Comparison of Adolescent Obesity Risk Scale and Obesity Risk Scale to Determine Obesity Risk Knowledge in Parents in Tanna Woods by Journal of Clinical Case Reports Medical Images and Health Sciences
Comparison of Adolescent Obesity Risk Scale and Obesity Risk Scale to Determine Obesity Risk Knowledge in Parents in Tanna Woods by Journal of Clinical Case Reports Medical Images and Health Sciences
What is currently known?
Obesity risk knowledge has been measured inconsistently in research. However, two scales using standardized assessment measures have been identified to measure knowledge of obesity risk. The Obesity-risk scale (ORK-10) was developed in 2006 while the Adolescent Risk Knowledge Scale (AORK) was developed in 2015. Only the ORK-10 has been used consistently.
What does this article add?
This research adds comparison of both the AORK and ORK-10 scales within a single population of parents of preschool-aged children. It helps to assess the use of each scale to measure parental knowledge of health risks.
There was a significant difference between each parent’s score on the ORK-10 scale and the AORK scale (paired t-test: t = -25.13, df = 201, p = <.0001). The mean difference in the scores on the ORK-10 were 3.96 (SD=1.99, 95% CL: 3.68 to 4.23) and 6.99 (SD=1.82, 95% CL: 6.73 to 7.24) on the AORK. Both knowledge scales had outliers with the AORK having two low outliers with scores of 0 and 2 while the ORK-10 had one high outliers with a score of 9.
The Cronbach’s alpha showed an interitem variable of .122 and scale reliability coefficient of 0.70 for the ORK-10. The AORK had an average interitem covariance of .064 and a scale reliability coefficient of 0.61. There is a strong, positive correlation between AORK scores and ORK-10 scores (r=0.58, p < 0.001).
The scores were broken into three categories to better show the distribution with low equaling 3 or less, medium equally 4 to 6, and high equaling 7 or higher. With the AORK scale, most people (n = 134, 66.34%) had a high rating while 60 people (29.70%) had a medium and 8 people (3.96%) had a low rating. For the ORK-10, few people (n = 25, 12.38%) had a high ranking while 94 (46.53%) had a medium ranking and 87 (43.07%) had a low ranking. The spread of how parents scored on the AORK and ORK-10 scale grouped by demographics is displayed in Table 2.
Question 3: What factors are associated with the parents’ knowledge of obesity health risk?
Does parental recognition of their own weight predict the continuous score of either the ORK-10 or AORK?
One-way ANOVA was used to determine the association between parental factors and the total scores on each scale. With the AORK scale, parental BMI classification (F (3.58, 664.39) = 0.36, p =0.78), parental sex (F (1.12, 666.9) = 0.34, p 0.56) and ethnicity (F (22.06, 645.92) = 1.11, p =0.36) were not significant. Meanwhile, income (F (56.31, 582.69) = 2.27, p =0.02), age (F (42.76, 600.19) = 3.49, p =0.009), and education (F (70.38, 597.59) = 5.8, p =0.0002) were significant. For age, Tukey’s post-hoc test showed the mean value of AORK scores was significantly different between those making between $10,000 to $24,999 and those making $25,000 to $49,999 (p < 0.001). Tukey’s post-hoc test showed more significance between groups regarding the mean value of the AORK score and education. Statistical differences were identified between less than high school degree and some college but no degree (p <0.02), less than high school degree and bachelor’s degree (p<0.001), high school or equivalent and bachelor’s degree (p < 0.03), less than high school degree and graduate degree (p = 0.004), as well as high school or equivalent and graduate degree (p=0.03).
With the ORK scale, parental BMI classification (F (9.59, 788.09) = 0.80, p =0.49), parental sex (F (.82, 796.86) = 0.21, p = 0.65) and ethnicity (F (46.77, 750.92) = 2.02, p =0.06) were not significant. The one-way ANOVA between the ORK mean score and education (F(67.87, 729.82) = 4.58, p < 0.002), the mean ORK score and income (F(67.81, 712.17) = 2.24, p <0.03), and the ORK mean score and parental was statistically significant (F(61.91, 720.01) = 4.21, p < 0.003). Tukey’s post-hoc test for education showed there was statistical significance between less than high school and bachelor’s degree (p < 0.03), high school or equivalent and bachelor’s degree (p =0.05), and less than high school and graduate degree (p < 0.03). Tukey’s post-hoc test for age showed there was statistical significance between those aged 21-29 and 30-39 (p < 0.001) and those between 21-29 and 40-49 (p < 0.02).
Question 4: Do the continuous AORK or ORK-10 scores predict parental classification of weight (measured as correct or incorrect)?
Parental self-assessment of their BMI category was compared to their actual BMI category determined by self-reported height and weight (κ = .51, p <.0001). Binary logistic regression was used to determine the predication ability of the AORK and ORK-10 scores with parental classification of their weight (0 = incorrect, 1=correct). The percentage of correct assessment of weight was 63.9% (n = 129). No significance was found with either the AORK or the ORK-10. The binary logistic regression for the ORK-10 was -2 Log Likelihood =264.28, c2(5, n = 202) = .2.68, p = .75. The Nagelkerke pseudo R2 = .00 indicates the model accounted for no variance in classification. The binary logistic regression for the AORK was -2 Log Likelihood =263.75, c2(5, n = 202) = 3.58, p = .61. The Nagelkerke pseudo R2 = .004 indicates the model accounted for 0.4%.
Comments
Post a Comment