Ildikó Papp , Edit Czeglédi , Ferenc Túry · Ildikó Papp1, Edit Czeglédi2, Ferenc Túry1...

Ildikó Papp1, Edit Czeglédi2, Ferenc Túry1

1Semmelweis University2Eötvös Loránd University

Jubiläumskongress Essstörungen 2010/Jubilee-Congress on Eating Disorders 20101

Paper read at the Jubilee Congress on Eating Disorders 2010, The18th International Conference, October 21-23, 2010, Alpbach, Tyrol, Austria

Western societies: negative attitudes towards obesity from early childhood.Negative prejudice and discrimination mayhave a deleterious effect on the mental and somatic health of overweight children. Assessing the type and extent of the stigmatization may be crucial in the development of adequate intervention programs.

2

Development of the Hungarian version of the Shared Activities Questionnaire.

3

Study design: cross-sectionalParticipants:

370 students (145 boys and 225 girls)10-15 years of age (Mage= 12.8 years, SD=1.14Mbody mass index= 19.3, SD=3.14). 42% in the capital city, 4% in rural cities, 24% in villages.

4

Children had to rate the four figures on the following questionnaires:

Hungarian version of the Shared Activities Questionnaire:

1. social subscale 2. academic subscale3. recreational subscaleVisual Analogue Scale Adjective Checklist

5

Hungarian version of the Shared Activities Questionnaire (SAQ-HU):

Morgan’s Shared Activities Questionnaire (Morgan, 1996).24 direct items

Three subscales (8-8 items):Social subscale: I would go with him/her to school with pleasure.”Academic subscale: „I would prepare with him/her the match homework with pleasure.”Recreational subscale: „I would spend my free time with him/her with pleasure.”

6

„Yes, maybe, or no”.Higher scores reflect a greater willingness to engage in activities with the target.Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; Latner et al., 2007)Adjective Checklist (Greenleaf et al., 2006): 18 positive adjectives (e.g., happy, friendly, busy) and 18 negative adjectives (e.g., unhappy, unfriendly, lazy).

7

I. The psychometric analysis of theShared Activities Questionnaire

8

Fit indices Normal weight boys

Normal weight girls

Obese boys Obese girls

χ2 (CMIN) 535.9 728.3 674.2 655.7Degrees of freedom

(DF) 249 249 249 249

CMIN/DF 2.152 2.925 2.707 2.633TLI 0.906 0.909 0.903 0.922CFI 0.922 0.925 0.919 0.935

RMSEA 0.056 0.072 0.068 0.067CI90 RMSEA 0.049–0.062 0.066–0.078 0.062–0.074 0.060–0.073

Number of items with low factor load

(<0.5)1 0 0 0

Range of factor loads 0.42–0.76 0.64–0.84 0.60–0.82 0.61–0.83

9

Normal weight boy

Normal weight girl

Obese boy Obese girl

Social subscale

Cronbach’salpha

0.87 0.93 0.90 0.93

Range of item-total correlation

0.2–0.68 0.63–0.80 0.61–0.76 0.64–0.78

Academic subscale

Cronbach’salpha

0.83 0.91 0.89 0.91

Range of item-total correlation

0.41–0.70 0.63–0.76 0.61–0.76 0.61–0.79

Recreational subscale

Cronbach’salpha

0.85 0.92 0.89 0.91

Range of item-total correlation

0.47–0.68 0.60–0.79 0.56–0.74 0.57–0.80

10

Adjective Checklist Visual Analogue Scale

Normal weight boys 0.36* 0.65*

Obese boys 0.54* 0.62*

Normal weight girls 0.51* 0.65*

Obese girls 0.59* 0.68*

*p<0.001

11

II. The confirmation of attitudes towards obesity

12

Mean SD Friedman test

Tukeytest

Cohen d

Social subscale

Normal weight boy 6.6 4.38

χ2(3)=313.6

(p<0.001)

T(1080)=12.69 (p<0.01)

0.51Obese boy 4.3 4.33

Normal weight girl 9.7 5.04 T(1080)=25.06 (p<0.01)

1.02Obese girl 4.7 4.66

Academic subscale

Normal weight boy 6.9 4.18

χ2(3)=223.5

(p<0.001)

T(1083)=9.16 (p<0.01)

0.33Obese boy 5.4 4.53

Normal weight girl 9.4 4.97 T(1083)=19.27 (p<0.01)

0.73Obese girl 5.8 4.84

Recreational subscale

Normal weight boy 5.6 4.12

χ2(3)=399.5

(p<0.001)

T(1095)=19.07 (p<0.01)

0.64Obese boy 3.1 3.77

Normal weight girl 8.5 5.11 T(1095)=27.81 (p<0.01)

1.04Obese girl 3.7 4.16

13

6,6

4,3

9,7

4,7

6,9

5,4

9,4

5,85,6

3,1

8,5

3,7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Average weightboy

Obese boy Average weightgirl

Obese girl

Mea

n

Social subscale Academic subscale Recreational subscale

14

The confirmatory factor analysis supported the hypothetical structure of the Hungarian version of the Shared Activities Questionnaire.

Internal consistency was satisfactory.

SAQ-HU showed moderate and strong, positive, linear connection with further measurements in this study.

15

There is a significant negative attitude towards obesity among children .The participants showed significantly less

willingness to engage in social, recreational, and academic activities with obese vs. normal weight peers.SAQ-HU is a promising measurement tool toassess attitudes towards obesity.The involvement of the questionnaire in further studies is suggested.

16

Greenleaf C., Chambliss H., Rhea D. J, Martin S. B, Morrow J. R. (2006): Weight Stereotypes and Behavioral Intentions toward Thin and Fat Peers among White and Hispanic Adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39: 546–552.Kline R. B. (2005): Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.Latner J. D., Simmonds M., Rosewall J. K., Stunkard A. J. (2007): Assessment of obesity stigmatization in children and adolescents: Modernizing a standard measure. Obesity, 15:3078–3085.Morgan, S. B., Walker, M., Bieberich, A. A. (1996): The Shared Activity Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

17

18