DEVELOPMENT OF A KNOWLEDGE SURVEY
AND FOOD COMPOSITION DATABASE
REGARDING TRANS-FATTY ACIDS
by
JENNY D’LAINE STROVAS, B.S.
A Thesis
In
NUTRITIONAL SCIENCES
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Approved
Brent Shriver, Ph.D.
Committee Chair
Carmen Roman-Shriver, Ph.D.
Committee Member
Mallory Boylan, Ph.D.
Committee Member
John Borrelli
Dean of the Graduate School
August, 2007
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my mentor, Dr. Brent Shriver, for his constant support and
encouragement throughout this research project and the completion of my master’s
degree. His counsel, both professionally and personally, has made this degree an
unforgettable experience during which I have learned so much. I would also like to thank
Dr. Carmen Roman-Shriver for her scholarly advice and expertise. Without her, the
survey would not have been the success it became. I would like to thank Dr. Mallory
Boylan for her time and support during this project. Her exceptional research advice was
invaluable. Special thanks go to Dr. James Surles and Dr. Du Feng for their statistical
expertise and assistance.
I would also like to thank my family and friends. My husband, Shawn Strovas,
continuously expressed his love, encouragement, and patience during the last couple of
years and I could not have made it through this degree without his support. My parents,
Gregg and Debbie Lloyd, taught me the importance of having a diligent work ethic,
which they have displayed continuously throughout their lives. I want to thank my dad
for understanding the frustrations involved in completing a master’s degree and my mom
for her constant willingness to help. My brother, Chad Lloyd, taught me the importance
of being content in the life you’re given, even when things are not going the way you had
planned. Finally, I want to thank my two best friends, Nova Coker and Haley McCall.
Nova always found the right words to say when I needed encouragement and Haley’s
undying smile could always put me in good spirits.
ii
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………ii
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………...vi
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………….…..viii
CHAPTER
I.
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………...1
Thesis Components………………………………………………..2
Conclusion………………………………………………………...3
II.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………………………………………...…..5
Background………………………………………………………..5
Hydrogenation…………………………………………….5
Ruminant Trans-Fatty Acids……………………………....6
FDA Regulation…………………………………………...7
Estimated Intake of Americans…………………………....8
Trans-Fatty Acid Knowledge……………………………...9
Trans-Fatty Acids around the World……………………...9
Trans-Fatty Acids in the News…………………………...11
Associated Health Risk…………………………………………..13
Trans-Fatty Acids and Coronary Heart Disease………...13
Trans-Fatty Acids and Cancer…………………………...14
Trans-Fatty Acids and Obesity/Type II Diabetes………...15
Trans-Fatty Acids and Allergies…………………………17
iii
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Trans-Fatty Acids and Breastfeeding…………………....17
Conclusion……………………………………………………….18
III.
METHODS…………………………………………………………...........19
Food Composition Database of Trans-Fat Content……………...19
Trans-Fat Data Collection……………………………….19
Trans-Fat Data Analysis………………………………....20
Trans-Fat Survey………………………………………………....21
Survey Development……………………………………...21
Validity Pilot Test………………………………………..24
Reliability Pilot Test……………………………………..26
Participant Incentives……………………………………27
Statistical Analysis……………………………………….28
Human Subjects Approval………………………………..28
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION……………………………………...........30
Trans-Fat Database………………………………………………30
Trans-Fat Values………………………………………...30
Trans-Fat Labeling……………………………………....31
Trans-Fat Survey………………………………………………....33
Sample Size……………………………………………....33
Incentives………………………………………………...35
Demographics……………………………………………36
Calculating Knowledge Score…………………………....36
Item Difficulty…………………………………………....37
iv
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Item Discrimination……………………………………...38
Chronbach’s Alpha………………………………………38
Test-Retest Reliability………………………………...….39
Factor Analysis…………………………………………..41
ANOVA Comparisons of Factor Scores……………….....42
Conclusion……………………………………………………….43
Tables 1-10……………………………………………………….45
V.
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………….59
Trans-Fat Database………………………………………………59
Trans-Fat Survey…………………………………………………60
LITERATURE CITED…………………………………………………………………..63
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………...67
A.
TABLES………………………………...………………………………….67
1. Pearson Correlations for the Two Reliability Groups………......67
2. ANOVA Comparisons of Categories ………………...…....…...70
3. Comparison of Food Data on Products that Contain
Trans-Fats…………………………..………………..…………71
B.
PRELIMINARY TRANS-FATTY ACID SURVEY…………………...…90
C.
PILOT TEST TRANS-FATTY ACID SURVEY………………………...108
D.
FINAL TRANS-FATTY ACID SURVEY……………………………….129
v
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
ABSTRACT
Food Composition Database of Trans-Fat Content
A food composition database was compiled in order to determine foods which
still had a significant amount of trans-fats post January 2006. Approximately 3,188
national brand name foods were included in the database, and 17% were found to contain
trans-fatty acids after the implementation of the labeling law. However, the ingredients
section of the food label was not checked for the presence of partially hydrogenated oil.
Trans-fat values were calculated according to grams per 100 grams of food product
which allowed for comparison of all foods regardless of varying serving sizes. This
information will aid consumers across the United States in buying food products with the
lowest amount of trans-fat possible.
Trans-Fat Survey
A trans-fat survey was developed and pilot tested post January 2006 to determine what
the public knew about trans-fats after changes in the food labeling laws were
implemented. The project was designed to create a valid and reliable instrument for
measuring a variety of parameters related to trans-fat, such as knowledge, attitude, belief,
behavior, and self efficacy in faculty members, students, and staff of Texas Tech
University. This population, although not directly representative of the nation as a whole,
would provide insight to the country’s current trans-fat knowledge levels. The survey
vi
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
was initially developed with 54 items, but the final measure only had 41 items. The
results from this pilot test justify the use of this tool to measure knowledge because it has
the ability to discriminate between groups of varying knowledge levels. Knowing the
current knowledge level of a population is vital as the enforcement of new regulations
regarding trans-fats take effect. If the public is uneducated in regards to trans-fat, then
they will not have the tools required to make smart food choices.
vii
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
LIST OF TABLES
1. Top Trans-Fat Containing Foods by Category Based on Product Label Data………45
2. KMO and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Determined if Factor Analysis was
Appropriate for the Data Set…………………………………………………………47
3. Student Response Rates According to Incentives Offered…………………………..48
4. Demographic Results of Validity Pilot Test Participants…………………………....49
5. Item Difficulty - Frequency of Knowledge Item Correct Responses……………..…51
6. Item Discrimination - Correlations between Knowledge Item and the
Knowledge/Factor Score………………………………………………………….…53
7. Chronbach's Alpha Scores Determine How Well the Items in a Category were
Related……………………………………………………………………………….54
8. Test - Retest Pearson Correlations of Reliability Group…………………………….55
9. Factor Analysis Loadings Indicate the Correlation Values between Item
and Factor Score…………………………….………………………………….…....57
10. ANOVA Comparisons of 3 Knowledge Groups According to the
Knowledge/Factor Score…………………………………………………….………58
A.1. Pearson Correlations for the Two Reliability Groups...............................................67
A.2. ANOVA Comparisons of Categories ……………...................................………....70
A.3. Comparison of Food Data on Products that Contain Trans-Fats…………...............71
viii
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Trans-fatty acids are unsaturated fats with at least one double bond in the transconfiguration, resulting in a more rigid molecule that is similar to a saturated fatty acid
(Larque et al., 2001). These fats are normally formed during industrial hydrogenation of
vegetable oils for food manufacturing and are typically found in fast foods, bakery
products, packaged snacks, and margarines (Mozaffarian et al., 2004). Approximately
80-90% of trans-fats consumed by Americans are from hydrogenated products (Harnack
et al., 2003); however, the other 10-20% are naturally occurring from ruminant products
such as beef, goat meat, mutton, and dairy (Bensadoun, 2003; Lock et al., 2003).
Trans-fats, produced during hydrogenation, provide no known benefit to human
health (Harnack et al., 2003), but are suspected to increase the chances of developing
certain diseases such as coronary heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. Studies suggest that
estimates of trans-fatty acid intake among Americans range from a low of 2.6 grams/day
to a high of 12.8 grams/day (Allison et al., 1999). The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) estimates that the average daily intake is 5.8 grams, or 2.6% of calories (Lock et
al., 2003).
The FDA issued a ruling in July of 2003 which declared that effective January 1,
2006, all food and dietary supplement makers were required to disclose trans-fat content
on their product labels (Ault, 2003). This ruling did not require a percent daily value
since there was no scientific basis to determine a daily value (Moss, 2006). The labeling
threshold for trans-fatty acids is set at 0.5 grams per serving (Lock et al., 2003);
1
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
therefore, a food company can lower their product’s trans-fat content by simply lowering
the serving size.
This ruling has the potential to confuse consumers who wish to purchase foods
with little or no trans-fat content. Because of these labeling issues it is important to
develop a database with standardized trans-fat values which can be easily compared by
any consumer. Also, it is important to understand what the consumers currently know
about trans-fats so education programs can be developed.
Thesis Components
The first component of this project involved compiling a food composition
database in which only fat containing foods were included. This information was
collected at a United Supermarket located in Lubbock, TX. Food composition values
were recorded after January 2006 to ensure the most complete database of trans-fat
content. After data collection, food items were compared to assess what kinds of foods
still contain trans-fats and in what amounts.
The purpose of the food composition database was to determine foods which still
had a significant amount of trans-fats post January 2006. Serving size and trans-fat
amounts were evaluated to determine if products which seem to have a small amount of
trans-fat actually had a large amount. This information will aid consumers across the
United States in buying food products with the lowest amount of trans-fat possible.
The second component involved developing and pilot testing a trans-fat knowledge
survey. The survey was conducted post January 2006 to determine what the public knew
2
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
about trans-fats after changes in the food labeling laws were implemented. The survey
was also designed to determine behavior, belief, attitude, and self efficacy towards transfats. The testing of this measurement tool focused on the following issues:
•
Test-retest reliability (Pearson’s correlation tests the reproducibility of a set of
items by administering the survey twice over a period of time when no change in
knowledge is expected);
•
Internal consistency (Chronbach’s alpha tests how well a group of items measure
the same issue);
•
Face and content validity (tests how appropriate a set of items are according to
untrained judges and experts);
•
Construct validity (tests how meaningful an instrument is by discriminating
between people with different knowledge levels).
The purpose of the trans-fat survey was to determine knowledge, attitude, belief,
behavior, and self efficacy in faculty members, students, and staff of Texas Tech
University. This population, although not directly representative of the nation as a whole,
would provide insight to the country’s current trans-fat knowledge levels. Knowing the
current knowledge level of a population is vital as the enforcement of new regulations
regarding trans-fats take effect. If the public is uneducated in regards to trans-fat then
they will not have the tools required to make smart food choices.
Conclusion
It is imperative that we, as a nation, are educated in regards to trans-fats.
Education will give us the tools to make healthy choices and therefore reduce the risk of
heart disease and possibly other life threatening diseases in our population. The first step
3
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
in educating the public is to determine what they already know and which foods contain
trans-fats in commercially available food products. Without this information, our efforts
to make trans-fat content available on food products will be futile.
4
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Background
Trans-fatty acids are unsaturated fats with at least one double bond in the transconfiguration (Larque et al., 2001), and are normally formed during industrial
hydrogenation of vegetable oils (Mozaffarian et al., 2004). Trans-fats provide no known
benefit to human health (Harnack et al., 2003), but are suspected to increase the chances
of developing certain diseases such as coronary heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. The
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that the average daily intake is 5.8 grams
(Lock et al., 2003); however, the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine
reports that any amount is harmful and consumption should be avoided (Ault, 2003).
Hydrogenation
Hydrogenation involves applying high temperatures with metal catalysts and
pressurized hydrogen gas to convert liquid oils to a semi-solid form (National
Cattleman’s Beef Association [NCBA], 2003). At the chemical level, hydrogenation is
simply adding hydrogens to a carbon, carbon double bond to create a carbon, carbon
single bond. However, during this process, some carbons retain their double bond but
switch from a cis to a trans configuration, thus resulting in industrially produced transfats.
5
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Hydrogenation of oils adds shelf life, flavor maintenance, and favorable textural
properties (NCBA, 2003). The purpose of using hydrogenated oils for preparation of
fried foods is to decrease the tendency of polyunsaturated oils to be peroxidized at high
temperatures and to increase the time that the oils can be stored without becoming rancid
(Bensadoun, 2003).
Ruminant Trans-Fatty Acids
The major sources of dietary trans-fatty acids before the turn of the century were
foods containing lipids from ruminant animals such as cows, sheep, and goats
(Lichtenstein et al., 1995). However, currently these foods are only responsible for 1020% of our total trans-fat intake (Lock et al., 2003). When ruminant animals ingest
unsaturated fatty acids, the fatty acids are partially hydrogenated as a result of bacterial
fermentation in the rumen (Bensadoun, 2003). The trans-fats created are structurally
different (specifically the chain length and location of the carbon-carbon double bond)
than man-made trans-fats and therefore act differently in terms of health effects.
The two naturally occurring trans-fats from animal sources are conjugated linoleic
acid (CLA) and vaccenic acid (VA). Conjugated linoleic acid research with animal
models has demonstrated beneficial effects such as protection against cancer, heart
disease, and obesity. Vaccenic acid is a precursor to CLA and thus potentially offers
health benefits as well. Due to the unique and possibly beneficial properties of CLA and
VA, the FDA excludes them from being listed on nutritional fact labels (NCBA, 2003).
Trans-fats can also be present in pork and poultry at low levels as a result of the animals
consuming feeds that contain trans-fats (Bensadoun, 2003).
6
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
FDA Regulations
After compelling evidence suggested that trans-fatty acid intakes were associated
with Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) risk, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
proposed a ruling in 1999 to include trans-fat content in foods on the nutrition fact
section of food labels. The FDA stated that trans-fat labeling would allow consumers to
make purchase decisions that take dietary recommendations into account (Moss, 2006).
In July of 2003, the FDA issued the final ruling on trans-fat labeling which
declared that effective January 1, 2006, all food and dietary supplement makers were
required to disclose trans-fat content on their product labels (Ault, 2003). The final
ruling did not require a percent daily value since there was no scientific basis to
determine a daily value (Moss, 2006). Prior to this ruling, FDA regulations did not
require trans-fatty acid information on food labels; which provided an incentive for
manufacturers to “hide” the trans-fat content of their (Ascherio et al., 1999).
The labeling threshold for trans-fatty acids is set at 0.5 grams per serving (Lock et
al., 2003), which does not do much to inform the American public about trans-fats since
the serving size can be manipulated to disclose little or no trans fat content. According to
the 2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the FDA Food Advisory committee,
and the American Heart Association, less than 1% of energy should come from trans-fats
(Lichtenstein et al., 2006). The National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine
reports that any amount is harmful and consumption should be avoided (Ault, 2003).
The FDA estimated that adding trans-fat information to labels will lead to the
prevention of 600-1200 cases of CHD and 240-480 deaths annually, saving between $900
million to $1.8 billion annually due to reduced medical costs, pain and suffering, and
7
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
greater productivity (Moss, 2006). The American Dietetic Association (ADA) reported
that the new trans-fat information will help consumers make wiser choices (Hess et al.,
2005). However, if the public does not have adequate knowledge of the effects of transfats on their health, why would they be willing to make wise food choices? Major
consumer advocacy groups note that this ruling creates a big loophole by failing to
include restaurants (Ault, 2003). Even in 1999, when the first trans-fat ruling was made,
the comments that were generated raised concerns about the absence of consumer studies
to determine how the proposed ruling would be perceived (Moss, 2006).
Estimated Intake of Americans
Estimates of trans-fat intake by Americans range from a low of 2.6g/day to a high
of 12.8g/day. The results from a study done by Allison et al. 1999 show that, on average,
the US population consumes 5.3g/day of trans-fats which equal about 2.6% of their total
energy and 7.4% of their fat energy. Similarly, the FDA estimates that the average daily
intake is 5.8 grams, or 2.6% of calories (Lock et al., 2003).
Most studies used a food frequency questionnaire or a food record to determine
individual trans-fat intake. These forms of data collection are limited due to food
generalizations or the inaccuracy of a participant’s personal food record. Individual
trans-fat intake was then estimated using a food composition table, which can result in
large errors. These tables average the trans-fat content for many different brands of a
certain food, even though the amount of trans-fat in these brands could vary greatly. This
averaging technique skews the results and causes any prediction of individual dietary
8
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
TFA content to be highly questionable (Brent Shriver, personal communication, January
25, 2006).
Trans-Fatty Acid Knowledge
According to a 2005 study by Hess et al., trans-fat knowledge is related to
multiple factors, which include marital status, education level, and use of food labels.
Participants who were married had significantly higher scores than those who were
single. Results showed that those with a bachelor’s degree or higher had more trans-fat
knowledge than those without a bachelor’s degree. Results also showed that people who
regularly looked at the nutrition facts section of food labels scored higher in trans-fat
knowledge.
Since this study was conducted before 2006, the participants were asked if they
would change their eating behaviors after trans-fat labeling was required. The
participants who reported that label changes would not affect their food choices said it
was because they did not feel that they had enough information to make an educated
decision (Hess et al., 2005). This study showed that without proper education, trans-fat
labeling will not lead to the extensive benefits that the FDA proposed. If the public does
not know what a trans-fat is and how it can affect their health, then they are likely to
make unhealthy food choices, even when the proper information is given to them.
Trans-Fatty Acids around the World
Denmark is an exceptional country with regards to protecting its population from
consumption of the potentially harmful trans-fatty acids. The government introduced
9
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
legislation effective in January of 2004 that limited trans-fats to a minimum of 2% of the
total fat in any food product. This legislation has had no noticeable effect on price,
quality, or availability of food products that previously contained high amounts of transfats. In 2001, eating a high trans-fat meal in Denmark could equate to 30g of trans-fat
per day. However, after creating legislation to restrict trans-fat amounts, the same meal
in 2005 resulted in consumption of less than 1g of trans-fat. These results prove that
similar food items can be produced with or without trans-fatty acids (Stender et al.,
2006).
A study conducted by Stender et al. (2006) gathered trans-fat data on 542 food
products in 26 different countries between 2004 and 2006. Results showed that the transfat content of frying oils from specific fast food restaurant chains differed substantially
among countries. One serving of a McDonald’s food product in Copenhagen had only 1g
of trans-fat; however, the same food product in New York City had 10g of trans-fat.
Portugal, USA, France and Spain all had popcorn products that used fats containing 4050% trans-fats.
A review, by Craig-Schmidt 2006, stated that North American average daily
intake of trans-fat was 3-4g per person per day according to food frequency
questionnaires, and 10g per person per day according to biological tests conducted by
extrapolation of human milk. Northern European diets typically had higher trans-fat
intakes than those from the Mediterranean where olive oil is used when cooking, or in
France where ruminant fats are typically used. Australian diets ranged from 3-8g per
person per day, which is somewhat lower than Western diets. Traditional diets in Japan
10
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
and Korea contain much smaller amounts of trans-fats. Japan estimates an intake of 0.10.3g per person per day, while Korea estimates an intake of 0.6g per person per day.
Trans-Fatty Acids in the News
On June 8, 2006, Wendy’s Corporation announced that it would be switching to
an oil that provides 0 grams of trans-fat per serving. The restaurant’s fried chicken
products will have no trans-fat, while their french fries will have 0.5 grams of trans-fat.
This is a vast improvement from Wendy’s large portion of french fries which used to
contain 7 grams of these harmful fats. This restaurant is going beyond simply switching
to a healthier oil by working directly with its french fry suppliers to reduce the amount of
trans-fats that are introduced during the par frying process. Wendy’s Corporation was the
first national hamburger chain to use a non-hydrogenated oil in the U.S. (”Wendy’s
significantly cuts trans fats,” 2006).
On October 30, 2006, KFC Corporation announced that it would stop frying
chicken products in partially hydrogenated oils. The chain stated that by April of 2007,
all 5,500 U.S. restaurants would switch to this new oil; however, it would not be used
when preparing all of its menu items. The KFC biscuit, although not fried, is prepared
using a trans-fat shortening, and ingredient that has proven difficult for them to replace.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest dropped its lawsuit over the trans-fat content
of KFC’s foods after hearing about their intentions to cook with a new oil that is less
likely to cause heart disease (Caruso, 2006).
On December 5, 2006, the New York City Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene officially banned restaurants from using oil that contained more than 0.5g of
11
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
trans-fat per serving. The restaurants were given a deadline which required that by July
1, 2008 every food item that is not in the manufacturer's original packaging has to have
less than 0.5 grams of trans-fat. Some restaurant owners were excited about the ruling
stating that they had no desire to offer harmful foods to their customers and were in favor
of eliminating partially hydrogenated oils. Others believe that the City’s Department of
Health went beyond its bounds because the members were appointed by the mayor and
not elected by the public. Many believe that the national implications of this ruling will
have a domino effect resulting in establishment of trans-fat free cities across the country
(Frumkin, 2006).
On June 19, 2006, Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center released a
statement regarding research it had been conducting for the past 6 years. The research
involved male monkeys that were fed either a western-style diet with trans-fats or a diet
that contained monounsaturated fats, such as olive oil. Both groups were given the same
amount of calories with 35 percent of the calories from fat and 8 percent from either trans
or monounsaturated fat. The monkey’s caloric intake was intended to be enough to
maintain their weight, not increase it. The monkeys on the trans-fat diet had a 7.2 percent
increase in body weight, while the control group only had a 1.8 percent increase. The
monkeys receiving the western diet deposited 30 percent more fat in their abdomen,
which is a risk factor for diabetes and heart disease in humans. This 6 year study in
monkeys is assumed to be equal to a 20 year study in humans (Conn et al., 2006).
12
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Associated Health Risks
Trans-Fatty Acids and Coronary Heart Disease
Concerns have been raised for many decades that the consumption of trans-fatty
acids may have contributed to the 20th century epidemic of coronary heart disease (CHD)
(Ascherio et al., 1999). This hypothesis is supported by the numerous and consistent
studies showing the positive relationship between high trans-fat intake and increased risk
for CHD. The association with CHD is related to the fact that trans-fats increase LDL
cholesterol levels (Low Density Lipoprotein or the so-called “bad” cholesterol) and
decrease HDL cholesterol levels (High Density Lipoprotein or the so-called “good”
cholesterol). This combined effect on the ratio of LDL to HDL cholesterol was
approximately double that of saturated fatty acids (Ascherio et al., 1999), and thus, was
considered a powerful gauge for the risk of CHD (Science News 1990). HDL is called
the “good” cholesterol because it retrieves “bad” cholesterol from peripheral cells and
returns it to the liver. This process, called reverse cholesterol transport, reduces fatty
plaque formation and therefore is correlated with a decreased risk of CHD (Gropper et
al., 2005).
In the 2006 study by Lichtenstein et al., HDL levels of subjects was highest after
they consumed a butter-enriched diet and lowest after they consumed a stick margarine
enriched diet. Therefore, those individuals who replaced butter with margarine with the
intentions of reducing their risk for CHD could actually be increasing their risk (Ascherio
et al., 1999).
13
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
In the 2003 study by Baylin et al., investigators used adipose tissue biomarkers to
examine the association between trans-fatty acids and the risk of myocardial infarction
(MI) in Puerto Rican adults. Eligible subjects were survivors of a first acute MI and
control subjects from the same population had not been diagnosed with heart disease.
Fatty acids were extracted from the adipose tissue and assessed by gas-liquid
chromatography. After adjusting for multiple variables, the result showed that total
adipose tissue trans-fat was associated with increased risk of MI.
A multi-country study (Aro & Kardinaal, 1995) was conducted in Europe and
identified as the Euramic Study. The subjects included men with either first acute
myocardial infarction (AMI), or without a history of AMI. Subjects were residents of
their particular countries who had not changed their diet for health reasons or gained 5kg
in the past year. Adipose tissue and serum samples were taken and analyzed in the same
location using gas chromatography. Differences in dietary intake of trans-fats were
considerable between countries; however, the results found no significant difference in
adipose tissue trans-fat between cases and controls.
Trans-Fatty Acids and Cancer
Results from numerous studies examining trans-fatty acids and their effect on
cancer development are conflicting. The EURAMIC study demonstrated a positive
association between trans-fat intake and the incidence of breast and colon cancer, but not
prostate cancer, while the Holmes study found no association between trans-fats and
breast cancer (Stender & Dyerberg, 2004). Although data from human studies is limited,
14
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
it is hypothesized that trans-fats could increase the risk of cancer through alteration of
immune response, cell wall integrity, and prostaglandin synthesis (Slattery et at., 2001).
Many shortcomings from studies are related to their use of food frequency
questionnaires to obtain information on the amount of trans-fat ingested by each
individual. One study suggested that adipose tissue represented a stable, long-term
reservoir that included exposure levels of trans-fats over time, and therefore, was a much
better method to assess trans-fat consumption than a dietary recall (Kohlmeier, 1997).
The Slattery et al. 2001 study concerning colon cancer reported no increased risk
from ingesting cis fatty acids, while there was an increased risk from ingesting trans-fatty
acids. Conjugated linoleic acid, a naturally occurring trans-fatty acid, is thought to have
anticarcinogenic properties in animal studies. This protective health claim could not be
confirmed by an epidemiological study conducted by Voorips et al. 2002. The evidence
supporting the hypothesis that trans-fats increase the risk of developing cancer remains
inconclusive.
Trans-Fatty Acids and Obesity/Type II Diabetes
Excess body fat resulting from an imbalance between energy intake and physical
activity is the primary risk for type II diabetes, but dietary fat is also thought to be a
factor. However, the long-term effects of specific types of dietary fat on diabetes and
insulin resistance remain unclear, partly because the number of epidemiological studies
on this subject is insufficient (Salmeron et al., 2001).
The 2001 study by Salmeron et al. concluded that total, saturated, and
monounsaturated fatty acid intakes were not associated with risk for type II diabetes in
15
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
women, but intake of trans-fat increased risk while intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids
decreased risk. Replacing 2% of energy from trans-fat with carbohydrate was associated
with a 28% lower risk of diabetes, while replacing trans-fat with polyunsaturated fatty
acids was associated with a 40% lower risk. Because the average American intake of
trans-fat from partially hydrogenated vegetable oil is about 3% of their energy, it is
assumed that the incidence of type II diabetes could be reduced by more than 40% by
substituting trans-fat with polyunsaturated fatty acids.
In the United States, obesity continues to rise while fat intake appears to be
declining, which Bray has termed “The American Paradox.” This suggests that total fat
and individual fatty acids have to be taken into account when reaching conclusions about
obesity and dietary fat (Bray et al., 2002). An animal study, reviewed by Bray et al.
2002, showed that a long-term (>30 weeks) high fat diet produced irreversible body
weight, but those who switched back to a low fat diet after 18 weeks were able to return
to their original weight. This study indicates that long term feeding of a high fat diet may
produce irreversible effects.
The 2002 study by Lovejoy et al. compared the effects of saturated, trans, and
monounsaturated fat diets on insulin action in 25 healthy, nonobese men and women. It
was a randomized, crossover, double-blind, controlled-feeding trial with a 2 week
washout period between diets. Results showed that dietary fatty acid composition did not
have an impact on insulin sensitivity or secretion in lean individuals; however, it did have
a significant effect on fat oxidation. Subjects on the monounsaturated diet oxidized the
least fat, while those on the trans-fat diet oxidized the most. These studies present a
strong argument that both consumption of total fat and individual fatty acids need to be
16
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
taken into account when reaching conclusions about risk for obesity and diabetes.
Additional studies are needed to elucidate these preliminary findings.
Trans-Fatty Acids and Allergies
The 1999 study by Welland et al. reported a positive association between the
intake of trans-fatty acids and the prevalence of symptoms of allergic rhino
conjunctivitis, which is an allergen-induced inflammatory response. This was due to the
influence of trans-fat on the desaturation and chain elongation of n-6 and n-3 fatty acids
into precursors of inflammatory mediators, such as prostaglandins and leukotrienes. It
appears that these effects may be stronger for industrially produced trans-fats than for
ruminant trans-fats.
Trans-Fatty Acids and Breastfeeding
The total amount of fatty acids in human breast milk is dependent upon maternal
diet, gestational age, and stage of lactation. Approximately 30% of all fatty acids in
breast milk comes from the maternal diet (Mojska et al., 2003). Since humans are unable
to synthesize trans isomers of fatty acids, maternal milk accurately reflects the daily
dietary intake of trans fatty acids (Mojska et al., 2003, Largue et al., 2001).
The 2003 study by Mojska et al. analyzed breast milk samples for trans-fat
content in 100 exclusively breastfeeding Polish women. At 9-10 weeks of lactation each
woman completed a 7 day dietary record to establish their food and nutrient intake.
Results showed that mothers who had high levels of trans-fats in their milk consumed
significantly greater amounts of trans-fat containing foods, such as bakery products and
17
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
snacks, than mothers who had medium or low levels of trans-fats in their milk. Results
also showed that trans-fat content of colostrum was significantly lower than trans-fat
content of mature milk. The study concluded that breastfeeding mothers should avoid
eating trans-fat containing food products, because trans-fat levels in breast milk appear to
reflect the current diet of the mother. The negative implications on breastfed infants from
trans-fats in human milk are not yet well investigated or documented (Mojska et al.,
2003).
Conclusion
The multiple health implications of trans-fats show a need to for further research
in this area. Not only is research needed to study trans-fat health effects, but behavioral
research must also be completed to determine how people react to these harmful fats.
This research project involves a trans-fat database and survey which will contribute to the
qualitative research being conducted in this area.
18
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
CHAPTER III
METHODS
This research project consisted of two major components: (1) a current trans-fat
database, (2) development and pilot test of a trans-fat survey. The trans-fat database was
compiled to determine foods which have a measurable content of trans-fats post 2006.
This data can be used to educate the public on specifically which foods contain a
significant quantity of trans-fats. The survey was designed to primarily test trans-fat
knowledge; however, it was also designed to test behavior, belief, attitude and self
efficacy towards trans-fats. The survey was developed and pilot tested to insure validity
and reliability of the instrument.
Food Composition Database of Trans-Fat Content
Trans-Fat Data Collection
Food composition data was collected from the United Supermarket located at
University and 82nd in Lubbock, TX. Only fat containing, national brand name foods
were included in the database. Food composition values were recorded after January
2006 to ensure the most complete database of trans-fat content. The food product
information that was recorded included distributor, brand, product name and flavor. The
nutrition facts information recorded included serving size (both gram and household
unit), kilocalories, total fat, saturated fat, trans-fat, polyunsaturated fat, and
19
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
monounsaturated fat. Food products that advertised “0 grams of trans-fat” on the
packaging were also recorded.
A grocery store inventory proved to be the most reliable method to collect transfat data. Multiple food product companies were contacted in hopes of receiving food
composition data, which would require less time to be spent recording data on each
individual food. However, the companies were non-responsive.
Trans-Fat Data Analysis
After data collection, food items were compared to assess what kinds of
foods still contain trans-fats and in what amounts. In addition to these values, the serving
size and trans-fat quantity were correlated. This was an important calculation because
products which seem to have a small quantity of trans-fat per serving might actually have
a much larger quantity when adjusted to unit of measure.
Trans-fat values were calculated according to grams per 100 grams of food
product. The amount of trans-fat listed on the label (in grams) was divided by the serving
size (in grams) and then multiplied by 100. This calculation allowed for comparison of
all foods regardless of varying serving sizes. Appendix A Table C includes all recorded
food items that contained trans-fats along with the corresponding standardized values.
A trans-fat database is important because it simplifies a lot of otherwise
complicated information. It allows for a multitude of food products to be represented in
one place and for the trans-fat content to be standardized. Standardization is important
for consumers because it allows for easy comparison of similar food products. However,
if consumers do not have the basic knowledge to understand labeling laws then using a
20
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
database could be misleading (i.e. those products which claim to have 0 grams of transfat). A survey has been developed to illuminate the extent of consumer’s knowledge so
these issues can be addressed.
Trans-Fat Survey
Survey Development
Only one known survey has been developed regarding trans-fat knowledge;
however, it was tested before the 2006 labeling laws were implemented. The survey was
designed by Hess et al. 2005 and assessed knowledge in health-conscious adults. The
researchers involved in the study were contacted to obtain a copy of their survey;
however, they stated that they no longer had that information. Because of this
unfortunate circumstance, a new measure had to be designed.
This survey was developed primarily to measure consumer knowledge of transfat and began with a review of the literature and obtaining the advice of nutrition experts
with survey development experience. Trans-fat facts found in the literature were
translated into questions that dealt specifically with knowledge. Other questions were
designed to evaluate behavior, belief, attitude, and self efficacy to determine if
knowledge levels would correlate with these other variables.
Surveymonkey.com was the website used to design and distribute the survey. Its
user-friendly software allowed for easy survey design and provided many options for
different types of questions. Due to time and resource restrictions, the internet was the
best option for obtaining participant data.
21
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Initially, survey questions, hereafter referred to as items, were reviewed by
Nutrition, Hospitality, and Retailing Department staff members to determine face
validity. Face validity is based on a brief review of items by untrained judges and
represents a casual assessment of item appropriateness. Next, the items were reviewed
by nutrition faculty, who were both experts in the subject matter and experienced in
survey development, to determine content validity. Content validity is a measure of how
appropriate the items seem to a set of expert reviewers who have knowledge of the
subject matter (Litwin, 1995).
The survey contained 6 categories and was represented by the following number
of items: 11 in knowledge, 9 in attitude, 1 in belief, 16 in behavior, 4 in self efficacy, and
12 in demographics. According to Parmenter and Wardle 2000, many items need to be
included so that the poor items can be eliminated before the final instrument is
implemented. Gorsuch, 1997 stated that only 3 items per category were needed to
perform a factor analysis, therefore each category, excluding belief, was adequately
represented from a statistical stand point.
Except for a few demographic items, all items were close-ended; the participants
could only select one of the options that were provided. Knowledge items were multiple
choice with relevant distracter options and the correct answer was indisputable. Face and
content validity were used to check for item ambiguity, unclear formating, poorly written
instructions, and loaded or negatively phrased questions. To further reduce item
ambiguity, certain food related questions were clarified by adding specific examples
(Parmenter & Wardle, 2000). One such item asked about participant’s fried meat
22
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
consumption and included examples such as chicken nuggets, steak fingers, and fried fish
to ensure item clarification.
Knowledge items were designed to have either a right or a wrong answer. “Not
sure” was not provided as an option because participants should either choose correctly
or incorrectly regarding knowledge facts. This keeps participants who actually know the
right answer from selecting “not sure” because they are not confident in their knowledge.
Others may choose “not sure” because it is the quicker option. This option was available
for the behavior, belief, attitude, and self efficacy because it may keep participants from
guessing. “Not sure” was used instead of “don’t know” because it appears to be less
negative which may also reduce guessing (Parmenter & Wardle, 2000).
As mentioned earlier, properly written instructions are vital to ensure validity.
Since instructions set the tone of the survey, it was important to make them simple, brief,
and clear. The instructions were designed not to intimidate participants, but to encourage
them to answer honestly by explaining that they would be contributing to trans-fat
research. Each category had a separate set of instructions to help orient the participant’s
attention (Parmenter & Wardle, 2000).
The survey was designed to provide a logical flow of categories and items. The
demographics category was placed at the end of the survey because participants may
view some items as being intrusive. By placing this category at the end, negative feelings
from intrusive items would not interfere with their responses and they would be more
likely to complete the survey. For each pilot test, validity and test-retest reliability, the
survey categories were kept in the same order, the color scheme remained the same, and
preceding items did not answer subsequent items (Parmenter & Wardle, 2000).
23
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Readability levels were assessed by the Flesch-Kincaide Grade Level test
provided by Microsoft Word. According to Kirksey et al. 2004, materials should be
written at an 8th grade level or lower to ensure general comprehension. Assessment of
the trans-fat survey produced a 7th grade readability level.
Validity Pilot Test
Validity can be simply defined as the extent to which an instrument measures
what it is designed to measure (Parmenter & Wardle, 2000). Validity ensures that the
interpretation of this instrument’s results reflects trans-fat knowledge and how
participants act in regards to trans-fats. Results should not be distorted by irrelevant
factors such as poorly worded instructions, item ambiguity, and unclear format (Linn &
Miller, 2005).
The survey was validated by administering it to 3 different groups of people with
varying trans-fat knowledge levels. The first group was considered to have no
knowledge and consisted of students from the General Animal Science and Gender Role
classes. The second group was considered to have some knowledge and consisted of
students in the Principles of Nutrition and Nutrition in the Life Cycle classes. The third
group was considered to have an expert level of knowledge and consisted of Animal
Science Faculty and Lubbock Dietitians.
Each of the three groups were comprised of 2 subgroups to obtain a more
balanced ratio of male to female participants. Since a large number of students in the
College of Human Sciences are female, we sought participants from the Animal Science
24
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Department because they are also educated on nutritional issues and considered to have a
higher male to female ratio.
In order to assess that the instrument was measuring what it was designed to
measure, a few statistical tests were completed. These tests included item difficulty, item
discrimination, and homogeneity. Completing these statistical analysis aids in
determining which items should be kept for the final instrument.
Item difficulty, the extent to which the participants answered an item in the same
way, was assessed based on correct answer frequency values of 20-80%. If 20% or less
of the participants scored the item wrong, then it was considered too difficult and
therefore excluded. Similarly, if 80% or more of the participants scored the item right,
then it was considered too easy and excluded. Frequency values were also used to
identify where data transfer problems might have occurred. Variables that were constant
(every participant either got the question right or wrong) were considered for exclusion
because that item cannot be statistically compared with another variable. However, some
items were retained regardless of difficulty level due to their theoretical importance
(Parmenter & Wardle, 2000).
The varying groups of trans-fat knowledge determined item discrimination and
therefore, varying knowledge levels among participants. Item discrimination measures
the ability of an item to discriminate between participants who do well on the survey and
those who do not. This was assessed by correlating each individual item with the total
knowledge score and the factor score. A correlation of 0.2-0.3 was the minimum value
that could be kept. Any item with a correlation value lower than this was discarded
(Parmenter & Wardle, 2000).
25
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Homogeneity was used to assess if the items in a particular category were related.
This particular measure is referred to as internal consistency and was measured using
Chronbach’s coefficient alpha. Chronbach’s alpha is used for items that have more than
2 response options and is considered significant at 0.7 (Parmenter & Wardle, 2000). This
measurement was used in the validity pilot test even though it is actually a measure of
reliability.
Construct validity was assessed using item difficulty, item discrimination, and
homogeneity along with face and content validity. Construct validity is the most difficult
way of assessing an instrument because it attempts to measure unobservable constructs.
Simply, it measures how meaningful an instrument is. This form of validity usually takes
years to assess and is done by testing the instrument continually over time (Litwin, 1995).
Validation of an instrument is incredibly important; however, without reliability,
an instrument can not be truly valid. Reliability refers to the consistency of results
produced by an instrument. Test-retest reliability was used in the survey to test if the
items were worded in such a way which caused participants to answer consistently (Linn
& Miller, 2005).
Reliability Pilot Test
Test-retest reliability is a measure of how reproducible a set of items are. It
involves having the same set of participants complete a survey at two different points in
time and is the most common indicator of survey instrument reliability (Litwin 1995).
Reliability is needed to obtain valid results; however, an instrument can have reliability
without validity (Linn & Miller, 2005).
26
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
A different participant group was used to test reliability than was used to test
validity. Initially, 2 Restaurant, Hotel, and Institutional Management (RHIM) classes
were used; however, the correlation value of the demographic question related to marital
status was 0.48. Because of this incredibly low value on an item that should have had a
perfect correlation of 1, a second participant group was selected.
The second reliability group included students from 4 nutrition classes. The
survey was dispersed via email with the surveymonkey.com link. Participants were
asked to complete the survey once, and then complete it again 2 weeks later. This time
interval was thought to be long enough that participants would forget what they initially
answered, but short enough that they would not gain trans-fat knowledge over that time
period. Pearson’s correlation between the first and second survey were calculated and is
considered significant at 0.7 (Parmenter & Wardle, 2000).
Participant Incentives
Incentives greatly affected the number of people who chose to participate in the
trans-fat survey. Each of the respondents from the 3 validity groups was placed into a
drawing for a $15 gift certificate to the campus restaurant Cowamongus; however, this
did not seem to have much weight in influencing participant response rate. Extra credit
was the driving factor for student participation.
From the validity pilot test, the General Animal Science and Nutrition in the Life
Cycle classes were given extra credit points while the Gender Roles and Principles of
Nutrition classes were not given extra credit. The response rate in classes offered extra
credit was substantially higher than in those that were not given extra credit.
27
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
During the first reliability pilot test, the 2 RHIM classes were offered extra credit
to participate in the survey which created a large sample size. However, even with a
large sample size the correlation values were poor. So, another reliability pilot test was
performed on a group of 4 nutrition classes, but no incentive was offered. The sample
size from this group was considerably smaller; however, the correlation values were
much better. After these participants had taken the survey twice, a name was drawn for a
$15 gift certificate to Cowamongus to show our appreciation to those who participated.
Since the drawing for the gift certificate was not announced in advance then it is not
considered to be an incentive.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for all statistical
calculations. The statistical tests used were frequencies, chronbach’s alpha, Pearson
correlations, factor analysis, and one-way ANOVA. The counsel of Dr. James Surles,
Associate Professor in the department of Mathematics and Statistics, and Dr. Du Feng,
Associate Professor in the department of Human Development and Family Studies, were
used to properly analyze the data.
Human Subjects Approval
The Texas Tech University Protection of Human Subjects Committee approved a
claim for exemption on April 11, 2006. Exemption implied that no consent form would
be required for survey participants since the risk was inconsequential. The exemption
letter dictated that our research was not subject to continuing review; however, any
28
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
modifications that changed the research in a substantial way would have to be reported to
the Institutional Review Board.
29
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This two component thesis served to develop a trans-fat composition database and
a reliable and valid survey instrument which assessed knowledge, attitude, belief,
behavior, and self efficacy. The database was composed from foods shelved at a local
supermarket. The survey was pilot tested on Texas Tech University students, faculty, and
Lubbock dietitians.
Trans-Fat Database
The Purpose of the food composition database was to determine foods which still
have a significant quantity of trans-fats post January 2006. A total of 3,188 food
products were included in the database. Of these food products, 549 contained trans-fats
according to the label, which equaled 17.22% of all foods recorded. The majority of food
products claim to be trans-fat free; however, that can only be verified by looking under
ingredients for partially hydrogenated oil.
Trans-Fat Values
Trans-fat values were compared based on grams of trans-fat per 100 grams
of food product. To adjust grams of trans-fat per serving to grams of trans-fat per 100g
of food product, the amount of trans-fat listed on the label (in grams) was divided by the
serving size (in grams) and then multiplied by 100. This calculation allowed for
30
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
comparison of all foods regardless of variations in serving sizes. Appendix A Table C
includes all recorded food items that contained trans-fats along with the corresponding
standardized values.
Of all foods recorded, the food which contained the most trans-fat was an
Imperial Margarine Stick. It contained 2.5g of trans-fat in 1 serving (14g). This equaled
to an astonishing 17.86g of trans-fat per 100g of food. The second highest trans-fat
containing food recorded was the Pop Secret flavors: Movie Theatre Butter, Extra Butter,
and Cheddar. Each contained 6g of trans-fat per serving (36g) which equates to 16.67g
of trans-fat per 100g of food. The third highest trans-fat containing foods recorded were
Country Crock’s Spreadable Sticks and Fleishmann’s Original and Unsalted Margarine
Stick. Each contained 2g of trans-fat per serving (14g) and 14.29g of trans-fat per 100g
of food. The top 5 food products containing the highest amounts of trans-fats were either
margarine or popcorn.
The 3,188 food products were divided into 11 major food categories. These
categories included: Box Dinners; Breads; Breakfast (Cereal, Granola Bars, and Breads);
Candies and Baking; Canned Foods; Dressings, Spreads, and Desert Toppings; Energy
Bars; Margarine, Butter, and Oils; Dry Mixes (Cakes, Muffins, Cookies, Pancakes,
Frying); Refrigerated and Frozen Foods; and Snacks. The top trans-fat containing food
products from each category were recorded in Table 1.
Trans-Fat Labeling
Although food products are required to list trans-fat content, the labeling
threshold is set at 0.5 grams per serving (Lock et al., 2003). Therefore, food companies
31
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
are legally able to manipulate serving size in order to list their product as being trans-fat
free. This is misleading because many products have partially hydrogenated oil listed as
one of the ingredients; however, their product label claims to be trans-fat free. Similarly
misleading are products which have a small serving size and therefore a small trans-fat
content. These products may, in actuality, have the same amount of trans-fat as products
with both a larger serving size and trans-fat content. This can be very deceiving and
confusing for those who do not have the knowledge to make smart nutrition choices.
Refrigerated biscuits are an example of similar food products which seem to have
exceptionally different trans-fat content. The Grand’s Flakey Supreme Cinnamon Roll
made by Pillsbury has a serving size of 99g which equals one cinnamon roll. These rolls
contain 5g of trans-fat each. The Cinnamon Mini-Bites, also made by Pillsbury, have a
serving size of 49g which equals 3 pieces. These 3 mini-bites contain 2.5 grams of transfats. If a consumer were to only look at the trans-fat content without noticing the serving
size they would assume that the mini-bites were the healthier option in regards to transfats. However, after calculating trans-fat amounts per 100g, the trans-fat content of the
products was not much different. The cinnamon rolls contain 5.05g of trans-fat per 100g
of food and the mini-bites contain 5.10g per 100g.
Even though consumers are given the proper information, confusing labeling
regulations can potentially cause them to unknowingly make unhealthy food choices in
regards to trans-fats. Consumers need to be aware that although a food product claims to
be trans-fat free, they should look for “partially hydrogenated oil” under the ingredients
section of the food label to verify that claim. Also, the trans-fat amount should be
compared with the serving size to determine actual trans-fat consumption. Trans-fat
32
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
knowledge levels must be assessed in order to determine what consumers find confusing
about trans-fat labeling regulations.
Trans-Fat Survey
The purpose of the trans-fat pilot survey was to test knowledge, attitude, behavior,
and self efficacy items to establish a valid and reliable instrument. This was done by
using 2 separate groups, one specifically to examine item validity, and another to
examine item reliability. The validity sample consisted of 3 different groups with
varying knowledge levels and the reliability sample consisted of students in nutrition
classes at Texas Tech University.
Sample Size
The validity group consisted of 118 participants, 75 of which were considered to
have no trans-fat knowledge, 21 who were thought to have some knowledge, and 22 who
were considered experts in the field of nutrition. Each group was comprised of
subgroups to ensure a somewhat balanced ratio of male to female participants.
Due to incentives offered to the students, the “no knowledge” group is
exceptionally larger than the other two. However, Gorsuch 1997 stated that the sample
distribution should be similar to the population of which it will ultimately be used. The
assumption is that the general population has very little trans-fat knowledge and therefore
will comprise a larger section of the participants sampled. Also, Gorsuch suggested that
the participants who are expected to score high on the instrument and those who are
33
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
expected to score low should be well represented. Even though the “no knowledge”
group is better represented, there are still an adequate number of participants in the
“expert knowledge” group.
The sample size was found to be adequate for performing a factor analysis by the
Kaiswer-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and the Bartlett’s Test of Significance. Both of these
tests are an important initial step in factor analysis (George & Mallery, 2005)
Bartlett’s Test is based on eigen values of the correlation matrix and any factor of
interest should be highly significant by this test. Each category: knowledge, attitude,
behavior, and self efficacy scored highly significant for this test and are represented in
Table 2. The Bartlett’s Test ensures that factor analysis is appropriate for this sample
size (Gorsuch, 1997).
The reliability group consisted of students in 4 nutrition classes. Out of 139
possible participants, only 15 choose to answer the survey, which is equal to 10.8%. This
group was not offered any kind of incentive in an attempt to ensure that the results were
accurate and consistent. Because an instrument can not be valid without also being
reliable, nutrition students were specifically chosen because of their knowledge in this
field.
The reliability test was initially offered to Restaurant, Hotel, and Institutional
Management (RHIM) students who had little nutrition knowledge. When checking the
reliability of knowledge items, it is important that a knowledgeable group be sampled,
otherwise unknowledgeable participants are prone to continually guess and therefore
provide unreliable results (this is discussed more in “Incentives”).
34
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Incentives
Incentives played an important part in determining the number of participants
who chose to answer the survey. In the validity test, classes that were offered extra credit
points for participating had an average response rate of 62.4%. However, those classes
that were not offered extra credit only had an average response rate of 9.7%. In the
reliability test, the RHIM classes who were offered extra credit had an average response
rate of 43.4%, while the nutrition classes that were not offered extra credit had an average
response rate of 10.8%. These results are displayed in Table 3.
Although a large sample size is preferred, it did not lead to good results in the
reliability test due to participation only by students who wanted or needed extra credit.
The RHIM student’s test-retest reliability scores were poor for most items; however, their
scores were exceptionally poor in the demographics section. Over a 2 week period,
personal characteristics, typically described in demographics sections of surveys, should
not change.
One item on the survey asked if participants were currently married with answer
choices of yes or no. The RHIM student’s correlation for this particular item was 0.479.
A perfect correlation is represented by the number 1, so this result shows that participants
were either unsure of their marital status or it changed in a two week period, which is
unlikely.
A poor result generated from such a simple question suggests that the students
were not paying attention to what they were being asked on the survey. This item, in
particular, caused the entire RHIM reliability results to be excluded from the study. The
correlation results for the RHIM students can be found in Appendix A Table A.
35
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Demographics
Since this project is specifically looking at validity and reliability of a trans-fat
survey, demographic data is of less importance at this stage. Comparisons between
demographic items and knowledge scores (explained in the next section) were not
assessed. This is due to the fact that an item must be found valid and reliable before it
can be used to make comparisons; otherwise the information is useless. However, when
the final survey is implemented and assessed, these comparisons will be of the utmost
importance.
The validity survey was taken by 118 individuals, 81 (70.4%) of which were
females and 34 (29.6%) of which were males. The population chosen for this pilot study
attempted to sample in such a way where the ratio of male to female would be equal.
However, the participants who chose to answer the survey were mostly female. The
average participant age was 23.75 years old, with the minimum age being 17 and the
maximum age being 67. All demographic data is displayed in Table 4.
Race/Ethnic distribution of the validity survey was as follows: African American
0% (n=0); American Indian or Eskimo 0% (n=0); Asian or Pacific Islander 2.5% (n=3);
Hispanic 1.7% (n=2); White/Non-Hispanic 93.2% (n=110); and other 2.5% (n=3). Those
participants who chose “other” stated that their race/ethnicity was either African, biracial,
or German/Spanish/Indian/Irish.
Calculating Knowledge Score
There were 11 knowledge items included in the 2 pilot surveys; however, only
the validity survey was used to calculate knowledge scores. Nine items which had either
36
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
a right or a wrong answer were coded with a 1 or a 0. The participant got a 1 if they
chose correctly or a 0 if they chose incorrectly.
Two items were designed so that the participant could choose multiple answers.
Each answer choice was given a value of 1 or -1 and then the total score from that
particular item was divided by the number of answer choices. For example, if a
participant chose 1 correct and 2 incorrect answer choices on a “check all that apply”
item, their total score would be -1/3 or -0.33. The 2 multiple answer items, “know diet
source” and “know properties,” were given slightly more weight than the single answer
items due to the way in which they were coded. These items also represent important
trans-fat related facts.
Item Difficulty
Item difficulty is the extent to which the participants answered an item in
the same way and was assessed based on correct answer frequency values of 20-80%
(Parmenter & Wardle, 2000). Table 5 lists frequencies by the 3 separate knowledge
groups and by all groups together. To assess item difficultly, frequencies were used from
all the groups together.
The only item that was outside of the 20-80% range was the item regarding FDA
regulations; however, it was kept due to its theoretical importance. This item was
answered correctly by 116 (95.1%) out of 118 participants. Although this question may
not be a good discriminator among knowledge levels, it would be interesting to know
how many people in the general population do not know the basic government
regulations.
37
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Item Discrimination
Item discrimination measures the ability of an item to discriminate
between participants who do well on the survey and those who do not. This was assessed
by correlating each individual item with the total knowledge score and the factor analysis
score. A correlation of 0.2-0.3 is the minimum value that should result in the retention of
an item (Parmenter & Wardle, 2000). No items were discarded due to item
discrimination analysis because the lowest correlation value was not below 0.2.
Both the knowledge and factor analysis scores were correlated with each item and
the two correlation values were compared. Knowledge scores are more easily calculated
than factor scores; therefore, both values were assessed to see if the knowledge score
gave similar results as the factor score. Overall, both scores had similar correlation
values. Discrimination correlations can be found in Table 6.
Chronbach’s Alpha
Chronbach’s coefficient alpha is a measure of internal consistency which
evaluates if the items in a particular category are related. Chronbach’s alpha (CA) is used
for items that have more than 2 response options and is considered significant at 0.7
(Parmenter & Wardle, 2000). Most items that were excluded from the final measure
were removed because of low Chronbach alpha scores. These values are displayed in
Table 7.
Knowledge items resulted in the lowest CA score due to the vast amount of
possible trans-fat knowledge related items. These items could relate to where trans-fats
occur, what properties they give to foods, government regulations, chemical structure
38
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
health effects, etc. Because CA measures how well a group of items are related, these
different kinds of knowledge items may seem poorly related and therefore lead to a low
CA score. This section of the survey began with 11 items; however, the final instrument
will only have 9 knowledge items. The specific items deleted were “know unsaturated”
and “know per serving,” which resulted in a final CA value of 0.601.
The attitude section of the survey resulted in a CA value of 0.728 after deleting 3
items. These items were “for me beneficial,” “for me healthy,” and “restaurant menu.”
This resulted in a total of 6 attitude items for the final measure. Careful consideration
should be given when evaluating these 2 specific items: “for me harmful,” and “for me
non-nutritious.” Although these items are measuring two different concepts, they are
both worded with a negative connotation and could be seen as a leading question.
The pilot survey began with 19 items measuring behavior; however, the final
measure will only contain 8. The CA value for these 8 remaining items was 0.750. None
of the items in this section were deleted due to low CA values, but instead were deleted
due to poor test-retest correlation values.
The self efficacy section of the survey resulted in the highest CA value of 0.868.
Initially, there were 4 items in the pilot survey, but the final measure will only contain 3.
The item was eliminated due to test-retest correlation values, not low CA values.
Test-Retest Reliability
Test-retest reliability involves having the same set of participants complete a
survey at two different points in time and is the most common indicator of survey
instrument reliability. Essentially, it is a measure of how reproducible a set of items are.
39
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
This statistical test is measured using correlation values between the 1st and 2nd pilot tests
(Litwin 1995). All test-retest correlation values are listed in Table 8.
In this study, a 2 week time period was used between the 1st and 2nd survey
administration. According to Parmenter and Wardle, 2000, the recommended interval
time is between 2-14 days and 3 months. The 2 week time period was used in hope that
the students would forget what they answered on the 1st survey, but would not have
gained any trans-fat knowledge by the time they took the 2nd survey.
The sample size for this test was only 15 people so interpretation of the results are
limited in that manner. As seen on the table, some items are marked with a “c” to
indicate that they are constant. This means that every participant answered the item the
same way on both tests. These items were not given the perfect correlation value of 1
because correlation values are calculated based on variance. If there is no variation in the
data then a correlation cannot be calculated.
Of the 4 main survey categories, 2 knowledge and 3 attitude items were deleted
due to low CA values while 11 behavior items and 1 self efficacy item were deleted due
to low test-retest correlation values. A few items were kept even though the reliability
correlations were somewhat low. This was due to the fact that deletion of those items
would have caused the CA value to plummet.
The behavior section, with its initial 19 items, had a commendable CA value of
0.849; however, many items had very low test-retest correlations. The following items
were deleted due to low correlations: “when available low fat;” “when available low trans
fat;” “when available low sat fat;” “home oil;” “zero grams notice;” “fried meat;” “cook
at home breakfast;” “cook at home lunch;” “cook at home dinner;” “eat out breakfast;”
40
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
and “eat out lunch.” The remaining items had a correlation of at least 0.67 or greater, and
the group as a whole had a CA value of 0.75.
The self efficacy section began with 4 items and ended with 3 – enough to
perform a factor analysis according to the literature (Gorsuch, 1997). Only one item was
deleted in the section and it was due to low test-retest reliability correlations. The item
was “regularly prepare dishes” and had a correlation of 0.579.
Factor Analysis
The primary goal of factor analysis is to identify the smallest amount of latent
constructs needed to reproduce the original data (Gorsuch, 1997). In other words, factor
analysis uses multiple observable items to measure an unobservable construct or
constructs (George & Mallery, 2005). A construct is defined as internal characteristics
that cannot be directly observed but are useful for explaining or describing behavior
(Gravetter & Wallnau, 2005). Factor analysis correlation values for each survey category
are provided in Table 9.
A single significant construct for each category was determined by looking at a
scree plot and comparing eigen values. Eigen values show the proportion of variance
accounted for by each factor or construct. In an ideal setting, each item would load with
a correlation of 0.5 or greater on the desired construct; however, this rarely happens. The
smaller the loading, the less likely that item is actually a good measure of the construct
(George & Mallery, 2005). Even though some items had low loading correlations, they
were kept in the final survey due to theoretical importance.
41
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Each of the 4 categories proved to measure only 1 latent construct. The
knowledge item with the highest loading of 0.625 was “know properties,” while “know
more trans fat” had the lowest loading of 0.324. The attitude item “low trans fat” had the
highest loading of 0.771, while “for me non-nutritious” had the lowest loading of 0.517.
The behavior item with the highest loading of 0.886 was “grocery content, while
“cooking method” loaded at only 0.265. The self efficacy items were very similar in
correlation values. “Prepare tasty dishes” loaded the highest at 0.895, and “buy foods”
loaded the lowest at 0.882.
ANOVA Comparisons of Factor Scores
The survey was initially designed to discriminate between people with varying
knowledge levels. Other categories such as attitude, belief, behavior, and self efficacy
were added to provide insight into how each participant reacts towards trans-fats.
Although assessing knowledge was the primary goal, it is important to know details of
these other areas in order to design adequate education programs.
The knowledge section of this survey proved to discriminate between trans-fat
knowledge levels through ANOVA comparisons of the factor scores. Each group (no,
some, and very knowledgeable) was compared using their mean factor analysis score.
ANOVA only has the ability to show that a significant difference exists between
variables, not where the difference occurs. The R-E-G-W Q Post Hoc test was used to
determine exactly which means were significantly different (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2005).
Results showed that each knowledge group had a significantly different (p = 0.05)
knowledge level than the others. These results can be found in Table 10.
42
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
As discussed earlier, the mean knowledge scores and mean factor analysis scores
were compared to see how they differed. The ANOVA comparison between the some
and very knowledgeable groups showed no significant difference when comparing only
the total knowledge scores; however, the factor analysis scores were significantly
different. This highlights the importance of using factor scores when doing comparisons
because it is a more accurate statistical test and will lead to more accurate results. The
ANOVA results for the attitude, behavior, and self efficacy categories can be found in
Appendix A Table B.
Conclusion
The results from this project provides invaluable information in regards to current
food products which still contain a significant amount of trans-fats, and the development
and pilot testing of a trans-fat survey. According to the trans-fat database, the top 5 transfat containing food products were either margarine or popcorn. Approximately 17% of
the 3,188 food products contained trans-fats according to the nutrition label, but this
percentage did not include those foods that claim to be trans-fat free while using partially
hydrogenated oil. This information suggests that FDA regulation of trans-fat amounts
should be modified to list trans-fat per 100g of food product to ensure accurate consumer
intake.
The survey component of this project created a valid and reliable instrument for
measuring trans-fat characteristics of the consumers. Many methods were used to assess
the survey; however, items were only deleted due to CA and test-retest reliability values.
43
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
The survey was initially developed with 54 items, but the final measure only had 41
items. The results from this pilot test justify the use of this tool to measure knowledge
because it has the ability to discriminate between groups of varying knowledge levels.
44
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table 1
Top Trans-Fat Containing Foods by Category Based on Product Label Data
Brand
Name
Flavor
SS (g)
TF Content (g)
TFg/100g
Greatest TF Amt
Betty Crocker
Hamburger Helper
Potatoes Stroganoff
28
1
3.57
Second Greatest
Betty Crocker
Hamburger Helper
Double Cheese Quesadilla
48
1.5
3.13
Third Greatest
Betty Crocker
Tuna Helper
Creamy Roasted Garlic
49
1.5
3.06
King's Hawaiian
Bread
Hawaiian Sweet
57
0.5
0.88
Greatest TF Amt
Sara Lee
Break Cake
Chocolate Covered
54
4.5
8.33
Second Greatest
Sara Lee
Break Cake
Powdered Sugar
50
3.5
7.00
Third Greatest
Sara Lee
Break Cake
Cinnamon Sugar
47
3
6.38
Greatest TF Amt
Betty Crocker
Pie Crust
N/A
20
2.5
12.50
Second Greatest
Keebler
Ready Crust
Graham
21
2
9.52
Third Greatest
Keebler
Ready Crust Mini
Graham
23
2
8.70
Wolf
Chili
Mild No Beans
250
2
0.80
Box Dinners
Breads
Only TF Amt
Breakfast
Candies and Baking
Canned Foods
Greatest TF Amt
Second Greatest
Wolf
Chili
No Beans
248
1.5
0.60
Third Greatest
Wolf
Chili
Hot No Beans
248
1.5
0.60
Dressings/Spreads/Toppings
Greatest TF Amt
No items contain trans-fats in this category (according to labels)
Energy Bars
Greatest TF Amt
No items contain trans-fats in this category (according to labels)
45
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table 1 Continued
Brand
Name
Flavor
SS (g)
TF Content (g)
TFg/100g
Greatest TF Amt
Imperial
Imperial
Sticks
14
2.5
17.86
Second Greatest
Parkay
Parkay
Original - Stick
14
1.5
10.71
Third Greatest
Land O Lakes
Land O Lakes
Fresh Butter Taste Spread
14
1.5
10.71
Fourth Greatest
Blue Bonnet
Blue Bonnet
Original Sticks
14
1.5
10.71
Margarine, Butter, and Oil
Dry Mixes
Chocolate
33
2.5
7.58
Betty Crocker
Rich and Creamy
Frosting
Rich and Creamy
Frosting
Milk Chocolate
33
2.5
7.58
Morrisons
Bis-Kits
Prepared Biscuit Mix
35
2.5
7.14
Puff Pastry
Shells
47
5
10.64
Puff Pastry
41
4
9.76
21
1.5
7.14
Greatest TF Amt
Betty Crocker
Second Greatest
Third Greatest
Refrigerate and Frozen
Foods
Pepperidge
Farm
Pepperidge
Farm
Pepperidge
Farm
Pie Crusts
Sheets
All Vegetable Deep Dish 9inch
Greatest TF Amt
Pop Secret
Popcorn
Movie Theatre Butter
36
6
16.67
Second Greatest
Pop Secret
Popcorn
Extra Butter
36
6
16.67
Third Greatest
Pop Secret
Popcorn
Cheddar
36
6
16.67
Greatest TF Amt
Second Greatest
Third Greatest
Snacks
Note. Serving size is abbreviated by SS and trans-fat by TF. Trans-fat data was standardized
to g/100g in order to make comparisons between different food products.
46
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table 2
KMO and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Determined if Factor Analysis was
Appropriate for the Data Set
KMO
Bartlet's Test
Approx Chi-square
df
sig
Knowledge
Sig. Levels
0.668
Attitude
Sig. Levels
0.751
Behavior
Sig. Levels
0.795
Self
Efficacy
Sig. Levels
0.739
94.138
36
0.00*
166.772
15
0.00*
334.608
28
0.00*
169.399
3
0.00*
Note. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) is a measure of sampling adequacy while
Bartlet's Test confirms that the data set is appropriate for factor analysis.
Significance is noted by an *.
47
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table 3
Student Response Rates According to Incentives Offered
N of
Total N of Students in
Participants
Respondents
Class
Validity Test
Gender Roles
2
23
General Animal Science
71
114
Nutrition in the Life
Cycle
15
24
Principles of Nutrition
6
56
Reliability Test
RHIM
59
136
Nutrition
15
139
Note. Students who were offered the incentive of extra credit were more likely
to complete the survey than those who were not offered an incentive.
48
% of
Respondents
Offered Extra
Credit
8.7
62.3
No
Yes
62.5
10.7
Yes
No
43.4
10.8
Yes
No
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table 4
Demographic Results of Validity Pilot Test Participants
Demographic Item
N
%
Age
118
100.0
Gender
Female
81
70.4
Male
34
29.6
Education Level
High School Graduate
20
16.9
Some College
70
59.3
Associate's Degree
3
2.5
Bachelor's Degree
9
7.6
Master's Degree
9
7.6
Professional Degree
0
0.0
Doctorate Degree
7
5.9
Marital Status
Married
18
15.3
Not Married
100
84.7
Income
$0 - 9,000
57
48.3
$10,000 - 19,000
27
22.9
$20,000 - 29,000
7
5.9
$30,000 - 39,000
7
5.9
$40,000 - 49,000
6
5.1
$50,000 - 59,000
2
1.7
$60,000 - 69,000
2
1.7
$70,000 - 79,000
1
0.8
$80,000 - 89,000
2
1.7
$90,000 - 99,000
2
1.7
$100,000 - 149,000
3
2.5
$150,000 - 199,000
0
0.0
$200,000 +
2
1.7
Race/Ethnicity
African American
0
0.0
American Indian or Eskimo
0
0.0
Asian or Pacific Islander
3
2.5
Hispanic
2
1.7
White / Non Hispanic
110
93.2
Other
3
2.5
49
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table 4 Continued
Demographic Item
Birth Country
American
International
Physical Activity
Once a day or more
Once every 2-3 days
Once a week
Once every 2 weeks
Once a month
Less than once a month
Status
Student
Faculty Member
Staff
Not affiliated with Tech
N
%
116
2
98.3
1.7
30
50
17
10
3
8
25.4
42.4
14.4
8.5
2.5
6.8
99
8
1
10
83.9
6.8
0.8
8.5
50
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table 5
Item Difficulty - Frequency of Knowledge Item Correct Responses
Knowledge Item
N
%
Know Diet Source*
-0.50
2
1.6
-0.25
3
2.3
0.00
11
8.6
0.25
20
15.6
0.50
16
12.5
0.75
39
30.5
1.00
37
28.9
Know More Trans Fats
Fried Fish
93
76.2
Wrong
29
23.8
Know Risk Factor
Heart Disease
87
71.3
Wrong
35
28.7
Know FDA
Food Labels
116
95.1
Wrong
6
4.9
Know Properties*
-0.33
1
0.8
0.00
14
10.9
0.33
53
41.4
0.67
39
30.5
1.00
21
16.4
Know Animal Fat
Beef
57
46.7
Wrong
65
53.3
Know Current Trend
Less Amount of TF
68
55.7
Wrong
54
44.3
Know Ingredients
Partially Hydrogenated Oil
80
65.6
Wrong
42
34.4
51
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table 5 Continued
Knowledge Item
Know Fats Oils
Vegetable Shortening
Wrong
N
%
36
86
29.5
70.5
Note. Items marked with an * have multiple answer options;
therefore, there is not a single correct answer. The frequencies
are based on the number of participants who chose each option.
52
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table 6
Item Discrimination - Correlations between Knowledge Item and the Knowledge/Factor Score
Pearson Correlation Value
Knowledge Item
Total Knowledge Score
Factor Analysis Score
Know Diet Source
0.599*
.598*
Know More Trans Fats
0.391*
.324*
Know Risk Factor
0.517*
.482*
Know FDA
0.279*
.326*
Know Properties
0.617*
.625*
Know Animal Fat
0.502*
.435*
Know Current Trend
0.549*
.528*
Know Ingredients
0.595*
.607*
Know Fats Oils
0.507*
.480*
Note. An * indicates that the correlation value is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The higher
the correlation value the more accurate the item is at determining trans-fat knowledge.
53
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table 7
Chronbach's Alpha Scores Determine How Well the Items in a Category were Related
Category
Alpha Score
N of Items
Excluded Items
Knowledge
0.551
11
none
0.589
10
knowunsat
0.601
9
knowunsat, knowperserving
Attitude
0.154
9
none
0.383
8
for me beneficial
0.622
7
for me beneficial, for me healthy
0.728*
6
for me beneficial, for me healthy, restaurant menu
Behavior
0.849*
16
none
Self Efficacy
0.911*
4
none
Note. An Alpha score of 0.7 or higher is considered significant and marked by an *. Knowledge
itmes produced a low alpha score because the items themselves were very different in nature.
54
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table 8
Test - Retest Pearson Correlations of Reliability Group
Item Name
Correlations
Knowledge
Know Diet Source
0.747
Know More Trans Fats
c
Know Risk Factor
c
Know FDA
c
Know Properties
0.329
Know Animal Fat
0.431
Know Current Trend
c
Know Ingredients
c
Know Fats Oils
0.772
Attitude
For me Harmful
0.535
For me Non-nutritious
c
Low Trans Fats
0.617
Restaurant Dishes
c
Favorite Restaurant
1.000
Restaurant Fried
0.681
Belief
Knowledgeable
0.792
Behavior
Grocery Content
0.785
Grocery Food Labels
0.670
Margarine
0.712
Restaurant Nutrition Info
0.776
French Fries
c
Eat Out Dinner
1.000
Zero Grams Buy
0.464
Cooking Method
0.727
Self Efficacy
Buy Foods
0.784
Change Ingredients
0.658
Prepare Tasty Dishes
0.674
55
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table 8 Continued
Item Name
Demographics
Affiliation
Status
Major
Department
Education
Gender
Age
Marital Status
Income
Race
Race Other
Birth Country
International
Physical Activity
Informative
Why Answer
Why Answer Other
Learning More
Learning Method
Learning Method Other
Correlations
0.783
c
o
o
0.902
1.000
c
1.000
0.816
1.000
o
c
o
0.550
0.535
o
0.381
0.338
o
Note. Constant items (marked by a "c") are those which were
answered in the same way by every participant. Correlations
cannot be calculated from items with no variation. Open-ended
items are marked by an "o" and only refer to demographic
or informative items.
56
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table 9
Factor Analysis Loadings Indicate the Correlation
Values between Item and Factor Score
Category
Loading
Knowledge
Know Diet Source
0.598
Know More Trans Fats
0.324
Know Risk Factor
0.482
Know FDA
0.326
Know Properties
0.625
Know Animal Fat
0.435
Know Current Trend
0.528
Know Ingredients
0.607
Know Fats Oils
0.480
Attitude Items
For me Harmful
0.688
For me Non-nutritious
0.517
Low Trans Fats
0.771
Restaurant Dishes
0.533
Favorite Restaurant
0.764
Restaurant Fried
0.682
Behavior Items
Grocery Content
0.886
Grocery Food Labels
0.847
Margarine
0.849
Restaurant Nutrition Info
0.595
French Fries
0.545
Eat Out Dinner
0.342
Zero Grams Buy
0.664
Cooking Method
0.265
Self Efficacy Items
Buy Foods
0.882
Change Ingredients
0.894
Prepare Tasty Dishes
0.895
Note. The extraction method used for this statistical
test was Principle Component Analysis. The higher
the loading, the more likely that an item is actually a
good measure of the category.
57
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table 10
ANOVA Comparisons of Three Knowledge Groups According to the Knowledge/Factor Score
Knowledge Score
Factor Score
Three Groups
N
Score
Post Hoc Group*
Score
Post Hoc Group*
No Knowledge
75
4.6733
A
-0.4209
A
Some Knowledge
21
6.7143
B
0.4136
B
Very Knowledgeable
22
7.4205
B
0.9736
C
Note. Post Hoc Groups A, B, and C are significantly different at the level of 0.05. Post Hoc tests
were performed using REG W Q in means of knowledge and factor scores.
58
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
The results from this project provides invaluable information in regards to current
food products that contain trans-fats, and the development and pilot testing of a trans-fat
survey. The database served to identify which food products still contain a significant
amount of trans-fat post 2006 labeling regulations. This information will be useful for
consumers who need more information in order to make healthy food choices. The
survey was developed to evaluate people’s understanding and behaviors toward transfats, in hopes of designing education programs in the future to address these issues.
Trans-Fat Database
The trans-fat database provided invaluable information regarding food products
that, according to the label, still contain trans-fats. Of the 3,188 food products recorded
approximately 17% contained trans-fatty acids after the implementation of the labeling
law. However, the ingredients section of the food label was not checked for the presence
of partially hydrogenated oil. Although the information collected will be useful in future
research, it is limited by not knowing exactly which food products use partially
hydrogenated oil as an ingredient. This suggests that trans-fat amounts should be listed
per 100g of food product to ensure accurate information on trans-fat content that is no
bias by serving size.
59
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Additional research utilizing this database exists that is beyond the scope of this
particular project. For example, the information collected could be used to compare
national brands to determine if certain food companies are more concerned with trans-fat
content than others. Another possible research idea would be to compare saturated fat
levels with trans-fat levels to determine if there is a relationship. It would be interesting
to know if levels of these types of fatty acids in foods are inversely correlated.
Trans-Fat Survey
The survey project was designed to create a valid and reliable instrument for
measuring a variety of parameters related to trans-fat, such as knowledge, attitude, belief,
behavior, and self efficacy. The survey was initially developed with 54 items, but the
final measure only had 41 items. The results from this pilot test justify the use of this
tool to measure knowledge because it has the ability to discriminate between groups of
varying knowledge levels.
The validity group was well represented with 118 participants; however, the
reliability group had a small sample size of 15. This difference in sample sizes was
largely due to incentives being offered. The pilot testing of this survey lead to important
findings such as: the importance of using a knowledgeable group to test reliability on
knowledge related items; and the fact that incentives are needed to obtain an adequate
sample size, but it may lead to unreliable results.
Both the validity and reliability pilot tests were used to distinguish which items
would be appropriate for the final instrument. Items were deleted due to a combination
60
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
of low CA and test-retest reliability values. No items were deleted due to item difficulty,
item discrimination, or factor analysis loading correlations. A one-way ANOVA was
performed on factor analysis scores to determine where significant differences occurred
in knowledge levels of the varying knowledge groups. This analysis determined that the
survey was a good measure for use in discriminating between people with dissimilar
trans-fat knowledge levels.
According to the pilot test results, many participants did not know what trans-fats
are or how they affect our health. In order for labeling laws and restaurant regulations to
be effective, education programs must be developed and implemented. One question on
the survey addressed this issue by asking participants if they would like to learn more
about trans-fats and in what form they would want to learn it. Of the validity pilot test
respondents, 41.5% answered that they would like to learn more about trans-fats and
44.1% said they might want to learn more. The learning method preferred by most
participants was online (76.8%).
The final instrument, designed from the pilot test, will be used during the summer
of 2007 to assess trans-fat knowledge levels of students, faculty, and staff of Texas Tech
University. The survey will be dispersed via Tech Announce, an email notification
system on campus, multiple times over the summer. The first 50 survey respondents will
receive a free Subway sandwich coupon. Drawings will be held throughout the summer
for other incentive prizes such as 2 iPod Shuffles and 1 -1GB Memorex Travel Drive.
The results from this final survey instrument will provide insight in to the kind of
education programs that need to be designed and implemented in order for the public to
know more about trans-fats. After initiating these education programs, it would be
61
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
interesting to determine if people feel deceived by the current Food and Drug
Administration’s labeling laws. According to these laws, food companies are legally
allowed to label their products with “0 grams of trans-fats,” even if the product contains
up to 0.49 grams of trans-fat per serving. This seems to be a direct effort by the FDA to
confuse consumers and would be an interesting follow up study to trans-fat education
programs.
62
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
LITERATURE CITED
Allison, D., Egan, K., & Barraj, L., Caughman, L., Infante, M., & Heimbach, J.T.
(1999). Estimated intakes of trans fatty and other acids in the US population.
J Am. Diet. Assoc., 99, 166-174.
Aro, A., & Kardinaal, A.F.M. (1995). Adipose tissue isomeric trans fatty acids and risk
of myocardial infarction in nine countries: the Euramic Study. Lancet, 345, 273278.
Ascherio, A., Stampfer, M.J., & Willett, W.C. (1999). Trans-fatty acids and coronary
heart disease. Retrieved November 5, 2005, from Havard School of Public Health
web site: www.hsph.harvard.edu/reviews/transfats.html
Ault, A. (2003, July 19). FDA says it will require trans-fat amounts on food labels. The
Lancet, 362.
Baylin, A., Kabagambe, E.K., Ascherio, A., Spiegelman, D., & Campos, H. (2003).
High 18:2 trans-fatty acids in adipose tissue are associated with increased risk of
nonfatal acute myocardial infarction in Costa Rican adults. Journal of Nutrition,
133, 1186-1191.
Bensadoun, A. (2003). Trans fatty acids – health and labeling issues. Retrieved
October 22, 2005, from Cornell University Division of Nutritional Sciences web site:
http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/index.html.
Bray, G.A., Lovejoy, J.C., Smith, S.R., DeLany, J.P., Lefevre, M., Hwang, D., Ryan,
D.H., & York, D.A. (2002). The influence of different fats and fatty acids on
obesity, insulin resistance and inflammation. J. Nutr., 132, 2488-2491.
Caruso, D.B. (2006). KFC to use no-trans-fat oil in chicken. ABC News Health.
Retrieved November 1, 2006, from ABC News Health web site:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=2615574
Conn, R., Koontz, S., & Richardson, K. (2006, June 19). Trans fat leads to weight gain
even on same total calories, animal study shows. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from
Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center web site:
http://www1.wfubmc.edu/news/NewsArticle.htm?Articleid=1869
Craig-Schmidt, M.C. (2006). World-wide consumption of trans fatty acids.
Artherosclerosis Supplements, 7, 1-4.
63
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Frumkin, P. (2006, October 9). Proposed trans fat ban in NYC has industry fearful of
“domino” effect. Restaurant News, 20(42), p.6.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2005). SPSS for windows step by step –a simple guide and
reference 12.0 update. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Gorsuch, R.L. (1997). Exploratory factor analysis: its role in item analysis. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 68(3), 532-560.
Gravetter, F.J., & Wallnau, L.B. (2005). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral
sciences. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Gropper, S.S., Smith, J.L., & Groff, J.L. (2005). Advanced nutrition and human
metabolism. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Harnack, L., Lee, S., Schakel, S.F., Duval, S., Luepker, R.V., & Arnett, D.K. (2003).
Trends in the trans-fatty acid composition of the diet in a metropolitan area: the
Minnesota Heart Survey. J. Am. Dietetic Assoc., 103(9), 1160-1166.
Hess, S., Yanes, M., Jourdan, P., Edelstein, S. (2005). Trans fat knowledge is related to
education level and nutrition facts label use in health-conscious adults. Top. Clin.
Nutr., 20(2), 109-117.
Kirksey, O., Harper, K., Thompson, S., & Pringle, M. (2004). Assessment of selected
patient educational materials of various chain pharmacies. Journal of Health
Communication, 9(2), 91-93.
Kohlmeier, L. (1997). High consumption of trans fatty acids raises the risk of breast
cancer. Modern Medicine, 65(11).
Larque, E., Zamora, S., & Gil, A. (2001). Dietary trans fatty acids in early life: a review.
Early Human Dev, 65; 31-41.
Lichtenstein, A.H., Appel, L.J., Brands, M., Carnethon, M., Daniels, S., Franch, H.,
Franklin, B., Kris-Etherton, P., Harris, W., Howard, B., Karanja, N., Lefevre, M.,
Rudel, L.,Sacks, F., Van Horn, L., Winston, M., & Wylie-Rosett, J. (2006). Diet
and lifestyle recommendations revision 2006: A scientific statement from the
American Heart Association Nutrition Committee. Circulation, 114:82-96.
Linn, R.L., Miller, M.D. (2005). Measurement and assessment in teaching. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. p. 69.
Litwin, M.S. (1995), How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
64
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Lock, A.L., Perfield II, J.W., & Bauman, D.E. (2003, December). Connecting trans fatty
acids and human health. Pro-Dairy.
Lovejoy, J.C., Smith, S.R., Champagne, C.M., Most, M.M., Lefevre, M., Delany, J.P.,
Denkins, Y.M., Rood, J.C., Veldhuis, J., & Bray, G.A. (2002). Effects of diets
enriched in saturated (palmitic), monounsaturated (oleic), or trans (elaidic) fatty
acids on insulin sensitivity and substrate oxidation in healthy adults. Diabetes Care,
25(8), 1283-1288.
Mojska, H., Socha, P., Socha, J., Soplinska, E., Jaroszewska-Balicka,W., & Szponar, L.
(2003). Trans fatty acids in human milk in Poland and their association with
breastfeeding mother’s diets. Acta Paediatr. 92, 1381-1387.
Moss, J. (2006). Labeling of trans fatty acid content in food, regulations and limits –
The FDA view. Atherosclerosis Supplements, 7, 57-59.
Mozaffarian, D., Pischon, T., Hankinson, S.E., Rifai, N., Joshipura, K., Willett, W.C., &
Rimm, E.B. (2004). Dietary intake of trans fatty acids and systemic inflammation in
women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 79, 606-612.
National Cattleman’s Beef Association. (2003). Nutrient facts: trans fatty acids.
Retrieved September 29, 2005, from National Cattleman’s Beef Association web
site: http://www.nebeef.org/post/lfu/Trasn_Fatty_Acid_Fact_Sheet.pdf.
Parmenter, K., & Wardle, J. (2000). Evaluation and design of nutrition knowledge
measures. Journal of Nutrition Education, 32, 269-277.
Salmeron, J., Hu, F.B., Manson, J.E., Stampfer, M.J., Colditz, G.A., Rimm, E.B., &
Willet, W.C. (2001). Dietary fat intake and risk of type 2 diabetes in women. Am J
Clin Nutr., 73, 1019-1026.
Slattery, M.L., Benson, J., Ma, K., Schaffer, D., & Potter, J.D. (2001). Trans-fatty acids
and colon cancer. Nutrition and Cancer, 39(2), 170-175.
Stender, S., & Dyerberg, J. (2004). Influence of trans fatty acids on health. Annals of
Nutrition and Metabolism, 48, 61-66.
Stender, S., Dyerberg, J., Bysted, A., Leth, T., & Astrup, A. (2006). A trans world
journey. Atherosclerosis Supplements, 7, 47-52.
Voorips, L.E., Brants, H.A.M., Kardinaal, A.F.M., Hiddink, G.J., Brandt, P.A., &
Goldbohm, R.A. (2002). Intake of conjugated linoleic acid, fat, and other fatty acids
in relation to postmenopausal breast cancer: the Netherlands cohort study on diet and
cancer. Am J Clin Nutr., 76, 873-882.
65
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Welland, S.K., Mutius, E.V., Husing, A., Asher, M.I. (1999). Intake of trans fatty acids
and prevelance of childhood asthma and allergies in Europe. Lancet, 353(9169).
Wendy’s significantly cuts trans fats – switch to new cooking oil under way. (2006, June
8). News at Wendy’s. Retrieved on June 22, 2006, from Wendy’s web site:
http://www.wendys.com/about_us/news/index.jsp?news=5
Zamora, A. (2005) Fats, oils, fatty acids, triglycerides - chemical structure.
Scientific Psychic. Retrieved on October 15, 2005, from Scientific Psychic web site:
http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/fattyacids.html
66
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
APPENDIX A
TABLES
Table A.1
Pearson Correlations for the Two Reliability Groups
Incentive
Category and Item
RHIM
Knowledge
Know Diet Source
0.322
Know More Trans Fats
0.564
Know Risk Factor
0.555
Know FDA
0
Know Properties
0.241
Know Current Trend
0.398
Know Animal Fat
0.299
Know Ingredients
0.503
Know Unsaturated
0.552
Know Per Serving
0.477
Know Fats Oils
0.326
Attitude
For me Beneficial
0.541
For me Harmful
0.374
For me Healthy
0.509
For me Non-nutritious
0.446
Low Trans Fats
0.345
Restaurant Dishes
-0.064
Favorite Restaurant
0.304
Restaurant Menu
0.503
Restaurant Fried
0.648
Belief
Knowledgeable
0.498
67
No Incentive
Nutrition
0.747
c
c
c
0.329
c
0.431
c
0.853
0.727
0.772
0.627
0.535
c
c
0.617
c
1
-0.564
0.681
0.792
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.1 Continued
Category and Item
Behavior
When Available Low Fat
When Available Low Trans Fat
When Available Low Sat Fat
Grocery Content
Grocery Food Labels
Margarine
Home Oil
Zero Grams Notice
Restaurant Nutrition Info
French Fries
Fried Meat
Cook At Home Breakfast
Cook At Home Lunch
Cook At Home Dinner
Eat Out Breakfast
Eat Out Lunch
Eat Out Dinner
Zero Grams Buy
Cooking Method
Self Efficacy
Buy Foods
Regularly Prepare Dishes
Change Ingredients
Prepare Tasty Dishes
Demographics
Affiliation
Status
Major
Department
Education
Gender
Age
Marital Status
Income
Incentive
RHIM
No Incentive
Nutrition
0.659
0.583
0.514
0.743
0.764
0.695
0.719
0.66
0.381
0.978
0.637
0.681
0.574
0.477
x
x
x
0.655
0.434
0.472
-0.052
0.254
0.785
0.67
0.712
0.921
0.483
0.776
c
0.294
0.482
0.754
0.55
c
0.189
1
0.464
0.727
0.513
0.661
0.469
0.587
0.784
0.579
0.658
0.674
1
1
o
o
0.275
1
0.996
0.479
0.488
0.783
c
o
o
0.902
1
c
1
0.816
68
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.1 Continued
Incentive
RHIM
1
o
1
o
0.831
No Incentive
Nutrition
1
o
c
o
0.55
Category and Item
Race
Race Other
Birth Country
International
Physical Activity
Informative
Why Answer
0.579
0.535
Why Answer Other
o
o
Learning More
0.526
0.381
Learning Method
0.594
0.338
Learning Method Other
o
o
Note. This table compares correlation values from the 1st and 2nd
reliability tests conducted on both RHIM and Nutrition students.
Constant items (marked by a "c") are those which were answered
in the same way by every participant. Correlations cannot be
calculated from items with no variation. Open-ended items are
marked by an "o" and only refer to demographic or informative
items. Items marked with an "x" indicate a formatting error and
therefore, no data was collected.
69
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.2
ANOVA Comparisons of Categories
Category
Behavior
No Knowledge
Some Knowledge
Very Knowledgeable
Attitude
No Knowledge
Some Knowledge
Very Knowledgeable
Self Efficacy
No Knowledge
Some Knowledge
Very Knowledgeable
N
Factor Score
Post Hoc Group*
75
21
22
0.3236
-0.5835
-0.4838
A
B
B
75
21
22
0.2742
-0.4301
-0.5093
A
B
B
75
21
22
0.3693
-0.492
-0.7894
A
B
B
Note. Post Hoc Groups A,B, and C are significantly different at the level of 0.05. Post Hoc tests
were performed using REG W Q in means of knowledge and factor scores.
70
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3
Comparison of Food Data on Products that Contain Trans-Fats
Brand
Name
Austex
Beef Stew
Austex
Chili
Austin
Cracker Sandwich
Austin
Cracker Sandwich
Austin
Cracker Sandwich
Austin
Cracker Sandwich
Austin
Cracker Sandwich
Banguet
Brown n Serve
Banquet
Pot Pies
Banquet
Pot Pies
Banquet
Homestyle Bakes
Banquet
Desert Bakes
Banquet
Homestyle Bakes
Banquet
6 Salisbury Steaks and Brown Gravy
Banquet
Wings
Banquet
Wings
Banquet
Crispy Chicken Variety Pack
Banquet
Beef Enchilada and Tamale Combo Meal
Banquet
Beef Patty
Banquet
Cheese Enchilada Meal
Banquet
Chicken Enchilada Meal
Banquet
Chicken Finger Meal
Banquet
Chicken Fried Beef Steak Meal
Banquet
Crispy Chicken Variety Pack
Banquet
Fettuccine Alfredo
Banquet
Fried Chicken Meal
Banquet
Meat Loaf Meal
Banquet
Mexican Style Enchilada Combo Meal
Banquet
Pepperoni Pizza Meal
Flavor
Original
with Beans
Cheese Cracker w/ Cheddar Cheese
Cheese Cracker w/ Peanut Butter
Grilled Cheese
Peanut Butter & Jelly
Toasty Cracker w/ Peanut Butter
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef Stew and Biscuits
Chocolate Silk Pie
Chicken, Mashed Potatoes, Biscuits
Family Size
Honey BBQ
Hot & Spicy
Southern
with Country Style Vegetables Meal
71
SS (g)
240
240
39
39
39
39
39
54
198
198
220
78
182
127
85
85
118
312
269
311
312
201
284
118
276
255
269
312
191
TF (g)
1.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
3.5
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
TF/100g
0.42
0.42
10.26
5.13
10.26
8.97
5.13
1.85
0.25
0.25
0.45
1.28
0.82
0.79
1.18
0.59
0.85
0.32
0.37
0.16
0.16
0.25
0.18
0.85
0.18
0.39
0.37
0.32
0.26
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Banquet
Banquet
Ben & Jerry's
Bertolli
Bertolli
Bertolli
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Name
Salisbury Steak Meal
Swedish Meatballs
Coffe Heath Crunch
Chicken Alla Vodka & Farfalle
Chicken Parmigiana & Penne
Grilled Chicken Alfredo
Hamburger Helper
Mashed Potatoes
Super Moist
Super Moist
Super Moist
Super Moist
Hamburger Helper
Hamburger Helper
Hamburger Helper
Hamburger Helper
Hamburger Helper
Tuna Helper
Hamburger Helper
Complete Meals
Hamburger Helper
Rich and Creamy Frosting
Brownie Mix
Super Moist
Muffin Mix
Super Moist
Rich and Creamy Frosting
Rich and Creamy Frosting
Whipped Frosting
Flavor
Bacon Cheeseburger
Butter & Herb
Butter Pecan
Butter Recipe Chocolate
Butter Recipe Yellow
Carrot
Cheddar Cheese Melt
Cheeseburger Macaroni
Cheesy Enchilada
Cheesy Hashbrowns
Cheesy Nacho
Cheesy Pasta
Cheesy Shells
Chicken Fettuccine Alfredo
Chili Cheese
Chocolate
Chocolate Chunk
Chocolate Fudge
Cinnamon Streusel
Cinnamon Swirl
Coconut Pecan
Cream Cheese
Cream Cheese
72
SS (g)
269
290
104
340
340
340
49
25
43
43
43
51
37
43
51
48
45
43
41
146
42
33
30
43
36
51
35
33
24
TF (g)
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
2.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
TF/100g
0.37
0.17
0.96
0.15
0.15
0.44
2.04
2.00
2.33
1.16
1.16
1.96
1.35
1.16
1.96
1.04
2.22
1.16
1.22
0.68
1.19
7.58
1.67
1.16
2.78
1.96
4.29
6.06
6.25
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Name
Tuna Helper
Tuna Helper
Tuna Helper
Hamburger Helper
Super Moist
Hamburger Helper
Tuna Helper
Whipped Frosting
Hamburger Helper
Brownie Mix
Brownie Mix
Brownie Mix
Warm Delights
Super Moist
Warm Delights
Rich and Creamy Frosting
Super Moist
Rich and Creamy Frosting
Super Moist
Warm Delights
Warm Delights
Brownie Mix
Hamburger Helper
Hamburger Helper
Mashed Potatoes
Potatoes
Super Moist
Whipped Frosting
Hamburger Helper
Cookie Mix
Flavor
Creamy Broccoli
Creamy Parmesan
Creamy Roasted Garlic
Crunchy Taco
Devil's Food
Double Cheese Quesadilla
Fettuccini Alfredo
Fluffy White
Four Cheese Lasagna
Frosted
Fudge Brownies
Fudge Brownies - Dutch Chocolate
Fudgy Chocolate Chip Cookie
German Chocolate
Hot Fudge Brownie
Lemon
Lemon
Milk Chocolate
Milk Chocolate
Molten Caramel Cake
Molten Chocolate Cake
Original Supreme
Philly Cheesesteak
Potatoes Stroganoff
Roasted Garlic & Cheddar
Scalloped
Strawberry
Strawberry Mist
Stroganoff
Sugar Cookie
73
SS (g)
48
48
49
43
43
48
45
24
38
38
28
32
82
43
88
33
43
33
43
95
95
32
37
28
25
27
43
24
36
28
TF (g)
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
TF/100g
2.08
2.08
3.06
2.33
1.16
3.13
2.22
6.25
1.32
2.63
1.79
1.56
1.22
1.16
2.27
6.06
2.33
7.58
2.33
2.11
2.11
1.56
2.70
3.57
2.00
1.85
2.33
6.25
2.78
3.57
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Betty Crocker
Bisquick
Bisquick
Bisquick
Bisquick
Bisquick
Bisquick
Blue Bell
Blue Bell
Blue Bonnet
Blue Bonnet
Bridgeford
California Pizza Kitchen
California Pizza Kitchen
Campbells
Campbells
Campbells
Campbells
Campbells
Campbells
Name
Tuna Helper
Hamburger Helper
Complete Meals
Brownie Mix
Brownie Mix
Whipped Frosting
Super Moist
Super Moist
Ginger Bread
Pie Crust
Pound Cake
Biscuit Mix
Biscuit Mix
Biscuit Mix
Pancake Mix
Pancake Mix
Pancake Mix
Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough
Southern Pecan
Blue Bonnet
Blue Bonnet
Parkerhouse Style Rolls
Crispy Thin Crust
Five Cheese and Tomato
Supper Bakes
Chunky Chili
Chunky Chili
Spaghettios
Spaghettios
Chunky
Flavor
Tetrazzini
Three Cheese
Three Cheese Chicken
Triple Chunk
Walnut
Whipped Cream
White
Yellow
Complete - Cinnamon Swirl
Complete - Honey Butter
Complete - Three Cheese
Original
Shake 'n Pour Buttermilk
Shake 'n Pour Original
Light Sticks
Original Sticks
BBQ Recipe Chicken
Cheesy Chicken with Pasta
Fire House
Hold the Beans
Meatballs
Meatballs - A to Z's
Potato Ham Chowder
74
SS (g)
45
42
147
30
28
24
43
43
51
20
57
37
37
37
40
57
57
74
76
14
14
57
133
119
85
240 ml
240 ml
252
252
240 ml
TF (g)
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
1.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
TF/100g
1.11
1.19
1.02
1.67
1.79
6.25
2.33
2.33
2.94
12.50
2.63
4.05
5.41
6.76
3.75
0.88
1.75
1.35
0.66
7.14
10.71
1.75
0.38
0.42
0.59
x
x
0.20
0.20
x
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Campbells
Campbells
Chef Boyardee
Chef Boyardee
Chex Mix
Contessa
Country Crock
Country Crock
Country Crock
Crisco
David
Digiorno
Digiorno
Digiorno
Digiorno
Digiorno
Dolly
Dolly
Dolly
Dolly
Dolly
Dolly
Dolly
Dolly
Dolly
Dolly
Dolly
Dolly
Duncan Hines
Duncan Hines
Name
Spaghettios
Chunky Chili
Chili Mac
Jumbo
Chex Mix
Shrimp Primavera
Country Crock
Deluxe
Country Crock
All-Vegetable Shortening
Sunflower Kernels
Garlic Bread Pizza
Cheese Stuffed Crust
Garlic Bread Pizza
Microwave Rising Crust Pizza
Cheese Stuffed Crust
Donut Gems
Donut Gems
Donut Holes Glazed
Donut Holes Glazed
Mini Crullers
Mini Crullers
Powdered Donuts
Powdered Donuts
Donut Gems
Donut Gems
Jumbo Donuts
Jumbo Donuts
Muffin Mix
Moist Deluxe
Flavor
Raviolios
Roadhouse
Hot n' Spicy
Country Maple
Macaroni and Cheese
Spreadable Sticks
Four Cheese
Pepperoni Pizza
Pepperoni Pizza
Pepperoni Pizza
Three Meat Pizza
Chocolate
Chocolate
Powdered Sugar
Powdered Sugar
Blueberry Streusel
Butter Recipe Golden
75
SS (g)
252
240 ml
250
255
30
208
11
230
14
12
30
144
150
145
142
136
61
61
55
55
64
64
57
57
59
59
44
44
47
52
TF (g)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.0
0.5
0.5
2.0
1.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
TF/100g
0.20
x
0.20
0.20
1.67
0.96
4.55
0.22
14.29
12.50
1.67
0.69
0.33
0.69
1.06
0.37
0.82
0.82
1.82
1.82
1.56
1.56
0.88
0.88
1.69
1.69
1.14
1.14
2.13
0.96
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Duncan Hines
Duncan Hines
Duncan Hines
Duncan Hines
Duncan Hines
Duncan Hines
Duncan Hines
Duncan Hines
Duncan Hines
Duncan Hines
Duncan Hines
Duncan Hines
Duncan Hines
Eggo
Eggo
Eggo
El Charrito
Famous Amos
Famous Amos
Famous Amos
Fleishmann's
Fleishmann's
Freschetta
Gardetto's
Gardetto's
General Mills
Ghiradelli
Ghirardelli
Godiva Ice Cream
Godiva Ice Cream
Name
Creamy Homestyle Frosting
Signature Deserts
Muffin Mix
Creamy Homestyle Frosting
Creamy Homestyle Frosting
Creamy Homestyle Frosting
Brownie Mix
Signature Deserts
Creamy Homestyle Frosting
Brownie Mix
Moist Deluxe
Creamy Homestyle Frosting
Muffin Mix
Cinnamon Toast
French Vanilla
Jungle Pancakes
Queso Dinner
Cookie
Cookie
Sandwich Cookie
Fleishmann's
Fleishmann's
Brick Oven
Gardetto's
Gardetto's
Raisin Nut Bran
Premium Mix
Ghirardelli
Belgian Dark Chocolate
Chocolate Rasberry Truffle
Flavor
Buttercream
Chocolate Silk Torte
Cinnamon Swirl
Classic Vanilla
Coconut Pecan
Cream Cheese
Double Fudge
Hot Fudge Brownie Sundae
Milk Chocolage
Milk Chocolate Chunk
Pineapple Supreme
Strawberries 'n Cream
Wild Maine Blueberry
Chocolate Chip
Chocolate Chip and Pecan
Vanilla
Original - Stick
Unsalted Stick
Italian Style Pepperoni
Original Recipe
Original Recipe - Reduced Fat
Double Chocolate Brownies
Milk Chocolate with Caramel Filling
76
SS (g)
35
63
45
35
35
35
31
64
35
31
43
35
45
92
70
117
312
29
29
34
14
14
154
30
30
55
35
42
106
106
TF (g)
1.5
0.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
2.5
2.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
0.5
2.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
TF/100g
4.29
0.79
2.22
4.29
4.29
4.29
1.61
0.78
4.29
1.61
1.16
4.29
2.22
0.54
3.57
2.14
0.32
6.90
5.17
7.35
14.29
14.29
0.32
6.67
3.33
0.91
2.86
2.38
0.47
0.47
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Godiva Ice Cream
Green Giant
Green Giant
Green Giant
Green Giant
Green Giant
Green Giant
Green Giant
Green Giant
Green Giant
Green Giant
Green Giant
Haagen Dazs
Haagen Dazs
Haagen Dazs
Haagen Dazs
Haagen Dazs
Haagen Dazs
Haagen Dazs
Haagen Dazs
Haagen Dazs
Haagen Dazs
Hormel
Hormel
Hormel
Imperial
Imperial
Jiffy Pop
Jimmy Dean
Jimmy Dean
Name
Classic Milk Chocolate
Broccoli
Cauliflower
Roasted Potatoes with Broccoli
Roasted Potatoes with Garlic & Herbs
Cheesy Rice & Broccoli
Creamed Spinach
Green Bean Casserole
Honey Glazed Carrots
Pasta, Broccoli, Carrots & Cheese Sauce
Roasted Potatoes
Teriyaki Vegetables
Baileys
Butter Pecan
Chocolate
Chocolate Chocolate Chip
Coffee
Mayan Chocolate
Rum Raisin
Strawberry
Vanilla
Vanilla Swiss Almond
Beef Tips
Kids
Meat Loaf
Imperial
Imperial
Popcorn
Breakfast Bowls
Croissant
Flavor
Cheese Sauce
Cheese Sauce
Cheese Sauce
Seasoned
with Broccoli & Cheese Sauce
with Gravy
Cheezy Mac 'n Cheese
with tomato sauce
Spread
Sticks
Butter
Bacon
Ham & Cheese
77
SS (g)
106
110
98
122
154
283
109
109
115
227
142
110
102
106
106
106
106
110
106
106
106
106
140
213
140
14
14
34
227
96
TF (g)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
2.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
TF/100g
0.47
0.45
0.51
0.41
0.97
0.35
0.46
0.92
0.87
0.22
0.35
0.91
0.49
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.45
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.36
0.23
0.71
3.57
17.86
8.82
0.66
3.13
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Jimmy Dean
Jimmy Dean
Jimmy Dean
Jimmy Dean
Jimmy Dean
Jimmy Dean
Jimmy Dean
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Name
Croissant Sandwich
Breakfast Bowls
Biscuit Sandwiches
Croissant
Croissant Sandwich
Griddle Cake
Sausage Biscuit
Chips Deluxe
Fudge Shoppe
Sandwich Cracker
Ready Crust
Chips Deluxe
Soft Batch
Chips Deluxe
Sandies
Chips Deluxe
Sandwich Cracker
Chips Deluxe
Bistro
Fudge Shoppe
ELFudge
Animals
Fudge Shoppe
Ready Crust Mini
Ready Crust
Fudge Shoppe
Animals
Bistro
Country Style
Soft Batch
Flavor
Ham and Cheese
Sausage
Sausage Egg & Cheese
Sausage Egg & Cheese
Sausage Egg and Cheese
Sausage Egg and Cheese
Snack Size
Caramel Chip and Fudge Stripes
Caramel Filled
Cheese & Peanut Butter
Chocolate
Chocolate and Peanut Butter
Chocolate Chip
Chocolate Chip and Fudge Stripes
Chocolate Chip and Pecan Shortbread
Chocolate Lovers
Club & Cheddar
coconut
Corn Bread
Deluxe Grahams
Double Stuffed
Frosted
Fudge Stripes
Graham
Graham
Grasshopper
Iced
Multigrain
Oatmeal
Oatmeal Raisin
78
SS (g)
96
227
128
128
128
142
145
20
30
39
21
16
16
20
16
16
36
15
16
27
35
31
29
23
21
29
30
16
28
16
TF (g)
3.0
1.5
3.0
3.5
3.5
1.0
4.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
3.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
3.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
2.5
1.0
TF/100g
3.13
0.66
2.34
2.73
2.73
0.70
2.76
7.50
3.33
5.13
7.14
9.38
6.25
7.50
9.38
6.25
9.72
10.00
6.25
5.56
10.00
4.84
5.17
8.70
9.52
5.17
6.67
6.25
8.93
6.25
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Keebler
Kemps
Kemps
Kid Cuisine
King's Hawaiian
Klondike
Kraft
Krusteaz
Krusteaz
Krusteaz
Krusteaz
Name
Chips Deluxe
ELFudge
Zesta
Chips Deluxe
Sandies
Sandies
Chips Deluxe
ELFudge
Grahams
Ready Crust
Sandies
Animals
Sandwich Cracker
Fudge Shoppe
Zesta
Danish Wedding Cookies
Golden Vanilla Wafers
Graham Cracker Crumbs
Mini Vanilla Wafer
Vienna Fingers
Cake and Ice Cream
Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough
All American Fried Chicken
Bread
Heath
Caramels
Supreme Mix
Cornbread Mix
Supreme Mix
Scone Mix
Flavor
Original
Original
Original
Peanut Butter Cups
Pecan Shortbread
Pecan Shortbread - reduced fat
Rainbow
Scooby Doo
Scooby Doo
Shortbread
Simply Shortbread
Spongebob Squarepants
Toast & Peanut Butter
White Fudge Stripes
Whole Grain Wheat
Hawaiian Sweet
Traditional
Crumb Cake
Honey Cornbread
Lemon Bars
Traditional English Style
79
SS (g)
15
28
15
16
16
16
16
28
29
21
16
30
39
29
15
26
30
18
30
31
70
70
286
57
83
40
50
27
34
38
TF (g)
1.5
2.0
0.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
0.5
2.5
2.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
TF/100g
10.00
7.14
3.33
9.38
12.50
9.38
9.38
7.14
5.17
9.52
6.25
5.00
5.13
5.17
3.33
5.77
8.33
2.78
8.33
8.06
0.71
0.71
0.35
0.88
0.60
2.50
4.00
3.70
2.94
6.58
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Land O Lakes
Little Debbie
Little Debbie
Little Debbie
Little Debbie
Little Debbie
Little Debbie
Little Debbie
Little Debbie
Little Debbie
Little Debbie
Little Debbie
Lunchables
Lunchables
Lunchables
Lunchables
Lunchables
Lunchables
Lunchables
Lunchables
Lunchables
Lunchables
Lunchables
Lunchables
Margaritaville
Margaritaville
Margaritaville
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Name
Land O Lakes
Sugar Wafers
Sandwich Cracker
Sandwich Cracker
Sugar Wafers
Boston Crème Rolls
Cosmic Brownies
Devil Cremes
Fudge Brownies
Golden Cremes
Strawberry Shortcake Rolls
Swiss Cake Rolls
Stackers
Mini with Drink
Maxed Out
Stackers
Stackers
Stackers
Stackers with Drink
Deluxe
Deluxe
Ham and Cheddar with Crackers
Ham and Swiss with Crackers
Turkey and Cheddar with Crackers
Island Lime Shrimp
Jamin Jerk Shrimp
Sunset Shrimp Scampi
Pot Pies
Pot Pies
Pot Pies
Flavor
Fresh Butter Taste Spread
Chocolate
Peanut Butter and Cheese
Peanut Butter Toasty
Strawberry
Bologna and American
Burgers
Chicken Strips
Ham and American
Ham and Cheddar
Turkey and American
Turkey and Cheddar
Turkey/Chicken with Swiss/Cheddar
Turkey/Ham with Swiss/Cheddar
Beef
Beef
Chicken
80
SS (g)
14
26
26
26
26
62
62
47
61
43
61
61
118
116
170
107
128
119
147
146
146
128
128
128
112
112
112
234
234
234
TF (g)
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
1.5
7.0
2.0
0.5
1.5
TF/100g
10.71
7.69
5.77
5.77
7.69
3.23
0.81
2.13
0.82
2.33
2.46
2.46
0.85
0.43
0.59
0.47
0.78
0.84
0.34
0.68
0.68
0.78
0.78
0.78
2.23
1.34
6.25
0.85
0.21
0.64
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Marie Callenders
Martha White
Michelinas
Morrisons
Morrisons
Morrisons
Morrisons
Morrisons
Morrisons
Name
Pot Pies
Pot Pies
Pot Pies
Pot Pies
Pot Pies
Pot Pies
Pot Pies
Pot Pies
Pot Pies
Banana Cream Pie
Cheesy Chicken Breast and Rice
Chicken Teriyaki
Chunky Chicken and Noodles
Coconut Cream Pie
Dutch Apple Pie
Fettuccine with Chicken and Broccoli
Herb Roasted Chicken
key Lime Pie
Meat Lasagna
Meatloaf and Gravy
Spagetti with Meat Sauce
Turkey Breast with Stuffing
Muffin Mix
Fettuccine Alfredo
Texas Style
Bis-Kits
Corn Kits
Stone Ground
Texas Style
Sopapilla Mix
Flavor
Chicken
Creamy Mushroom Chicken
Creamy Mushroom Chicken
Creamy Parmesan Chicken
Creamy Parmesan Chicken
Honey Roasted Chicken
Honey Roasted Chicken
Turkey
Turkey
Chocolate Chip
Honey Sweet Cornbread Mix
Prepared Biscuit Mix
Prepared Cornbread Mix
Yellow Cornbread Mix
Yellow Cornbread Mix
81
SS (g)
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
107
396
397
397
107
128
369
397
102
227
397
482
397
35
255
28
35
28
28
28
30
TF (g)
0.5
2.0
0.5
2.0
0.5
2.0
0.5
2.0
0.5
2.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.0
4.0
0.5
0.5
2.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
1.0
TF/100g
0.21
0.85
0.21
0.85
0.21
0.85
0.21
0.85
0.21
1.87
0.13
0.13
0.13
1.87
3.13
0.14
0.13
1.96
0.22
0.13
0.10
0.13
1.43
0.20
1.79
7.14
5.36
5.36
1.79
3.33
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Mrs. Smith's
Mrs. Smith's
Murray
Murray
Murray
Murray
Murray
Murray
Murray
Murray
Murray
Murray
Murray
Murray
Murray
Murray
Murray
Murray
Murray
Murray
Nabisco
Nabisco
Nancy's
Nancy's
Night Hawk
Ore-Ida
Ore-Ida
Ore-Ida
Ore-Ida
Ore-Ida
Name
Carrot Cake
Pound Cake
Sugar Free Sandwich Cookies
Sugar Free Cookies
Sugar Free Cookies
Sugar Free Sandwich Cookies
Sugar Free Wafers
Sugar Free Cookies
Sugar Free Cookies
Sugar Free Sandwich Cookies
Sugar Free Cookies
Sugar Free Cookies
Ginger Snaps
Sugar Free Wafers
Sugar Free Cookies
Ginger Snaps
Sugar Free Sandwich Cookies
Butter Cookies
Chocolate Chip Cookies
Vanilla Wafers
Cheese Nips
HoneyMaid
Quiche
Quiche
Charbroiled Fingers
Extra Crispy
Easy Fries
Extra Crispy
Easy Fries
Extra Crispy
Flavor
Chocolate
Chocolate Chip
Chocolate Chip with Pecans
Crème
duplex
Fudge Dipped Shortbread
Fudge Dipped Wafers
Lemon
Peanut Butter
Pecan Shortbread
Regular
Regular
Shortbread
sugar free
Vanilla Cookies
4 Cheese
Cinnamon
Florentine
Lorraine
Fast Foods
Golden Crinkles
Golden Crinkles
Golden Fries
Seasoned Crinkles
82
SS (g)
83
85
28
32
32
28
30
31
31
28
29
32
30
30
30
31
32
30
30
31
30
31
170
170
221
84
84
84
84
84
TF (g)
1.5
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
2.0
3.5
1.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
TF/100g
1.81
1.18
8.93
7.81
7.81
8.93
8.33
4.84
6.45
8.93
6.90
10.94
5.00
8.33
6.67
6.45
6.25
6.67
5.00
8.06
1.67
3.23
0.29
0.29
0.68
2.38
1.79
2.38
1.79
2.38
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Ore-Ida
Ore-Ida
Ore-Ida
Ore-Ida
Ore-Ida
Ore-Ida
Ore-Ida
Orville Redenbacher's
Orville Redenbacher's
Oscar Mayer
Owens
Owens
Owens
Owens
Owens
Owens
Owens
Palermo's
Parkay
Patio
Patio
Patio
Patio
Patio
Pepperidge Farm
Pepperidge Farm
Pepperidge Farm
Pepperidge Farm
Pepperidge Farm
Pepperidge Farm
Name
Extra Crispy
Crispers
Golden Crinkles
Golden Fries
Steak Fries
Waffle Fries
Zesties
Popcorn
Popcorn
Fast Franks
Border Breakfasts
Border Breakfasts
Snackwiches
Snackwiches
Snackwiches
Border Breakfasts
Mashed Potatoes
Primo Thin
Parkay
Beef Enchilada Dinner
Beef Tamales & Enchilada Dinner
Cheese Enchilada Dinner
Chicken Enchilada ConQueso Dinner
Enchilada Combo Dinner
Pie Crusts
Turnovers
Turnovers
3-Layer Cake
3-Layer Cake
Garlic Bread
Flavor
Steak Fries
Cinnabon
Movie Theater Butter - Pour Over
Beef Frank in a Bun
Bacon Egg & Cheese Tacos
Chorizo Egg & Cheese Tacos
Hot Sausage Biscuits
Sausage Biscuits
Sausage Egg & Cheese Biscuits
Sausage Egg & Cheese Tacos
Texas
Old World 6 Cheese
Original - Stick
All Vegetable Deep Dish - 9inch
Apple
Cherry
Chocolate Fudge
Coconut
Five Cheese
83
SS (g)
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
33
33
96
136
136
112
112
141
136
124
149
14
312
347
312
312
312
21
89
89
69
69
56
TF (g)
1.5
3.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
2.0
2.0
4.5
3.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
5.0
5.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
TF/100g
1.79
4.17
1.79
1.79
0.60
2.38
2.38
13.64
10.61
1.04
0.74
0.74
0.89
0.89
1.06
0.74
0.81
0.34
10.71
0.32
0.29
0.32
0.16
0.32
7.14
5.62
5.62
2.17
2.17
3.57
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Pepperidge Farm
Pepperidge Farm
Pepperidge Farm
Pepperidge Farm
Pepperidge Farm
Pepperidge Farm
Pepperidge Farm
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Name
Garlic Bread
Turnovers
Pot Pies
Pot Pies
Puff Pastry
Puff Pastry
Garlic Bread
Toaster Strudel
Ready to Bake
Toaster Strudel
Cresent
Oven Baked Dinner Rolls
Oven Baked Biscuits
Golden Layers
Grands Flaky Layers
Grands Homestyle
Golden Layers
Grands Flaky Layers
Grands Homestyle
Oven Baked Biscuits
Waffles
Grands Flaky Layers
Toaster Scrambles
Toaster Scrambles
Toaster Strudel
Ready to Bake
Ready to Bake
Create 'n Bake
Ready to Bake
Ready to Bake
Flavor
Mozarella
Peach
Roasted Turkey
Roasted Turkey
Sheets
Shells
Apple
Big Deluxe - Chocolate Chip
Blueberry
Butter Flake
Butter Flake
Butter Tastin
Butter Tastin'
Butter Tastin'
Butter Tastin'
Buttermilk
Buttermilk
Buttermilk
Buttermilk
Buttermilk
Cheddar
Cheese Egg and Bacon
Cheese Egg and Sausage
Cherry
Chocolate Chip
Chocolate Chip - Sugar Free
Chocolate Chip Cookies
Chocolate Chip Walnut
Chocolate Chunk and Chip
84
SS (g)
50
89
227
227
41
47
50
54
43
54
28
48
59
34
58
58
34
58
58
59
68
58
47
47
54
26
26
29
26
26
TF (g)
2.0
5.0
9.0
0.5
4.0
5.0
2.5
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
4.0
1.5
3.5
3.0
1.5
3.5
3.0
4.0
1.5
3.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
TF/100g
4.00
5.62
3.96
0.22
9.76
10.64
5.00
1.85
4.65
1.85
5.36
4.17
6.78
4.41
6.03
5.17
4.41
6.03
5.17
6.78
2.21
6.03
4.26
4.26
1.85
5.77
3.85
3.45
3.85
5.77
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Name
Creamy Supreme Frosting
Mini - Bites
Toaster Strudel
Grands
Grands
Creamy Supreme Frosting
Ultimate Desert Kit
Toaster Strudel
Toaster Strudel
Oven Baked Biscuits
Toaster Scrambles
Grands Homestyle
Grands
Golden Layers
Grands
Oven Baked Biscuits
Creamy Supreme Frosting
Cresent
Golden Layers
Breadsticks
Creamy Supreme Frosting
Whipped Supreme Frosting
Cresent
Grands Flaky Layers
Grands Homestyle
Create 'n Bake
Fudge Supreme
Moist Supreme
Toaster Strudel
Turnovers
Flavor
Chocolate Fudge
Cinnamon
Cinnamon Roll
Cinnamon Rolls Cream Cheese Icing
Cinnamon Rolls with Icing
Coconut Pecan
Cookies 'n Crème
Cream Cheese and Strawberry
Danish Style Cream Cheese
Easy Split
Egg Cheese and Bacon - Reduced Fat
Extra Rich
Extra Rich Cinnamon Rolls
Flakey
Flakey Supreme Cinnamon Rolls
Flaky Layers
Funfetti
Garlic Butter
Honey Butter
Italian
Milk Chocolate
Milk Chocolate
Original
Original
Original
Peanut Butter Cookies
Peanut Butter Swirl
Pineapple
Rasberry
Real Apple
85
SS (g)
35
49
54
99
99
35
53
54
54
90
47
61
99
34
99
52
37
28
34
60
35
24
28
58
58
29
31
43
54
57
TF (g)
2.0
2.5
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
6.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
1.5
5.0
3.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
3.5
3.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
3.0
TF/100g
5.71
5.10
1.85
2.53
2.53
5.71
2.83
1.85
2.78
6.67
4.26
6.56
3.03
4.41
5.05
5.77
5.41
5.36
5.88
2.50
5.71
6.25
5.36
6.03
5.17
3.45
1.61
2.33
1.85
5.26
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Pop Secret
Pop Secret
Pop Secret
Pop Secret
Poppers
Progresso
Quickmeal
Quickmeal
Red Baron
Red Baron
Red Baron
Red Baron
Red Baron
Name
Turnovers
Microwave
Oven Baked Dinner Rolls
Grands Homestyle
Oven Baked Biscuits
Toaster Scrambles
Ultimate Desert Kit
Create 'n Bake
Ready to Bake
Ultimate Desert Kit
Cornbread
Creamy Supreme Frosting
Whipped Supreme Frosting
Toaster Strudel
Cinnamon Rolls
Cinnamon Rolls
Orange Sweet Rolls
Popcorn
Popcorn
Popcorn
Popcorn
Cheddar Cheese Jalapeno
Potato, Broccoli, & Cheese
Bacon Cheeseburger
Cheeseburger
Classic Crust
Deep Dish Singles
Classic Crust
Classic Crust
Classic Crust
Flavor
Real Cherry
Soft Dinner Rolls
Soft White
Southern Style
Southern Style
Southwestern Style
Strawberry 'n Crème
Sugar Cookies
Sugar Cookies
Triple Chocolate
Twists
Vanilla
Vanilla
Wildberry
With Cream Cheese Icing
With Icing
Cheddar
Extra Butter
Homestyle
Movie Theatre Butter
4-Cheese Pizza
Cheese Pizza
Four Cheese Pizza
Hamburger Pizza
Mexican Style Supreme Pizza
86
SS (g)
57
51
35
58
59
47
45
29
26
54
41
35
24
54
44
41
49
36
36
36
36
76
252
142
136
155
170
246
129
131
TF (g)
3.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
0.5
0.5
2.0
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
TF/100g
5.26
1.96
2.86
5.17
6.78
3.19
2.22
5.17
5.77
1.85
4.88
5.71
6.25
1.85
4.55
4.88
4.08
16.67
16.67
13.89
16.67
0.66
0.20
1.41
1.10
0.32
0.29
0.41
0.39
0.38
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Red Baron
Red Baron
Red Baron
Sara Lee
Sara Lee
Sara Lee
Sara Lee
Sara Lee
Sara Lee
Sara Lee
Sara Lee
Sara Lee
Sara Lee
Sara Lee
Sara Lee
Sara Lee
Sara Lee
Sister Schubert's
Sister Schubert's
Sister Schubert's
Sister Schubert's
Sister Schubert's
Stauffers
Stauffers
Stouffers
Stouffers
Stouffers
Stouffers
Stouffers
Stouffer's
Name
Classic Crust
Classic Crust
Thin Crust
Pound Cakes
Original Cream Cheesecake
Break Cake
Break Cake
Break Cake
Break Cake
Original Cream Cheesecake
Break Cake
Break Cake
Original Cream Cheesecake
All Butter Pound Cake
French Cheesecake
Key West Lime Pie
Pecan Coffee Cake
Blueberry Yeast Rolls
Cheddar Yeast Rolls
Cinnamon Yeast Rolls
Sausage Wrap Rolls
Yeast Rolls
Ginger Snaps
Whales
Cheesy Spagetti Bake
Country Fried Beef Steak
Meat Loaf
Meatloaf and Gravy
Salisbury Steak
Chicken Enchilada
Flavor
Pepperoni Pizza
Sausage and Pepperoni Pizza
Ultimate Pepperoni Pizza
Butter
Cherry
Chocolate Covered
Chocolate Covered
Cinnamon Sugar
Cinnamon Sugar
Classic
Powdered Sugar
Powdered Sugar
Strawberry
with Cheese Sauce and Rice
87
SS (g)
255
255
145
85
135
54
54
47
47
121
50
50
135
76
133
120
54
55
56
56
32
62
28
43
340
453
279
156
272
201
TF (g)
1.0
1.0
0.5
2.0
1.5
4.5
4.5
3.0
3.0
1.5
3.5
3.5
1.5
1.0
3.0
2.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.5
1.0
2.5
0.5
2.0
1.0
0.5
1.5
0.5
TF/100g
0.39
0.39
0.34
2.35
1.11
8.33
8.33
6.38
6.38
1.24
7.00
7.00
1.11
1.32
2.26
1.67
4.63
1.82
1.79
1.79
1.56
2.42
3.57
5.81
0.15
0.44
0.36
0.32
0.55
0.25
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Swanson
Tai Pei
Tai Pei
TGI Fridays
TGI Fridays
TGI Fridays
TGI Fridays
TGI Fridays
Toll House
Tombstone
Tony's
Tony's
Tony's
Tony's
Tony's
Tony's
Tony's
Tony's
Tony's
Tootsie Roll
Tootsie Roll
Totino's
Totino's
Totino's
Totino's
Totino's
Totino's
Totino's
Totino's
Totino's
Name
Breaded Fish Fillet
Chicken Fried Rice
Pepper Beef
Buffalo Wings
Cheddar and Bacon Potatoe Skins
Chicken Quesdilla Rolls
Steak Quesadilla Rolls
Sweet and Smokey Popcorn Chicken
Mini Cookies
Original Pizza
Pizza for One
Original Crust
Original Crust
Original Crust
Pizza for One
Thin Crust
Original Crust
Original Crust
Pizza for One
Tootsie Roll
Tootsie Roll
Crisp Crust Party Pizza
Crisp Crust Party Pizza
Pizza Rolls
Crisp Crust Party Pizza
Crisp Crust Party Pizza
Pizza Rolls
Pizza Rolls
Pizza Rolls
Crisp Crust Party Pizza
Flavor
Sugar Cookies
Extra Cheese
Cheese Pizza
Cheeseburger Pizza
Hamburger Pizza
Pepperoni Pizza
Pepperoni Pizza
Pepperoni Pizza
Sausage and Pepperoni Pizza
Supreme Pizza
Supreme Pizza
Fruit Rolls
Midgees
Canadian Style Bacon
Combination
Combination
Hamburger
Pepperoni
Pepperoni
Sausage
Supreme
Three Cheese
88
SS (g)
284
403
403
77
94
87
83
94
25
145
184
152
156
148
196
134
156
160
219
40
40
147
152
85
155
145
85
85
85
138
TF (g)
1.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
1.5
4.5
4.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.0
TF/100g
0.53
0.12
0.25
0.65
1.06
1.15
1.20
1.06
6.00
0.34
0.27
0.99
1.28
1.35
1.02
1.49
1.28
0.94
0.68
2.50
2.50
2.72
2.63
1.76
2.90
2.76
1.76
1.76
1.76
2.17
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Table A.3 Continued
Brand
Totino's
Totino's
Totino's
Totino's
Viola
Viola
Viola
Wolf
Wolf
Wolf
Wolf
Name
Pizza Rolls
Mega Pizza Rolls
Mega Pizza Rolls
Mega Pizza Rolls
Chicken Fajita
Garlic Chicken
Three Cheese Chicken
Chili
Chili
Chili
Chili
Flavor
Trio
Ultimate Cheese
Ultimate Combonation
Ultimate Pepperoni
Hot No Beans
Mild No Beans
No Beans
with Beans
SS (g)
85
93
93
93
235
178
205
248
250
248
254
TF (g)
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Note. Serving size is abbreviated by SS and trans-fat by TF. Trans-fat data was standardized to g/100g in order to make comparisons between
different food products.. Some Campbell's Soup values contained trans-fats; however, the g/100g value was not calculated due to the complications
of converting ml to g. These missing values are marked by an "x". In order to determine this value the density of each individual soup
would need to be collected. Due to time and money constraints, this was not done.
89
TF/100g
1.76
1.61
1.08
1.61
0.43
0.56
0.24
0.60
0.80
0.60
0.39
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
APPENDIX B
PRELIMINARY TRANS-FATTY ACID SURVEY
Introduction
This survey consists of 57 questions and will take approximately 10-20 minutes to
complete. By participating in this survey, you will be contributing to the continuing
research of trans-fats and a better understanding of what people know about them. Thank
you for taking the time to complete this survey!
1. Please enter your email address. (This information is needed so that a single
person does not answer the survey twice. It will not be released to the public or be
used in our research.)
a. Open ended
*Email explanation amended for pilot test due to incentives.
Personal Information
In this survey we want to compare trans-fat knowledge in people of different ages
and backgrounds. The next 12 questions involve personal information that will not be
connected with you or your email address.
*Title and directions amended. Entire demographic section moved to the end of the
survey.
2. Are you:
a. a student in class A.
b. a student in class B.
90
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
c. a Lubbock dietitian.
d. a faculty member in ANSC.
*Item amended for various subject groups. Pilot test item 37.
3. What college are you in?
a. Not affiliated with Tech
b. Agricultural Sciences & Natural Resources
c. Architecture
d. Arts & Sciences
e. Business Administration
f. Education
g. Engineering
h. Human Sciences
i. Mass Communications
j. School of Law
k. Visual & Performing Arts
l. Health Science Center
m. Other (please specify)
i. Open ended
*Item deleted. It was not necessary to know the college due to pilot test items
39 and 40.
4. If you are a student, what is your major?
a. Open ended
*Pilot test item number 40 was added.
91
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
5. What is your classification/title?
a. Not affiliated with Tech
b. Freshman
c. Sophomore
d. Junior
e. Senior
f. Graduate – MS
g. Graduate – PhD
h. Instructor
i. Assistant Professor
j. Associate Professor
k. Full Professor
l. Staff
*Item deleted due to item 6.
6. What is your highest level of education?
a. High school graduate or equivalent
b. Some college
c. Associate’s degree
d. Bachelor’s degree
e. Master’s degree
f. Professional degree (such as MD)
g. Doctorate degree (such as PhD or EdD)
92
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
7. What is your age?
a. Open ended
8. Are you currently married?
a. Yes
b. No
9. Which best describes your personal income for 2006?
a. I don’t work while attending school.
b. $0 - $9,000
c. $10,000 - $19,000
d. $20,000 - $29,000
e. $30,000 - $39,000
f. $40,000 - $49,000
g. $50,000 - $59,000
h. $60,000 - $69,000
i. $70,000 - $79,000
j. $80,000 - $89,000
k. $90,000 - $99,000
l. $100,000 - $149,000
m. $150,000 - $199,000
n. $200,000 +
*Item amended. Pilot test item 45.
10. Which best describes your race/ethnicity?
93
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
a. African American
b. American Indian or Eskimo
c. Asian or Pacific Islander
d. Hispanic
e. White / Non Hispanic
f. Other (please specify)
i. Open ended
11. Are you American born or internationally born?
a. American
b. International (please specify which country)
i. Open ended
12. In the past month, how often did you exercise for a consecutive 30 minutes?
a. Once a day or more
b. Once every 2-3 days
c. Once a week
d. Once every 2 weeks
e. Once a month
f. Less than once a month
*Item amended. Pilot test item 48.
What do you know about trans-fats?
Please answer the following questions according to what you know about transfats.
94
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
*Title and directions amended.
13. What are the major dietary sources for trans-fats? (Check all that apply.)
a. Fast foods
b. Vegetables
c. Margarine
d. Fruits
e. Packaged snacks
f. Bakery products
g. Meats
*Item amended. Pilot test item 2
14. Fried foods have more or less trans-fats than non fried foods?
a. More
b. Less
c. Not sure
*Item amended. Pilot test item 3.
15. Trans-fats are a risk factor for heart disease
a. Agree
b. Disagree
c. Not sure
*Item amended. Pilot test item 4.
16. Are trans-fat amounts required on food labels?
a. Yes
b. No
95
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
c. Not sure
*Item amended. Pilot test item 5.
17. What properties do adding trans-fat give to foods? (Check all that apply.)
a. Shelf life
b. Color
c. Flavor maintenance
d. Favorable texture
e. Lower calories
*Item amended. Pilot test item 6.
18. Do packaged foods today have more or less grams of trans-fats than one year
ago?
a. More
b. Less
c. Not sure
*Item amended. Pilot test item 7.
19. Trans-fat amounts are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.
a. Agree
b. Disagree
c. Not sure
*Item deleted due to similarities with amended item 16.
20. What animal products have trans-fats? (Check all that apply.)
a. Beef
b. Chicken
96
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
c. Turkey
d. Pork
*Item amended. Pilot test item 8.
21. Would you favor fast food restaurants that changed their frying oil to a low transfat oil?
a. Yes
b. Maybe
c. No
d. Don’t care
*Item deleted. Not a knowledge related item.
22. If “partially hydrogenated oil” is written on the food label, then the product is
trans-fat free.
a. Agree
b. Disagree
c. Not sure
*Item amended. Pilot test item 9.
23. Are trans-fats saturated or unsaturated fats?
a. Saturated
b. Unsaturated
c. Not sure
*Item amended. Pilot test item 10.
24. Companies can claim that a food product is trans-fat free if it has no more than
0.49 grams of trans-fat per serving.
97
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
a. Agree
b. Disagree
c. Not sure
*Item amended. Pilot test item 11.
25. Do natural vegetable oils (e.g. olive, peanut) contain trans-fats?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not sure
*Item amended. Pilot test item 12.
How do you feel about trans-fats?
Answer the following questions according to how you feel about trans-fats.
*Title and directions amended.
26. I am concerned with the possible negative health effects caused by trans-fats.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Not sure
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
*Item amended due to its leading nature. Pilot test item 13.
27. It is important to me that food products have a low amount of trans-fats.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
98
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
c. Not sure
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
28. I would like to see more low fat options on restaurant menus.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Not sure
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
*Item amended. Pilot test item 16.
29. Products that claim to be “trans-fat free” affect your decision to buy them.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Not sure
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
*Item deleted.
30. Would you like to see trans-fat amounts printed on restaurant menus?
a. Yes
b. Maybe
c. No
d. Don’t care
*Item amended. Pilot test item 17.
99
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
31. Would you positively view restaurants that had low trans-fat dishes?
a. Yes
b. Maybe
c. No
d. Don’t care
*Item amended. Pilot test item 15.
32. Would you like to see trans-fat free food items labeled on menus?
a. Yes
b. Maybe
c. No
d. Don’t care
*Item deleted.
33. Would you positively view restaurants that had low trans-fat dishes?
a. Yes
b. Maybe
c. No
d. Don’t care
*Item deleted.
34. Would you frequent restaurants that claimed trans-fat free/low dishes?
a. Yes
b. Maybe
c. No
d. Don’t care
100
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
*Item deleted.
35. Would you like to see more menu items that are not fried?
a. Yes
b. Maybe
c. No
d. Don’t care
*Item amended. Pilot test item 18.
36. How knowledgeable do you think you are about trans-fats?
a. Very knowledgeable
b. Somewhat knowledgeable
c. Not sure
d. Not very knowledgeable
e. Not knowledgeable
*Item amended. Pilot test item 19.
How do you act towards trans-fats?
Answer the following questions according to how you would act in the given
situation.
*Title and directions amended.
37. When grocery shopping, how often do you look at the fat content of the foods you
buy?
a. Always
101
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
38. Do you notice food products that advertise “0 grams of trans-fat” on the package?
a. Always
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
39. When cooking at home, how often do you use oil?
a. Always
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
40. When ordering meals in restaurants, how often to do ask to see the nutrition
facts?
a. Always
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
102
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
41. When shopping for margarine, do you look for the product with the lowest
amount of trans-fats?
a. Always
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
42. When shopping, how often do you read the food labels of the products you buy?
a. Always
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
43. How often do you each french fries per week?
a. 1 time or less
b. 2 to 3 times
c. 4 to 5 times
d. More than 5 times
44. How often do you cook at home per week?
a. 14 meals or more (twice a day or more)
b. 7-13 meals (once a day or more)
c. 1-7 meals (less than once a day)
103
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
d. Hardly ever
45. How often do you eat fried meats per week (e.g. chicken fingers/nuggets, steak
fingers, calf fries)?
a. 1 time or less
b. 2 to 3 times
c. 4 to 5 times
d. More than 5 times
46. How many times do you eat out during the week?
a. 1 time or less
b. 2 to 3 times
c. 4 to 5 times
d. More than 5 times
47. Are you more likely to buy a product that advertises “0 grams of trans-fat” on the
package?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don’t care
48. What type of cooking method do you use most often when preparing meals at
home?
a. Bake
b. Fry
c. Boil
d. Grill
104
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
e. Braise
f. Steam
49. I regularly choose low fat foods when they are available.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Not sure
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
Trans-fat choices.
Answer the following questions according to how confident you would feel in the
given situation.
50. How confident are you that you could regularly prepare low fat meals at home?
a. Very confident
b. Somewhat confident
c. Somewhat unconfident
d. Very unconfident
51. If you went to a restaurant, how confident would you feel about selecting foods
that are not fried?
a. Very confident
b. Somewhat confident
c. Somewhat unconfident
d. Very unconfident
105
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
52. How confident do you feel about your ability to buy foods that are low in transfats?
a. Very confident
b. Somewhat confident
c. Somewhat unconfident
d. Very unconfident
53. If you were given a recipe for one of your favorite foods, how confident would
you be about changing the ingredients to reduce the amount of trans-fats?
a. Very confident
b. Somewhat confident
c. Somewhat unconfident
d. Very unconfident
54. How confident are you that you could prepare tasty and low fat dishes?
a. Very confident
b. Somewhat confident
c. Somewhat unconfident
d. Very unconfident
Last page
Please answer the following questions and click submit when you’re finished. Thank
you for taking the time to fill out our survey!
55. Why did you choose to answer this survey?
a. I’m interested in trans-fats.
106
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
b. I wanted the incentive.
c. I’m bored
d. Other (please specify)
i. Open ended
56. Would you be interested in learning more about trans-fats?
a. Yes
b. Maybe
c. No
57. If you answered yes or maybe to the previous questions, what educational
method would you prefer?
a. Online
b. Community program
c. Course on the Tech campus
d. Other (please specify)
i. Open ended
107
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
APPENDIX C
PILOT TEST TRANS-FATTY ACID SURVEY
Introduction
This survey consists of 54 questions and will take approximately 10-20 minutes to
complete. By participating in this survey, you will be contributing to the continuing
research of trans-fats and a better understanding of what people know about them. You
will also be entered into a drawing for some great prizes!
1. Please enter your email address. (This information is needed so that we can
notify the winner of the incentive drawing. It will not be released to the public or
used in our research.)
Section 1
Please complete each question by clicking the bubble next to the answer. Each
question must be answered before you can move on to the next section.
2. What are the major dietary sources of trans-fats? (Check all that apply.)
Item Title: Know Diet Source
a. Fats foods
b. Vegetables
c. Margarine
d. Fruit
e. Packaged snacks
f. Bakery products
108
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
g. Meat
3. Which statement would you consider to be true?
Item Title: Know More Trans Fats
a. Pork chops have more trans-fat than chicken breasts.
b. Fried fish fillets have more trans-fat than grilled fish fillets.
c. Avocados have more trans-fat than coconuts.
4. Trans-fats are a well know risk factor for:
Item Title: Know Risk Factor
a. cancer.
b. obesity.
c. diabetes.
d. heart disease.
5. The FDA requires trans-fat amounts to be listed:
Item Title: Know FDA
a. in the cooking directions.
b. at the point of purchases
c. on the food labels.
d. on the front of the package.
6. What properties do trans-fats give to foods? (Check all that apply.)
Item Title: Know Properties
a. Extended shelf life
b. Enhanced color
c. Flavor maintenance
109
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
d. Favorable texture
e. Lower calories
7. What is the current trend of trans-fat content in food products?
Item Title: Know Current Trend
a. They have greater amounts of trans-fat than in 2005.
b. They have less amounts of trans-fat than in 2005.
c. They have the same amount of trans-fat as in 2005.
8. Which of the following animal product has the greatest amount of trans-fat?
Item Title: Know Animal Fat
a. Beef
b. Chicken
c. Turkey
d. Pork
9. Which of the following ingredients indicates that they are trans-fats in a food
product?
Item Title: Know Ingredients
a. Monosodium glutamate
b. Partially hydrogenated oil
c. High fructose corn syrup
d. Enriched wheat four
10. Which of the following statements is true?
Item Title: Know Unsaturated
a. Trans-fats are saturated fats.
110
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
b. Trans-fats are unsaturated fats.
*Item deleted due to low a Chronbach’s Alpha value.
11. What is the highest amount of trans-fat per serving allowed in a trans-fat free
product?
Item Title: Know Per Serving
a. 0.24
b. 0.49
c. 0.74
d. 0.99
*Item deleted due to low a Chronbach’s Alpha value.
12. Which of the following fats/oils contains a significant amount of trans-fats?
Item Title: Know Fats Oils
a. Coconut oil
b. Lard
c. Peanut oil
d. Vegetable shortening
Section 2
Choose the answer that best indicates how you feel about the following statements.
Each question must be answered before you can move on to the next section.
13. For me, trans-fats in food products are:
a. beneficial.
Item Title: For Me Beneficial
111
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
i. Strongly agree
ii. Agree
iii. Not sure
iv. Disagree
v. Strongly disagree
*Item deleted due to low a Chronbach’s Alpha value.
b. harmful.
Item Title: For Me Harmful
i. Strongly agree
ii. Agree
iii. Not sure
iv. Disagree
v. Strongly disagree
c. healthy.
Item Title: For Me Healthy
i. Strongly agree
ii. Agree
iii. Not sure
iv. Disagree
v. Strongly disagree
*Item deleted due to low a Chronbach’s Alpha value.
d. non-nutritious.
Item Title: For Me Non-nutritious
112
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
i. Strongly agree
ii. Agree
iii. Not sure
iv. Disagree
v. Strongly disagree
14. It is important to me that food products have a low amount of trans-fats.
Item Title: Low Trans Fats
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Not sure
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
15. How would you view restaurants that have low or no trans-fat dishes?
Item Title: Restaurant Dishes
a. Negatively
b. Positively
c. Not sure
16. In my favorite restaurant, I would like to see:
Item Title: Favorite Restaurant
a. trans-fat free/low food items.
b. no changes in the current menu.
c. not sure.
17. In restaurants, I would like to see:
113
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Item Title: Restaurant Menu
a. No nutrition facts printed on the menu.
b. Trans-fat content printed on the menu.
c. All nutrient facts printed on the menu.
d. Not sure
*Item deleted due to low a Chronbach’s Alpha value.
18. In restaurants, I would like to see:
Item Title: Restaurant Fried
a. Fewer menu items that are fried.
b. More menu items that are fried.
c. Not sure.
19. How knowledgeable do you think you are about trans-fats?
Item Title: Knowledgeable
a. Extremely knowledgeable
b. Highly knowledgeable
c. Not sure
d. Somewhat knowledgeable
e. Not knowledgeable
Section 3
Choose the answer that best indicates how you would react in the following
situations. Each question must be answered before you can move on to the next section.
20. When available, I regularly choose foods that are:
114
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
a. Low fat.
Item Title: When Available Low Fat
i. Strongly agree
ii. Agree
iii. Not sure
iv. Disagree
v. Strongly disagree
*Item deleted due to a low test-retest correlation value.
b. Low trans-fat.
Item Title: When Available Low Trans Fat
i. Strongly agree
ii. Agree
iii. Not sure
iv. Disagree
v. Strongly disagree
*Item deleted due to a low test-retest correlation value.
c. Low saturated fat.
Item Title: When Available Low Sat Fat
i. Strongly agree
ii. Agree
iii. Not sure
iv. Disagree
v. Strongly disagree
115
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
*Item deleted due to a low test-retest correlation value.
21. When grocery shopping, how often do you consider the trans-fat content of the
foods you buy?
Item Title: Grocery Content
a. Always
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
22. When shopping for margarine, how often do you look for the product with the
lowest amount of trans-fats?
Item Title: Margarine
a. Always
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
23. When shopping, how often do you read the food labels of the products you buy?
Item Title: Grocery Food Labels
a. Always
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
116
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
e. Never
24. How often do you notice food products that advertise “0 grams of trans-fats” on
the package?
Item Title: Zero Grams Notice
a. Always
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
*Item deleted due to a low test-retest correlation value.
25. When cooking at home, how often do you use oil?
Item Title: Home Oil
a. Always
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
*Item deleted due to a low test-retest correlation value.
26. When ordering meals in restaurants, how often do you ask to see the nutritional
information?
Item Title: Restaurant Nutrition Info
a. Always
b. Very often
117
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
27. How many times per week do you eat french fries?
Item Title: French Fries
a. 1 or less
b. 2 to 3
c. 4 to 5
d. More than 5
28. How many times per week do you eat fried meats or fish (e.g. chicken
fingers/nuggets, steak fingers, calf fries, fried fish)?
Item Title: Fried Meat
a. 1 or less
b. 2 to 3
c. 4 to 5
d. More than 5
*Item deleted due to a low test-retest correlation value.
29. How often do you cook at home per week (this includes breakfast, lunch, and
dinner)?
a. Breakfast
Item Title: Cook at Home Breakfast
i. Daily
ii. Regularly (4-6 times per week)
118
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
iii. Occasionally (2-3 times per week)
iv. Rarely (1 or less time per week)
*Item deleted due to a low test-retest correlation value.
b. Lunch
Item Title: Cook at Home Lunch
i. Daily
ii. Regularly (4-6 times per week)
iii. Occasionally (2-3 times per week)
iv. Rarely (1 or less time per week)
*Item deleted due to a low test-retest correlation value.
c. Dinner
Item Title: Cook at Home Dinner
i. Daily
ii. Regularly (4-6 times per week)
iii. Occasionally (2-3 times per week)
iv. Rarely (1 or less time per week)
*Item deleted due to a low test-retest correlation value.
30. How many times do you eat out during the week (this includes breakfast, lunch,
and dinner)?
a. Breakfast
Item Title: Eat Out Breakfast
i. Daily
ii. Regularly (4-6 times per week)
119
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
iii. Occasionally (2-3 times per week)
iv. Rarely (1 or less time per week)
*Item deleted due to a low test-retest correlation value.
b. Lunch
Item Title: Eat Out Lunch
i. Daily
ii. Regularly (4-6 times per week)
iii. Occasionally (2-3 times per week)
iv. Rarely (1 or less time per week)
*Item deleted due to a low test-retest correlation value.
c. Dinner
Item Title: Eat Out Dinner
i. Daily
ii. Regularly (4-6 times per week)
iii. Occasionally (2-3 times per week)
iv. Rarely (1 or less time per week)
31. Are you more likely to buy a product that advertises “0 grams of trans-fat” on the
package?
Item Title: Zero Grams Buy
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not sure
120
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
32. What type of cooking method do you use most often when preparing meals at
home?
Item Title: Cooking Method
a. Bake
b. Fry
c. Boil
d. Grill
e. Braise
f. Steam
Section 4
Choose the answer that best indicates how certain you would feel in the following
situations. Each question must be answered before you can move on to the following
section.
33. How certain are you about you ability to buy foods that are low in trans-fats?
Item Title: Buy Foods
a. Very sure
b. Somewhat sure
c. Don’t know
d. Somewhat unsure
e. Unsure
34. How certain are you that you could regularly prepare low trans-fat meals at
home?
121
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Item Title: Regularly Prepare Dishes
a. Very sure
b. Somewhat sure
c. Don’t know
d. Somewhat unsure
e. Unsure
*Item deleted due to a low test-retest correlation value.
35. How certain are you about changing the ingredients of your favorite recipe to
reduce the amount of trans-fats?
Item Title: Change Ingredients
a. Very sure
b. Somewhat sure
c. Don’t know
d. Somewhat unsure
e. Unsure
36. How certain are you that you could prepare tasty and low fat dishes?
Item Title: Prepare Tasty Dishes
a. Very sure
b. Somewhat sure
c. Don’t know
d. Somewhat unsure
e. Unsure
122
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Section 5
In this survey we want to compare trans-fat knowledge in people of different ages and
backgrounds. The next 11 questions ask personal information that will not be connected
with you or your email address.
37. Identify your affiliation.
Item Title: Affiliation
a. I’m a student in Hotel Group Sales (RHIM 3308)
b. I’m a student in Club and Resort Management (RHIM 3355)
38. What is your status at Texas Tech?
Item Title: Status
a. Student
b. Faculty member
c. Staff
d. Not affiliated with Texas Tech.
39. If you are a student, what is your major?
Item Title: Major
a. Open ended
40. If you are a faculty or staff member, what department do you work for?
Item Title: Department
a. Open ended
41. What is you highest level of education?
Item Title: Education
a. High school graduate or equivalent
123
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
b. Some college
c. Associate’s degree
d. Bachelor’s degree
e. Master’s degree
f. Professional degree (such as MD)
g. Doctorate (such as PhD or EdD)
42. Please indicate your gender.
Item Title: Gender
a. Male
b. Female
43. What is you age?
Item Title: Age
a. Open ended
44. Are you currently married?
Item Title: Marital Status
a. Yes
b. No
45. Which best describes your total personal income for 2006 (this includes
scholarship, stipend, allowance, etc)?
Item Title: Income
a. $0 - $9,000
b. $10,000 - $19,000
c. $20,000 - $29,000
124
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
d. $30,000 - $39,000
e. $40,000 - $49,000
f. $50,000 - $59,000
g. $60,000 - $69,000
h. $70,000 - $79,000
i. $80,000 - $89,000
j. $90,000 - $99,000
k. $100,000 - $149,000
l. $150,000 - $199,000
m. $200,000 +
46. Which best describes your race/ethnicity?
Item Title: Race
a. African American
b. American Indian or Eskimo
c. Asian or Pacific Islander
d. Hispanic
e. White / Non Hispanic
f. Other (please specify)
i. Open ended
47. Are you American born or internationally born?
Item Title: Birth Country
a. American
b. International (please specify which country)
125
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
Item Title: International
i. Open ended
48. In the past month, how often did you exercise for 30 minutes or longer?
Item Title: Physical Activity
a. Once a day or more
b. Once every 2-3 days
c. Once a week
d. Once every 2 weeks
e. Once a month
f. Less than once a month
Last Page
Please answer the following questions and click submit when you are finished. Thank
you for taking the time to fill out this survey. Your answers are a valuable part of this
study!
49. Why did you choose to answer this survey?
Item Title: Why Answer
a. I am interested in trans-fats.
b. Extra credit.
c. I was asked to participate.
d. Other (please specify)
Item Title: Why Answer Other
i. Open ended
126
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
50. Would you be interested in learning more about trans-fats?
Item Title: Learning More
a. Yes
b. No
c. Maybe
51. If you answered yes or maybe to the previous question, what educational method
would you prefer?
Item Title: Learning Method
a. Online
b. Community program
c. Course on the Tech campus
d. Other (please specify)
Item Title: Learning Method Other
i. Open ended
52. Overall, I found this survey to be:
Item Title: Readable
a. easy to read.
b. hard to read.
c. other (please specify).
i. Open ended
53. Overall, I found the length of the survey to be:
Item Title: Survey Length
a. too short.
127
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
b. an appropriate length.
c. too long.
d. other (please specify).
54. On the web, I was able to access this survey:
Item Title: Accessibility
a. with ease.
b. with difficulty.
c. other (please specify).
128
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
APPENDIX D
FINAL TRANS-FATTY ACID SURVEY
Introduction
This survey consists of 41 questions and will take approximately 10 minutes to
complete. By participating in this survey, you will be contributing to the continuing
research of trans-fats and a better understanding of what people know about them.
1. Please enter your email address. (This information is needed to contact incentive
prize winners and to identify if a single person took the survey twice. It will not
be released to the public or be used in our research.)
a. Open ended
Section 1
Please complete each question by clicking the bubble next to the answer.
2.
What are the major dietary sources of trans-fats? (Check all that apply.)
a. Fast foods
b. Vegetables
c. Margarine
d. Fruits
e. Packaged snacks
f. Bakery products
g. Meats
3. Which statement would you consider to be true?
a. Pork chops have more trans-fat than chicken breasts.
129
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
b. Fried fish fillets have more trans-fat than grilled fish fillets.
c. Avocados have more trans-fat than coconuts.
4. Trans-fats are a well known risk factor for:
a. cancer.
b. obesity.
c. diabetes.
d. heart disease.
5. The FDA requires trans-fat amounts to be listed:
a. in the cooking directions.
b. at the point of purchase.
c. on the food labels.
d. on the front of the package.
6. What properties do trans-fats give to foods? (Check all that apply.)
a. Extended shelf life
b. Enhanced color
c. Flavor maintenance
d. Favorable texture
e. Lower calories
7. What is the current trend of trans-fat content in food products?
a. They have greater amounts of trans-fat than in 2005.
b. They have less amounts of trans-fat than in 2005.
c. They have the same amount of trans-fat as in 2005.
8. Which of the following animal product has the greatest amount of trans-fat?
130
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
a. Beef
b. Chicken
c. Turkey
d. Pork
9. Which of the following ingredients indicates that there are trans-fats in a food
products?
a. Monosodium glutamate
b. Partially hydrogenated oil
c. High fructose corn syrup
d. Enriched wheat flour
10. Which of the following fats/oils contains a significant amount of trans-fat?
a. Coconut oil
b. Lard
c. Peanut oil
d. Vegetable shortening
Section 2
Choose the answer that best indicates how you feel about the following statements.
11. For me, trans-fats in food products are:
a. harmful.
i. Strongly agree
ii. Agree
iii. Not sure
iv. Disagree
131
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
v. Strongly disagree
b. non-nutritious.
i. Strongly agree
ii. Agree
iii. Not sure
iv. Disagree
v. Strongly disagree
12. It is important to me that food products have a low amount of food products.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Not sure
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
13. How would you view restaurants that have low or no trans-fat dishes?
a. Negatively
b. Positively
c. Not sure
14. In my favorite restaurant, I would like to see:
a. trans-fat free/low food items.
b. no changes in the current menu.
c. not sure.
15. In restaurants, I would like to see:
a. fewer menu items that are fried.
132
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
b. more menu items that are fried.
c. not sure.
16. How knowledgeable do you think you are about trans-fats.
a. Extremely knowledgeable
b. Highly knowledgeable
c. Not sure
d. Somewhat knowledgeable
e. Not knowledgeable
Section 3
Choose the answer that best indicates how you would react in the following
situations.
17. When grocery shopping, how often do you consider the trans-fat content of the
foods you buy?
a. Always
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
18. When shopping, how often do you read the food labels of the products you buy?
a. Always
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
133
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
e. Never
19. When shopping for margarine, how often do you look for the product with the
lowest amount of trans-fat?
a. Always
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
20. When ordering meals in restaurants, how often do you ask to see the nutritional
information?
a. Always
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
21. How many times per week do you eat french fries?
a. 1 or less
b. 2 to 3
c. 4 to 5
d. More than 5
22. How many times during a typical week do you eat out for dinner?
a. Daily
b. Regularly (4-6 times per week)
134
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
c. Occasionally (2-3 times per week)
d. Rarely (1 or less time per week)
23. Are you more likely to buy a product that advertises “0 grams of trans-fat” on the
package?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not sure
24. What type of cooking method do you use most often when preparing meals at
home?
a. Bake
b. Fry
c. Boil
d. Grill
e. Braise
f. Steam
Section 4
Choose the answer that best indicates how certain you would feel in the following
situations.
25. How certain are you about your ability to buy foods that are low in trans-fats?
a. Very sure
b. Somewhat sure
c. Don’t know
135
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
d. Somewhat unsure
e. Very unsure
26. How certain are you about changing the ingredients of your favorite recipe to
reduce the amount of trans-fat?
a. Very sure
b. Somewhat sure
c. Don’t know
d. Somewhat unsure
e. Very unsure
27. How certain are you that you could prepare tasty and low trans-fat dishes?
a. Very sure
b. Somewhat sure
c. Don’t know
d. Somewhat unsure
e. Very unsure
Section 5
In this survey we want to compare trans-fat knowledge in people of different ages and
backgrounds. The next 11 questions ask personal information that will not be connected
with you or your email address.
28. What is your status at Texas Tech?
a. Student
b. Faculty member
c. Staff
136
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
d. Not affiliated with Texas Tech
29. If you are a student, what is your major?
a. Open ended
30. If you are a faculty or staff member, what department do you work for?
a. Open ended
31. What is your highest level of education?
a. High school graduate or equivalent
b. Associate’s degree
c. Bachelor’s degree
d. Master’s degree
e. Professional degree (such as MD)
f. Doctoral degree (such as PhD or EdD)
32. Please indicate your gender.
a. Male
b. Female
33. What is your age?
a. Open ended
34. Are you currently married?
a. Yes
b. No
35. Which best describes your total personal income for 2006 (this includes
scholarship, stipend, allowance, etc)?
a. $0 - $9,000
137
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
b. $10,000 - $19,000
c. $20,000 - $29,000
d. $30,000 - $39,000
e. $40,000 - $49,000
f. $50,000 - $59,000
g. $60,000 - $69,000
h. $70,000 - $79,000
i. $80,000 - $89,000
j. $90,000 - $99,000
k. $100,000 - $149,000
l. $150,000 - $199,000
m. $200,000 +
36. Which best describes your race/ethnicity?
a. African American
b. American Indian or Eskimo
c. Asian or Pacific Islander
d. Hispanic
e. White / Non Hispanic
f. Other (please specify)
i. Open ended
37. Are you American born or internationally born?
a. American
b. International (please specify which country)
138
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
i. Open ended
38. In the past month, how often did you exercise for 30 minutes or longer?
a. Once a day or more
b. Once every 2-3 days
c. Once a week
d. Once every 2 weeks
e. Once a month
f. Less than once a month
Last Page
Please answer the following questions and click submit when you are finished. Thank
you for taking the time to fill out this survey. Your answers are a valuable part of this
study!
39. Why have you chosen to answer this survey?
a. I want the incentive.
b. I am interested in trans-fats.
c. I enjoy taking surveys.
d. I want to help others with their research.
e. Other (please specify)
i. Open ended
40. Would you be interested in learning more about trans-fats?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Maybe
139
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
41. If you answered yes or maybe to the previous question, what educational method
would you prefer?
a. Online
b. Community program
c. Course on the Tech campus
d. Other (please specify)
i. Open ended
140
Texas Tech University, Jenny Strovas, August 2007
PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s
degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I
agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for research
purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the
Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that any copying or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my further
written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.
Agree (Permission is granted.)
___Jenny D’Laine Strovas________________________
Student Signature
____7/21/07_______
Date
Disagree (Permission is not granted.)
_______________________________________________
Student Signature
_________________
Date