Updated-Food Choice Questionnaire: Cultural Adaptation and Validation in a Spanish-Speaking Population from Mexico

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Determinants and motives related to food selection have evolved in a globalized and changing world. The traditional and useful Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ), created in 1995, needs to be updated, adapted to new scenarios, and validated. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to: (1) assess face validity (FV) of the original 36-item FCQ, (2) generate an Updated-FCQ (U-FCQ) and assess its content validity (CV) (instrument suitability), and (3) evaluate its construct validity and reliability in a Spanish-speaking population from Mexico. METHODS: FV involved a panel of nutrition professionals (NPs) rating the original items' clarity, relevance, specificity, and representativeness. A literature review process updated the FCQ by adding new items. CV with a second NP panel allowed calculating content validity ratio (CVR). Construct validation was performed via exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA-CFA). Internal consistency through Cronbach's alpha (CA) and test-retest reliability via intra-class correlation (ICC) were assessed. RESULTS: The FV (n = 8) resulted in the modification of 11 original items. The literature review added 36 new items (15 from previous adaptations and 21 original items). The CV (n = 13) identified nine items (non-acceptable CVR), prompting reformulation of seven and removal of two. The NPs' feedback added six new items. The EFA-CFA (n = 788) developed a 75-item U-FCQ with eight dimensions: sensory appeal, mood, health and nutritional content, price, food identity, environmental and wildlife awareness, convenience, and image management. CA ranged from 0.74-0.97 (good-excellent) and ICC from 0.51-0.78 (moderate-good). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a useful instrument for the assessment of food choices and lays the groundwork for future cross-cultural comparisons, expanding its applicability in wider settings.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.