Calibration of the food parenting practice (FPP) item bank: tools for improving the measurement of food parenting practices of parents of 5–12-year-old children

Mâsse, Louise C.; O’Connor, Teresia M.; Lin, Yingyi; Hughes, Sheryl O.; Tugault-Lafleur, Claire N.; Baranowski, Tom; Beauchamp, Mark R.

doi:10.1186/s12966-020-01049-9

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

Table 2 Fit statistics for the Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA), Bi-factor Item Analyses (Bi-Factor), Item, and Response Modeling Analyses (IRM) for the three domains of food parenting practices

From: Calibration of the food parenting practice (FPP) item bank: tools for improving the measurement of food parenting practices of parents of 5–12-year-old children

AUTONOMY PROMOTION FOOD PARENTING DOMAIN
CFA / Bi-Factor	χ²	RMSEA [90% CI]	CFI	WRMR
CFA – Hypothesized 3-factor model	x²(df = 206) = 2294, p < .05	.113 [.111–.117]	.88	2.59	Poor fit
CFA – Revised 3-factor model	x²(df = 132) = 782, p < .05	.079 [.073–.084]	.95	1.68	Adequate fit
Bi-Factor: Autonomy support	x²(df = 117) = 658 p < .05	.076[.071–.082]	.96	1.32	Adequate fit
IRM	M²	RMSEA [90% CI]	CFI	SRMR	LD / DRF
IRM: Autonomy support	M²(df = 35) = 118 p < .05	.063 [.051–.076]	.92	.07	Borderline LD No DRF
IRM: Child involvement	Fit indices not computed when items are less than 10				No LD / No DRF
CONTROL FOOD PARENTING DOMAIN
CFA / Bi-Factor	χ²	RMSEA [90% CI]	CFI	WRMR
CFA – Hypothesized 5-Factor Model	x²(df = 619) = 5893, p < .05	.103 [.101–.106]	.89	2.88	Poor fit
CFA – Revised 5-Factor Model	x²(df = 424) = 2082, p < .05	.070 [.067–.073]	.96	1.70	Adequate fit
Bi-Factor: Coercive control	x²(df = 403) = 2514, p < .05	.081 [.078–.084];	.95	1.89	Adequate fit
IRM	M²	RMSEA [90% CI]	CFI	SRMR	LD / DRF
IRM: Coercive control	M²(df = 161) = 910, p < .05	.076 [.071–.081]	.96	.05	No LD /No DRF
IRM: Restrict for weight	Fit indices not computed when items are less than 10				1 LD / No DRF
STRUCTURE FOOD PARENTING DOMAIN
CFA / Bi-Factor	χ²	RMSEA [90% CI]	CFI	WRMR
CFA – Hypothesized 9-factor model	x²(df = 2309) = 14,889, p < .05	.083 ([.081–.084]	.61	3.30	Poor fit
CFA – Revised 9-factor model	x²(df = 743) = 2428, p < .05	.053 [.051–.056]	.91	1.67	Adequate fit
Bi-Factor: Nondirective support	x²(df = 12) = 56, p < .05	.079 [.059–.100]	.99	0.61	Adequate fit
Bi-Factor: Provide healthy eating opportunities	x²(df = 18) = 47, p < .05	.045 [.030–.061]	.99	0.56	Adequate fit
IRM	M²	RMSEA [90% CI]	CFI	SRMR	LD / DRF
IRM Nondirective support	Fit indices not computed when items are less than 10				Borderline LD No DRF
IRM Provide healthy eating opportunities	Fit indices not computed when items are less than 10				No LD 1 DRF by ethnicity
IRM Rules and limits	Fit indices not computed when items are less than 10				No LD / No DRF
IRM Redirection	Too few items for IRM and DRF analyses
IRM Meal routines	Fit indices not computed when items are less than 10				No LD / No DRF
IRM Covert control	Fit indices not computed when items are less than 10				1 LD / No DRF
IRM Accommodating the child	Fit indices not computed when items are less than 10				No LD / No DRF

χ² / M² = Chi-square; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; 90% CI: 90% Confidence Interval, where upper 90%CI less than .10 is indicative of a good fit; CFI = Comparative Fit Index, where values between .90 to 95 are indicated of a good fit; WRMR = Weighted Room Mean Residual, where values less than 2.0 are indicate of a good fit. SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Residual, where values less than .08 are indicative of a good fit; LD = Local Dependence; DRF: Differential Response Functioning

Back to article page

ISSN: 1479-5868

Contact us

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com