBOHYDRATES
I'M NOT SURE
5
g. Which food contains cholesterol?
1
2
3
4
5
PLAIN YOGURT
OLIVES
AVOCADO
VEGETABLE OIL
I'M NOT SURE
h. Which food contains the best source of calcium?
1
EGG
2
MILK
SAFFLOWER OIL
BEEF
I'M NOT SURE
3
4
5
(PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE)
2
166
1.
Which carbohydrate provides the least amount of nutrients?
1
2
3
4
5
POPCORN
SOFT DRINKS
PRETZELS
APPLES
I'M NOT SURE
j. A low fat diet can result in which of the following nutrient being absorbed in
insufficient amounts?
POTASSIUM
1
RIBOFLAVIN
2
VITAMIN A
3
CALCIUM
4
I'M NOT SURE
5
k.
In a meatless vegetarian diet, which nutrient will probably be in short supply?
PROTEIN
1
CARBOHYDRATE
2
RIBOFLAVIN
3
VITAMIN B12
4
I'M NOT SURE
5
1. Which of the following meals do you think would have the lowest total fat
concentration?
GRILLED CHICKEN BREAST. PLAIN BAKED POTATO, PARSLIED CARROTS, APPLESAUCE
1
ROAST BEEF, MASHED POTATOES & GRAVY, GREEN BEANS, SUGAR COOKIES
2
FRIED CHICKEN, BISCUITS & GRAVY, CORN, PECAN PIE
3
TAMALES, BEEF & CHEESE ENCHILADA, REFRIED BEANS, & SOPAPILLA WITH HONEY
4
I'M NOT SURE
5
m. Iron is most readily absorbed from which of the following foods?
MILK
1
GREEN VEGETABLES
2
MEAT
3
4
CEREALS
I'M NOT SURE
5
n. Which of the following is an example of complementary proteins?
BEANS AND CORNBREAD
1
3 BEAN SALAD
2
PEANUT CASSEROLE (PEANUTS, ALMONDS, BEEF BROTH, POTATOES)
3
YAMS AND SWEET POTATOES WITH BROWN SUGAR AND BUTTER
4
I'M NOT SURE
5
o. Which of the following would contribute the most calories to the diet?
A MEDIUM POTATO
1
ONE HAMBURGER BUN
2
2/3 CUP OF COOKED RICE
3
TWO TABLESPOONS OF MAYONNAISE
4
I'M NOT SURE
5
(PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE)
3
167
6. Please circle one response to each statement(a through n)
that best describes
your situation while living at home with parent(s)/quardian(e).
WHILE LIVING AT HOME
NEVER
My parent/guardian cooked
(a)
at least one meal per day for me
OFTEN
ALWAYS
(1-3 times
per week)
(4-6 times
per week)
(daily)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
My parent/guardian used
(c)
fresh ingredients
1
2
3
4
My family sat down and ate
(d)
at least one meal per day
together at the kitchen /dining
room table
1
2
3
4
Our family ate meals
(e)
while watching television
1
2
3
4
My family used convenience
(f)
foods (microwavable dinners,
packaged food) for meals
1
2
3
4
My family ate one meal per
(b)
day at a restaurant, fast food,
or carry out
(g)
I skipped breakfast
1
2
3
4
(h)
I skipped lunch
1
2
3
4
I skipped supper
1
2
3
4
I snacked on chips, pop,
(j)
cookies, candy, crackers,
vending machine food etc
1
2
3
4
I was expected to eat my
(k)
meals with the family
1
2
3
a
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
(
)
(1)
I shopped for the groceries
As a child,
(m)
meals
I prepared my
As a teenager I prepared
(n)
my meals
7.
SELDOM
Please circle one response to each statement(a through
university.
n)
that best describes
your situation while attending the
WHILE ATTENDING
THE
NEVER
UNIVERSITY
SELDOM
OFTEN
(1-3 times
per week)
(4-6 times
per week)
I eat my meals while
(a)
2
1
watching television
(PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE)
4
3
ALWAYS
(daily)
4
168
WHILE
ATTENDING
THE
UNIVERSITY
NEVER
I eat my meals while
(b)
reading a book or newspaper
SELDOM
OFTEN
(1-3 times
per week)
(4-6 times
per week)
(daily)
1
2
3
4
I skip breakfast
1
2
3
4
(c)
I skip lunch
1
2
3
4
(d)
I skip supper
1
2
3
4
(e)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
a
I snack on (cookies/pop/
(f)
chips/candy/crackers, etc)
I try to eat
(g)
fresh ingredients
convenience foods
dinners, packaged
foods from
rather than
(microwavable
food, etc)
I eat my meals at a fast
(h)
food/carry out or restaurant
I eat nutritionally
(1)
balanced meals
I read food labels for
(j)
nutritional content to help
make my food choices
(k)
I eat when I am not hungry.
I eat my meals with
(1)
my friends or family
(m)
I plan my meals ahead of
time
I eat at the university
food service
(n)
8.
ALWAYS
Please circle the response to each statement that best describes your opinions
about your current diet. (Remember there is no right or wrong answer)
STRONGLY DISAGREE
DISAGREE
Lack of time pre­
(a)
vents me from having
healthy eating habits
The cost of food
(b)
keeps me from choosing
healthy foods
AGREE
STRONGLY
NO
OPINION
AGREE
1
2
3
a
1
2
3
4
5
4
5
Healthy foods are
(c)
3
2
1
less convenient to cook.
(PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE)
5
169
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
DISAGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY NO
OPINION
AGREE
When I have a
(d)
kitchen available to
cook, I can prepare
nutritionally balanced
meals for myself
1
2
3
4
I am confident that
(e)
I can choose healthy
foods when I eat out
1
2
3
4
5
I eat nutritionally
(f)
balanced meals
1
2
3
4
5
Healthy fOod choices
(g)
are an important
priority to me
1
2
3
4
5
Taste is more
(h)
important than how
healthy the food is
1
2
3
4
5
I would not be
(i)
concerned about my
eating habits until a
health problem or
disease occurs
1
2
3
4
5
9. When answering question 9, think about your usual eating habits for this
Put a NUMBER in the most appropriate column to indicate HOW
Past week.
OFTEN, on the average, you ate that food. For example if you eat bananas
2 times a day, put a 2 in the "day" column. If you didn't eat the food,
check ()"rarely/never".
Please do not skip foods. Also, be careful which
column you put your answer in. For example, it makes a big difference if
you eat "pizza once a day" when you mean "pizza once a week".
HOW
TIMES
AMOUNT
a
EXAMPLE:-Banana
EXAMPLE:-Pizza
DAIRY
Milk
Flavored yogurt
Frozen vocurt
1 medium
2 slices
DAY
OFTEN?
TIMES
a
2
8 oz
8 oz
8 oz
Cottaae cheese
1/2 cup
Cream cheese
Other cheeses
1 'Iblap
2 slices or 2 oz
Other(specifv)
FRUIT
Apples, oranges, banana
Grapes
Bananas
1 medium
(15)
1 medium
(PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE)
6
WEER
1
RARELY
/NEVER
17 0
HOW
TIMES
AMOUNT
FRUIT
Canned fruit
SAY
1/2 cup
Fruit -juice (anv kind)
6 oz class
Grapefruit
Fresh fruit
Dried fruit
Other(specifv)
1/2
1/2 CUD
2 Tblsp or 1 or
VEGETABLES
Cooked corn or peas
Chili with beans
Other beans (pinto, kidnev,etc)
Cooked vegetables (carrots,
(broccoli, cauliflower, etc)
Tcuatces, tcuato -juice
Taco sauce, salsa, chili sauce
Green salad
Other raw vegetables
Onion rincs
Other(scecify)
1/2 cup
3/4 cup
3/4 cup
1/2 c
(1) or 6 oz
2 Ibis°
1 med. bowl
1 cup
5-8 tines
FATS
2 pats
Marcarine/hutter
Nuts
Salad dressing any type
2 Thlsp
2 Tblso
1 Ttlsp
Mayonnaise
Vegetable Oil
Other(specify)
PROTEIN
FOODS
&
1 Tblsp
MIXED
DISHES
Peanut butter
1 Tblsp
Frig
1
Chicken/turkey(boiled/roasted/ste
2 sm or 1 lg DC
2 sm or 1 lg. pc.
Fried chicken
jianturgers/cheeseburcers/rreatloat 1 medium
4 oz
Beef steaks, roasts
1 cup
Beef stew or not pie
Pork, --chops, roasts
Bacon, sausage links or patties
Hot dogs
Ham or lunch meats
Spachetti/lasagna/pasta dishes
Pizza
2 chops or 4 oz
2
1
2 slices
1 cup
2 slices
Burritos
Mixed dishes with cheese
(such as macaroni and cheese)
Liver, including chicken livers
1
Fried fish or fish sandwich
4 oz or 1 le pc
1 cup
4 oz
3-4 oz
Fish (any kind) baked
Tina fish/tuna salad or casserole 1/2 cup
(PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PASE)
7
OFTEN'
TIMES
a
WEEK
RARELY
/NEVER
171
HOW
TIMES
AMOUNT
a
Shellfish(shrimp/lobster/ovster
Stir fry yea with Teat
souns(yeaetable or cream)
5,
DAY
OFTEN?
TIMES
a
WEER
1/4 cup or 3 or
1 CUD
1 Ted bowl
Other(specifv)
BREAD/CEREAL
Cereal
1 cup
Bun (hotdoa or hamturcier)
1 slice
1 bun
Crackers (saltines or qraham)
Cornbread, muffins or tortillas
1 med niece
Bread any kind
3
Bagel /biscuit /muffin
1
Rice/noodles
Pancakes/waffles/french toast
French fries
Potatoes, mashed
Potato/corn chips
Poccorn
1 cup
2 pieces
3/4 cur;
1 cup
2 handfuls
3 TUDS
Other(specify)
SWEETS
Cake, sweet roll, pastry, donut
1 piece
Pie
1 med slice
Cookies, regular size
Candy bar
3
Candy
Jam:ielly:honey:sugar
Rea soft drinks (decaffeinated)
Diet soft drinks (decal)
1 reg size
6 pieces
1 Tblsp
12 oz can
12 oz can
Fecr soft drinks (with caffeine)
12 oz can
Diet soft drink (with caffeine)
cther(specifv)
12 oz can
FINALLY A FEW MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU
10.
What is your gender? (Circle one number)
FEMALE
1
MALE
2
11.
What is your current academic status? (Circle one number)
FRESHMAN
1
SOPHOMORE
2
3
JUNIOR
SENIOR
4
5
OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
12.
What is your major?
(PLEASE SPECIFY)
13.
What is your age?
(PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PPLE)
8
RARELY
/NEVER
172
14.
Are you a U.S
1
2
15.
citizen? (Circle one number)
YES
NO(SPECIFY COUNTRY)
Where do you currently reside? (Circle one number)
RESIDENCE HALL
1
2
APARTMENT/HOUSE
LIVE WITH PARENT/GUARDIAN
3
4
SORORITY/FRATERNITY/COOPERATIVE HOUSE
5
OTHER(PLEASE SPECIFY)
16. What is your marital status? (Circle one number)
1
2
3
4
5
6
SINGLE/NEVER MARRIED
MARRIED
LIVING WITH PARTNER
WIDOWED
DIVORCED
SEPARATED
17.
What is your ethnic background? (Circle one number)
CAUCASIAN/EUROPEAN AMERICAN
1
BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN
2
HISPANIC(MEXICAN AMERICAN/LATINO/PUERTO RICAN/CUBAN/CENTRAL AMERICAN
3
ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER
4
NATIVE AMERICAN (AMERICAN INDIAN)/ALASKAN ESKIMO
5
OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
6
18.
What is your height? (PLEASE SPECIFY)
FEET / INCHES
19. What is your current weight? (PLEASE SPECIFY)
POUNDS
20. When growing up, who prepared most of your meals? (Circle one number)
MOM/STEP MOM
1
DAD/STEP DAD
2
SISTER OR BROTHER
3
4
YOURSELF
5
OTHER (SPECIFY)
21. Did the person who prepared most of your meals work outside the home?
(Circle one number)
1
NO
YES (if yes, specify hours per week)
2
22. How many brothers and sisters do you have?
(please specify number)
23. While you lived at home, were your parent(s)/guardian(s) interested in
nutrition and healthy eating? (Circle one number)
1
YES (specify who)
2
NO
(PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE)
9
173
24.
When you lived at home, what was your parents or guardians combined income?
(Circle one number)
1
LESS THAN $19,999
2
$20,000 to $39,999
3
$40,000 to $59,999
4
$60,000 to $79,999
5
$80,000 to $109,999
6
MORE THAN
$110,000
25.
Do you participate in an aerobic exercise activity such as bicycling,
jogging, walking, swimming, aerobics (class), etc? (Circle one number)
26.
1
NO
2
YES (please specify the number of times per week)
During the past 12 months, have you tried to lose weight? (Circle one number)
1
NO
2
YES (if yes, circle the letter(s) for the method(s) that you use)
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
reduce food intake (total calories)
exercise regularly
diuretics
purge (vomit)
laxatives
diet pills
diet programs
other(specify)
reduce consumption of fats
(THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING OUR SURVEY)
10