Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Validation of a brief, reliable scale to measure knowledge about the health risks associated with obesity

International Journal of Obesity volume 30, pages 661–668 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

Background:

Obesity represents a serious threat to health through its association with conditions such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease and certain types of cancer. Knowledge regarding risk to health is an important determinant of behaviour and is the focus of many health education strategies. To the authors’ knowledge, there is no valid and reliable measure of knowledge regarding the health risks associated with obesity.

Aim:

To validate a short, reliable psychometric scale measuring knowledge regarding the effects of obesity on health, the Obesity Risk Knowledge (ORK-10) scale.

Methods:

The ORK-10 scale was administered to a sample of individuals with no specific obesity-related expertise (n=230) and a sample of experts (n=200). Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were used to investigate the scale's criterion validity.

Results:

The ORK-10 scale has good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient>0.7) and is acceptable for use in a UK adult population with an estimated reading age of 12–13 years. The scale demonstrated strong criterion validity, as those with educational or vocational expertise in the field of obesity achieved significantly higher scores than nonexperts (median 9.0 vs 4.0, Z=−17.364; P<0.001). This relationship was maintained after controlling for the potentially confounding factors of age and level of education. Nonexperts demonstrated low levels of knowledge regarding the health risks associated with obesity.

Conclusions:

The ORK-10 scale meets standard psychometric criteria for reliability and validity. This scale could be used to assess the effectiveness of health education interventions, to target the provision of health information and to investigate the interaction between knowledge and obesity-related behaviour.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization. Obesity: Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic. World Health Organization: Geneva, 2000.

  2. National Audit Office. Tackling Obesity in England. National Audit Office: London, 2001.

  3. Bless H, Fiedler K, Strack F . Social Cognition: How Individuals Construct Social Reality. Psychology Press: Hove, UK, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Conner M, Norman P . The role of social cognition in health behaviours. In: Conner M, Norman P (eds). Predicting Health Behaviour: Research and Practice with Social Cognition Models. Open University Press: Buckingham, UK, 1996, pp 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Peak H . Attitude and motivation. In: Jones MR (ed). Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, 1955, pp 149–188.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Edwards W . The theory of decision making. Psychol Bull 1954; 51: 380–417.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. British Nutrition Foundation. Obesity. The Report of the British Nutrition Foundation's Task Force. Blackwell Science: London, 1999.

  8. Schmitz KH, Jeffery RW . Public health interventions for the prevention and treatment of obesity. Med Clin N Am 2000; 84: 491–512.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Burns CM, Richman R, Caterson ID . Nutrition knowledge in the obese and overweight. Int J Obesity Relat Metab Disord 1987; 11: 485–492.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hankey C, Lee A, Leslie W, Lean M, McCombie L . Nutrition knowledge in the overweight and obese does not predict inclination to attempt weight loss. Int J Obesity Relat Metab Disord 2004; 28: S136.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jebb SA, Lang R, Penrose A . Improving communication to tackle obesity in the UK. P Nutr Soc 2003; 62: 577–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Schar EH, Gutierrez KK . Smoking cessation media campaigns from around the world: recommendations from lessons learned, World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. http://www.who.dk/document/e74523.pdf (accessed 24/03/05) 2001.

  13. Department of Health. Delivering Choosing Health: Making Healthier Choices Easier. Department of Health Publications: London, 2005.

  14. Department of Health. Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation. The Stationery Office: London, 1999.

  15. Peberdy A . Evaluation design. In Katz J, Peberdy A, Douglas J (eds). Promoting Health, Knowledge and Practice. Open University: Buckingham, UK, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Price JH, O’Connell JK, Kukulka G . Development of a short obesity knowledge scale using four different response formats. J School Health 1985; 55: 382–384.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Banasiak M, Murr MM . Medical school curricula do not address obesity as a disease. Obes Surg 2001; 11: 677–679.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kan K, Tsai WD . Obesity and risk knowledge. J Health Econom 2004; 23: 907–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kline P . The Handbook of Psychological Testing 2nd edn. Routledge: London, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Oppenheim AN . Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement 2nd edn. Continuum: London, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP, Rogers RL, Chissom BS Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel Naval Air Station: Memphis Tennessee 1975.

  22. Office of National Statistics. Standard Occupational Classification 2000. The Stationery Office: London, 2000.

  23. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS . Using Multivariate Statistics. International Students Edition 4th edn. Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Parmenter K, Wardle J . Development of a general nutrition knowledge questionnaire for adults. Eur J Clin Nutr 1999; 53: 298–308.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Beier ME, Ackerman PL . Determinants of health knowledge: An investigation of age, gender, abilities, personality, and interests. J Pers Soc Psychol 2003; 84: 439–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Parmenter K, Waller J, Wardle J . Demographic variation in nutrition knowledge in England. Health Educ Res 2000; 15: 163–174.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Granello DH, Wheaton JE . Online data collection: strategies for research. J Couns Dev 2004; 82: 387–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Noar SM, Zimmerman RS . Health behavior theory and cumulative knowledge regarding health behaviors: are we moving in the right direction? Health Educ Res 2005; 20: 275–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kristeller JL, Hoerr RA . Physician attitudes toward managing obesity: differences among six specialty groups. Prev Med 1997; 26: 542–549.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the participants who completed the ORK-10 scale, both in the validation work presented in this paper and in the initial pilot phases. We would also like to thank Mrs Chris Hawkins, the British Nutrition Foundation, the Association for the Study of Obesity, John Lewis of Nottingham, Solihull, and Peterborough and DHL Aviation (UK) Ltd for their cooperation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Behavioural Sciences, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK

    J A Swift & C Glazebrook

  2. Biomedical Sciences, University of Nottingham Medical School, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK

    I Macdonald

Authors
  1. J A Swift
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C Glazebrook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I Macdonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J A Swift.

Additional information

Supplementary Information line accompanies the paper on Internation Journal of Obesity (http://www.nature.com/ijo)

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Swift, J., Glazebrook, C. & Macdonald, I. Validation of a brief, reliable scale to measure knowledge about the health risks associated with obesity. Int J Obes 30, 661–668 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803165

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803165

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links