Source: RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY submitted to NRP
EFNEP RELATED RESEARCH, PROGRAM EVALUATION AND OUTREACH
Sponsoring Institution
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Project Status
COMPLETE
Funding Source
Reporting Frequency
Annual
Accession No.
1017754
Grant No.
(N/A)
Cumulative Award Amt.
(N/A)
Proposal No.
(N/A)
Multistate No.
NC-_old3169
Project Start Date
Oct 1, 2018
Project End Date
Sep 30, 2023
Grant Year
(N/A)
Program Code
[(N/A)]- (N/A)
Recipient Organization
RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
3 RUTGERS PLZA
NEW BRUNSWICK,NJ 08901-8559
Performing Department
Nutritional Sciences
Non Technical Summary
For almost 50 years, The Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) has worked to improve the overall health and well-being among limited-resource population. NC3169, a multi-state research project, developed a new evaluation tool for EFNEP to update and improve its impact assessment. However, there is a need for EFNEP to also re-examine its "approach" to evaluating program impacts. The major focus of this project is to examine the feasibility of a new evaluation design (the retrospective-pretest) to measure program effectiveness and to compare it with the current design (the traditional pretest-posttest) among limited-resource population in nutrition education setting. If this new design is comparable to the assessment methods currently used (i.e., the traditional pretest-posttest method), it may increase EFNEP educational time and reduce labor costs.
Animal Health Component
100%
Research Effort Categories
Basic
0%
Applied
100%
Developmental
0%
Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)Subject of Investigation (SOI)Field of Science (FOS)Percent
7036099302050%
7036099303050%
Goals / Objectives
To complete and expand testing of newly developed EFNEP Food and Physical Activity Questionnaire (FPAQ) a. Complete further reliability testing b. Conduct Spanish reliability and validity testing c. Develop Retrospective pre/post questionnaire and examine feasibility of design on EFNEP impact reporting. d. Complete validity and reliability testing of infant feeding questions
Project Methods
This project is designed to address sections a and c of the second NC3169 goal.In year 1, while similar activities are simultaneously taking place at other stations for the other question sets (e.g., food safety, shopping, dietary intake, etc.), sensitivity to change assessment will be completed on the survey's PA questions to establish the FPAQ' s reliability.To test the sensitivity of the PAquestions in the FPAQ, a quasi-experimental study will be implemented. A convenience sample of NJ EFNEP participants will be recruited at their first classes, as the experiment group. During the same period, another group of low-income parents from the same geographic areas will be recruited for the comparison group. To the best of the researchers' abilities, the groups will be matched for age, gender, and educational levels. To be eligible for study inclusion, participants must: (1) be low-income (income<= 185% of the current Poverty Guidelines); (2) have at least one child less than 19 years old; (3) be at least 18 years old; (4) be able to read, write, and speak English; (5) have not previously attended EFNEP classes.At baseline (prior to the first EFNEP class attended), both the experiment and comparison groups will be asked to wear the accelerometers (GT3X model, ActiGraph, LLC, Pensacola, Florida) for 7 consecutive days. Participants from both groups will receive instructions on wearing the device above the right hip for >10 hours/day and removing the device during water-based activities (e.g., swimming, showering). Seven days later, they will return the accelerometers to the researchers and completed the 3 PA questions in the FPAQ to self-report their PA levels in the past week. The experimental group will then receive a 6-10-week EFNEP nutrition education as the intervention while the comparison group will receive no education.For post-testing, one week before the end of the intervention, both the experiment and comparison group will be asked to wear the accelerometers again for 7 days, following the same protocol described above. After 7 days, the 3 PA questions will be readministered and the accelerometers returned.Participants' whose data were not recorded for a minimum of 10 hours for 7 days will be excluded.The mean changes measured by FPAQ will be calculated by subtracting the baseline responses from FPAQ from the post-intervention measures, as well as the mean changes measured by accelerometer (within-group comparison). Spearman correlations coefficients and will be used to examine the changes measured by the FPAQ and the accelerometers. Meanwhile, standardized response mean,the response index, and the Guyatt's responsiveness statisticwill be calculated as another way to reflect sensitivity to change, as mentioned in the literature.2 Both t-tests and effect size will be used to examine the mean changes in PA measured by the FPAQ and the accelerometers between the experiment and comparison group(between-group comparison).The responsiveness/sensitivity to change of the 20-item FPAQ will also be assessed using nationalpretest and posttest data for fiscal year 2018. Shapiro-Wilk tests will be used to test the normality of the 20-items from FPAQ at both pre-test and post-test. Paired t-tests or nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used to examine if there are significant differences between pre-test and post-test, as well as standardized response mean.Aim 2, to identify the existence of response shift bias (i.e., a change in the way respondents interpret and respond to a question pre-and post- program evaluation, due to a change in their understanding of the topic).12,13 in different domains of FPAQ, will be addressed in years 2-3. A convenience sample of EFNEP participants will be recruited from at least four states. Equal representation from different regions, as well as different races/ethnicities, will be addressed. The eligibility criteria for inclusion will be the same as Aim 1.Participants will be recruited at the beginning of the EFNEP class series and asked to respond to the 20-item FPAQ (pretest). In a small sub-sample objective measures for PA will be incorporated to validate participants' responses. All participants will then receive a 6-10 week EFNEP program and complete the FPAQ at the conclusion the program (posttest). Participants will also respond to a retrospective version of the FPAQ (i.e., think back and report on their behaviors at the beginning at the EFNEP program) at the same time, and later to discuss any differences in the responses they gave between their pre-test responses, and their "think back" responses on their retrospective pre-tests. While this protocol increases the response burden for these participants, it is the protocol that is employed in this type of work, and participants receive subject payment for participation, which compensates them for the extra time spent completing survey measurees.Mean differencesfor each item from the FPAQ will be calculated for each test combination, including traditional pretest and retrospective pretest, traditional pretest and posttest, and retrospective pretest and posttest. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be used to assess the mean differences for each item in FPAQ at pretest, posttest, and retrospective pretest. This will allow for the comparison of change scores from pretest to posttest scores and change scores from retrospective pretest to posttest scores. Meanwhile, a significant difference between pretest and retrospective pretest indicate the existence of response-shift bias.Project Aims 3 and 4 aims will be addressed during years 3-5, likely at the same time, using the same EFNEP classes. Aim 3 will assess if measures of program effectiveness differ when traditional pre-post assessment protocol is used vs. if either a combined retrospective pretest with the posttest or a separate retrospective pretest from the posttest is used, and if so, which is superior. Project Aim 4 will assess if class educational time is increased and/or attrition reduced, according to which method is used.To accomplish Aim 3, a quasi-experiment design will be employed using a convenience sample of 3 EFNEP groups. Results from a comparison group (traditional pre-post design) will be compared to results from two experimental groups. One experimental group will employ "the Post & Then" design, in which the retrospective pretest questions are adjacent to the posttest questions in the same form. The other experimental group will employ the "Post-Then" design, in which 2 separate forms, one that addresses pre-intervention behaviors, and the other that addresses post-intervention behaviors. There will be approximately the same number of participants per group. Participants recruited from the same place will be assigned to the same group to avoid cross-talk. Aim 4 will be addressed at the same time, by evaluating the average length of time spent in education per class and class attrition rates for all three conditions.ANOVAwill be used to assess the differences among the two experiment groups (retrospective pretest) and the comparison group (traditional pretest-posttest)and independent t-test will be used to examine the mean differences between the two experimental groups for all variables.

Progress 10/01/19 to 09/30/20

Outputs
Target Audience:There are three target audiences for this project: • The first audience is Expanded Food and Nutrition Education program (EFNEP) participants or those eligible for program participation (i.e., low-income caregivers of young children). This audience is comprised of more women than men and includes a substantial minority population. • The second target audience is nutrition and public health educators who provide nutrition education to low-income audiences and who seek valid and reliable measures to assess the impacts of their programs, and to optimize protocols for administering assessments. • The third audience is stakeholders, such as local, state and federal politicians, who are interested in the results of nutrition education programs that are conducted in the regions for which they are responsible. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?As stated in the section on work done towards accomplishing major project goals, two doctoral students, Geb Bastian and Qing Chen,participated in the project this year and gained valuable experience in evaluation instrument design methodologies and their implementation. More specifically: 1) data collectionand data analysis were done by Geb Bastianand Qing Chen(who will be taking the lead in competing this portion of theprojectDr. Fitzgerald provided guidance and oversight of Qing Chen's training and progress. 2)Geb Bastian continued to assistwith study procedures, and volunteeredto take a leadership role in NC3169 in 2021 as Co-Chair. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?The Food and Physical Activity Questionnaire (FPAQ): 1) Has been administered in EFNEP classes such that program participants can self-assess their pertinent dietary quality, physical activity, food resource management and food safety practices. 2) The FPAQhas been disseminated to EFNEP professional and paraprofessional staff, who are nowusing it as part of the EFNEP adult questionnaire to assess their State ProgramEFNEP programs' success. The FPAQ has alos been made available, nationally, foruse by nutrition education professionals. 3) The FPAQ is being used by our federal partner, USDA's NIFA, to assess teh national impacts of EFNEP. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?During the next reporting period, cognitive interviews will be conducted online through using the Zoom platform, and additional qualitative analyses will be performed. Depending on the COVID-19 guidelines (i.e., if states are allowed to or able to conduct a reliable number of workshops with the participants), we also plan to test if the RPP FPAQ has a greater sensitivity to change in comparison to its prospective form, using a multistate sample of EFNEP participants. Finally, a time study will be initiated to determine if instructional time is saved by EFNEP paraprofessional educators administering the RPP FPAQ versus its prospective form. Results will be disseminated at professional conferences and EFNEP national conferences, and in manuscripts submitted to professional journals.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Aim A: Complete Further Reliability Testing In federal fiscal year 2020, testing was completed and the original 32 FPAQ questions were reduced to afinalized 25-item version of the Food and Physical Activity Questionnaire (FPAQ) was submitted to the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education (EFNEP) national program leadership. The FPAQ was combined with 5 additional questions to create a final 30-item EFNEP Adult Questionnaire. This final questionnaire was revealed at the 2020 EFNEP National Coordinator's Meeting and started being implemented nationwide in FFY 2021. This is of great value to EFNEP as a program, as all adult programming is now being evaluated with the 25 valid and reliable items from the FPAQ that were rigorously tested, plus 5 additional food safety and food security questions that are of interest to EFNEP program partners. Having a valid, reliable tool for EFNEP evaluation will allow program administrators to more confidently collect data on how nutrition education programming changes participants' lives. Our team also spent this past program year continuing research related to developing and testing a new retrospective pretest-posttest (RPP) protocol of the FPAQ. This project was started to address the possibility that the validity of FPAQ could be further strengthened by administering the pretest retrospectively to reduce the possibility of response shift bias that often happens when traditional (prospective) pretest-posttest approach is used in educational interventions. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic put a halt on our current study, which was collecting data via face-to-face cognitive interviews. A study and IRB adjustment to allow us to collect this data over Zoom is underway. Preliminary data from the cognitive interviews conducted this year suggests that the RPP FPAQ can be interpreted by a majority of low-income individuals, although some survey respondents may need additional instructions when a retrospective test is administered. We will collect more cognitive interviews until data saturation is reached, to fully inform development of an RPP FPAQ format that is most understandable by EFNEP participants. Aim C: Retrospective Pre Methodology for FPAQ Administration: This year, a doctoral trainee, Geb Bastian (under the direction of Dr. Palmer-Keenan), initiated cognitive interviews EFNEP participants to inform development of the RPP FPAQ to:1) see if the concept of asking questions retrospectively was understandable to our low-income, low-literacy population; and 2) if a side-by-side or separate-page formatting of RPP would be most understandable to the same population. Six cognitive interviews were conducted face-to-face before the COVID-19 shutdown began and the study was postponed. Currently, an IRB amendment to change the in-person interviews to online data collection (e.g., via Zoom) is underway. Six face-to-face cognitive interviews (2 from NJ, 2 from CO, 2 from TN) were conducted this year before the COVID-19 shutdown began in March 2020. Preliminary data from the 6 completed cognitive interviews suggest that the RPP FPAQ is understandable to most participants although some participants may require extra instruction. There was a mix of preference for the two different formats of RPP (questions appearing side-by-side versus on separate-pages). Four of the participants preferred the side-by-side format, and two of the participants preferred the separate-page format. There were no discernable differences in understanding between the two formats. A second doctoral trainee, Qing Chen, was brought onto this project. Qing will be using this data for her doctoral dissertation, and she has developed the draft of the dissertation proposal. This student is supervised by Dr. Nurgul Fitzgerald (Department of Nutritional Sciences), who has also joined NC3169 this year. Dr. Fitzgerald's research expertise on quantitative methods, community-based interventions, and chronic disease prevention will be a positive contribution to NC3169.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Li, C. (2020). Development and validation of a brief physical activity assessment tool for the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program. Dissertation, Rutgers University.


Progress 10/01/18 to 09/30/19

Outputs
Target Audience:• The first audience is Expanded Food and Nutrition Education program (EFNEP) participants or those eligible for program participation (i.e., low-income caregivers of young children). This audience is comprised of more women than men and includes a substantial minority population. • The second target audience is nutrition and public health educators who provide nutrition education to low-income audiences and who seek valid and reliable measures to assess the impacts of their programs, and to optimize protocols for administering assessments. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?1. Training for data collection and analysis has been provided to two doctoral students, Cheng Li and Geb Bastian. 2. Training regarding the development of manuscripts and abstracts for professional publications was provided to 2 graduate students and 1 undergraduate student. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Through journal articles and conference presentations and panels What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Aim 2 of the project will be addressed. That is, to see how the use of assessment done only at the conclusion of EFNEP lesson series compares to doing 2 assessments (pre- and post-EFNEP), compare. Two retrospective pretest-posttest (RPP) versions of the FPAQ will be developed for testing: one that is formatted so corresponding pretest and posttest questions are side-by-side (Survey A), and one that is formatted so the entire pretest comes before the entire posttest (Survey B). To determine which version of the survey is best understood by EFNEP participants, we will conduct cognitive testing of the two surveys in New Jersey, Maryland, Tennessee, Colorado, and Guam. Since the FPAQ questions have already undergone cognitive testing, abridged versions of Survey A and Survey B will be created with representative questions from each area of EFNEP that is taught (e.g., dietary quality, food safety, food resource management, physical activity and food security). In the first round of testing, participants will have the surveys read to them by researchers, and will be asked to interpret the questions and to think aloud as they answer each question. Participants will be probed to assess whether or not they understand the temporality of the pre- and posttest questions on each survey. Then, participants will be asked which survey is easier to understand and why. This qualitative data will be audio-recorded and content analyzed by Rutgers researchers. Surveys will then be revised for further cognitive testing rounds, with the final goal to have one final survey for further response shift bias testing.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? The final part of the is project's first aim (i.e., validity and sensitivity testing) for the Food and Physical Activity Questionnaire's physical activity questions; testing and analyses were completed. Validity testing with 106 EFNEP participants from Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Ohio, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Washington was performed by having them wear an accelerometer-based PA monitor for 5 days, for at minimum of 10 hours per day. They also completed self-reported physical activity logs. Concurrent validity was assessed using Spearman's rank order correlation coefficients to correlate participants' survey question responses with the recorded activity. Results ranged from -0.18 to 0.87. The questions' sensitivity testing was completed via secondary data analysis using the national EFNEP data from federal fiscal year 2018. Pre-EFNEP to post-EFNEP survey responses from this national sample (N=53,393) reflected significant increases (p<0.0001).

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Li C., & Palmer-Keenan D. (2019). P100 How Various Epoch Lengths and Activity Cut-Points Influence Physical Activity Estimates for Low-Income Hispanic Adults Under Free-Living Conditions. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 51(7), S77-S78.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: Moderator: Palmer-Keenan D. Panel: Baker S., Aragon C., Owens N., Li C., Franck K. "Measure What You Teach: How EFNEP Rooted Its New Impact Assessment in Research." Presentation at Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior Annual Meeting, July 2019: Orlando, FL.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: Li C. Assessment of Physical Activity in a Nutrition Education Program for Low-income Adults. Presented at 12th Annual Rutgers Nutrition, Endocrinology, and Food Science Graduate Student Conference, April 2019: New Brunswick, NJ.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Li Cheng, Auld G, D'Alonzo K, Palmer-Keenan D. "Communicating and Assessing Physical Activity: Lessons Learned from Cognitive Interviews with Low-Income Adults." Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 50(10), 984-992.