ArticleResearch square2025
Development and Psychometric Properties of a Self-Efficacy Scale for Healthy Meals in a Diverse Sample of Adults.
Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Many U.S. adults do not meet recommended dietary guidelines, partly due to low self-efficacy (SE) in overcoming barriers to preparing healthy meals. Existing SE measures are often lengthy, lack psychometric testing, and do not assess these barriers. To address this gap, we developed the Self-Efficacy Scale for Healthy Meals and examined its structural validity and reliability. Methods: The SE Scale for Healthy Meals was constructed following established scale development guidelines and refined through expert reviews, reducing an initial pool of 40 items to 11. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using a diverse sample of 139 adults, recruited both online and from a lifestyle medicine trial. CFA models tested one-factor ("Self-Efficacy") and two factor ("Situational Barriers" and "Resource Barriers") structures using robust maximum likelihood estimation. Construct validity was assessed through model fit indices, factor loadings, and inter-item correlations, while internal consistency reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and Raykov's rho. Results: The two-factor model demonstrated superior fit (RMSEA = 0.042; SRMR 0.052; CFI = 0.963; TLI = 0.952) compared to the one-factor solution, confirmed by a significant Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square difference test (ΔSB c Conclusions: The SE Scale for Healthy Meals has adequate psychometric properties, including good reliability and structural validity, when conceptualized as a two-factor measure. This tool is useful for designing and evaluating interventions to enhance cooking SE and promote healthy dietary behaviors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.