INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the Him along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

Universfo/ Microfilms International 300 N ZEEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW. LONDON WC1R 4EJ, ENGLAND 8001808

R a u s c h e r t , M a r jo r ie E l l e n

APPROPRIATENESS RATINGS OF FOOD AS REPORTED BY PARTICIPANTS IN THE EXPANDED FOOD AND NUTRITION EDUCATION PROGRAM AND BY FACULTY IN THE SCHOOL OF HOME ECONOMICS, THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

The Ohio State University PH.D, 1979

University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 18 Bedford Row. London WC1R 4EJ, England APPROPRIATENESS RATINGS OF FOOD AS REPORTED BY

PARTICIPANTS IN THE EXPANDED POOD AND NUTRITION

EDUCATION PROGRAM AND BY FACULTY IN THE SCHOOL OF

HO MS ECONOMICS, THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By Marjorie Ellen Rauschert, B.S., M.S.

*****

The Ohio State University

1979

Reading Committees Approved By

Rachel M. Hubbard

Anita McCormick Adviser Department of Human J . Robert Warmbrod Nutrition and Food Management ACKNOWIEDGIENTS

It is a pleasure to acknowledge the persons who provided guidance and support in the completion of this study. I wish to thank the members of my reading committee! Rachel Hubbard,

Anita McCormick, and Robert Warmbrod. I extend my sincere gratitude to Rachel Hubbard, my adviser, who provided advice and encouragement throughout this study. I appreciate the comments, suggestions, and assistance provided by Anita

McCormick and Robert Warmbrod.

I would also like to acknowledge the staff of the

Cooperative Extension Service, Franklin County, Ohio, for assistance in the collection of data. I would further like to express my gratitude to the faculty members in the School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University and to the program homemakers in the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education

Program, Franklin County, Ohio, whose cooperation made this study possible.

ii VITA

September 26, 19*f6...... B o m - Port Angeles, Washington

1 9 6 ? ...... B.S., The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida

1968-1970 ...... Home Economist, Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, United States Department of Agriculture, Hyattsvllle, Maryland

1970-1972 ...... Teaching Assistant, Department of Home Economics, The University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

1972 ...... M.S., The University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

1972-197*+...... Instructor, Clatsop Community College, Astoria, Oregon

1 9 7 4 - 1 9 7 6 ...... Instructor, Department of Home Economics, West Virginia State College, Institute, West Virginia

1978-1979 ...... Assistant Professor, Department of Home Economics, Montclair State College, Upper Montclair, New Jersey

PUBLICATIONS

"Food Use in Farm and Urban Households in 1955 an'1 1965•" Family Economics Review, September, 1968.

"Diets of Men, Women, and Children in the United States." Nutrition Program News, September-October, 1969*

iii TABUS OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLDEGEPENTS...... ii VITA ...... * ...... ill LIST OF TABIES...... vi

Chapte rs 1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Purpose ...... 3 1.2 Implications...... 4 1.3 Limitations...... , 5 1.4 Definitions of T e r m s ...... 7 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 10 2.1 Conditions of Food U s e ...... 10 2.2 Meanings Associated with Foods ...... 12 2.3 Preference Related to Conditions of U s e ...... 14 2.4 Appropriateness of Food-Use Combinations ...... 18 2.5 Familiarity Related to Appropriateness and Meaning...... 27 2.6 Other Factors Related to Food Behavior 27 2.7 Food Consumption Behavior of EFNEP Participants. . 28 2.8 Summary ...... 31 3. METHODOLOGY ...... 33 3.1 Instrumentation...... 33 3*2 Sample...... 36 3.3 Data Collection and Analysis...... 37 4. raisuLTs...... 42 4.1 Characteristics of Respondents...... 44 4.2 Familiarity Ratings for Specific Food Items .. . 4.3 Ratings of Food-Use Appropriateness...... 52 4.4 Use Factors, Weighted Appropriateness Ratings, and Percentage S c o r e s ...... 63 4.5 Use of Fruits and Vegetables and Dairy Products by EFNEP Homemakers...... 79 4.6 Comparison of EFUEP and Faculty F a c t o r s ...... 82 4.7 Comparison to Literature ...... 84 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...... 89 iv Appendices

A. Questionnaire for collection of data on character­ istics of respondents and familiarity with specific food items ...... * . 96

B. Food-by-item matrix for collection of ratings of food-use appropriateness for 2k food items for 12 conditions of u s e ...... '...... 100

C. Approval for research involving human subjects ...... 103

D. Familiarity ratings for 2k food i t e m s ...... 105

E. Appropriateness ratings for 2k food items on 12 conditions of u s e ...... 109

F. Weighted appropriateness ratings and percentage scores for 2k foods on five use f a c t o r s ...... 122

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 125

v LIST OF TABIES

Table Page

1. Factor loadings of semantic differential scale p a i r s ...... 16

2. Food-use factors and factor-defining foods, in order of factor loadings, identified from analysis of appropriateness ratings in four studies ...... 19

3- Association of eating time, eating occasion, and people type with fl a v o r ...... 26

6. Characteristics of faculty members in the School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, of EFNEP homemakers in Franklin County, Ohio, and of faculty members and EFNEP homemakers combined...... 65

3* Characteristics of EFNEP homemakers enrolled in Franklin County, Ohio, for the six-month period ending March 31 1 19?8, and of EFNEP homemakers participating in this study ...... 66

6. Yearly family income of faculty members in the School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, and of EFNEP homemakers in Franklin County, Ohio ...... $0

7. Ratings of food-use appropriateness for selected food items for the use "as a part of the main meal of the day" by faculty members, School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, and by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohio .... 55

8. Ratings of food-use appropriateness for selected food Items for the use "for breakfast" by faculty members, School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, and by EFNEP home­ makers, Franklin County, O h i o ...... 5&

9. Ratings of food-use appropriateness for selected food items for the use "as a snack" by faculty members, School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, and by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, O h i o ...... 61 vi 10. Use factors with rotated factor loadings, communa- llties, and proportion of variance for faculty members, School of Home Economics, Hie Ohio State University, and for EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohio ...... 66

1 1 . The percentage scores for 24 food items on Factor Number One and the number and percentage of "yes" responses for the three factor-defining uses for Factor Number One, derived from ratings by faculty members, The School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University...... 69

12. The percentage scores for 24 food Items on F&ctor Number Two and the number and percentage of "yes" responses for the three factor-defining uses for Factor Number Two, derived from ratings by faculty members, The School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University ...... 72

1 3 - The percentage scores for 24 food items on Factor Number Three and the number and percentage of "yes" responses for the three factor-defining uses for Factor Number Three, derived from ratings by faculty members, The School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University ...... 74

1 4 . The percentage scores for 24 food items on Factor Number Four and the number and percentage of "yes" responses for the three factor-defining uses for Factor Number Four, derived from ratings by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohio ...... 77

15. The percentage scores for 24 food items on Factor Number Five and the number and percentage of "yes" responses for the three factor-defining uses for Factor Number Five, derived from ratings by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohio ...... 80

1 6 . Familiarity ratings for 24 food items by faculty members, Schbol of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, and by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohio ...... 106

17. Appropriateness ratings for 24 food items on specific conditions of use by faculty members, School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University .... 110

18. Appropriateness ratings for 24 food items on specific conditions of use by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohio ...... 116

vli 19. Weighted appropriateness ratings and percentage scores for 24 food items on three use factors derived from analysis of ratings of food-use appropriateness by faculty members t School of Home Economics, Tile Ohio State University...... 123

2 0 . Weighted appropriateness ratings and percentage scores for 24 food items on two use factors derived from analysis of ratings of food-use appropriateness by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, O h i o ...... 124

viii CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Food habits have been defined as the way persons, in response to social and cultural influences, select, use, and eat items that are available for consumption (l). Food acceptance has been further described as a complex type of food habit affected by a variety of reactions of individuals who function within a social and cultural framework (2). Preference has been used as a basis for studying food acceptance because of correlations found between studies of consumption and preference ratings (3) . However, preference ratings have been shown to be affected by the conditions under which the food Is used, particularly by the foods with which it Is served (4,5*6), the method of preparation (5) , and the frequency of serving (5) • These findings reflect the statement made by Lee (7) that "my culture tells me when to have an appetite for what."

In a more recent approach to food acceptance, the appropriateness of foods for specific* conditions of use has been examined (8,9*10,11).

There is some indication that appropriateness Is more stable within a culture than is preference (12) and that while preference may increase the general appropriateness of a food, preference does not guarantee appropriateness under specific conditions of use (9) . These studies of appropriateness have dealt with a wider range of conditions under which food may be used than have studies of preference.

1 When ratings of appropriateness have been analyzed using principle-component factor analysis, variations In the factors derived have been found between respondents characterized by city of residence (9) and by ethnic background (10), Stability of factors has also been observed, with similar factors being derived from responses of subjects representing several different populations (8 ,9 ,10,11).

Conditions of food use have been combined with another dimension of food habits, the meanings associated with foods, in obtaining appropriateness ratings for food items (9,10). The meanings associated with a food have been described as the images produced by a food in an individual's mind (13) and as the sum total of the ideas, feelings, and attitudes associated with a food by any given individual (14).

Fewster (13) has derived from the literature twelve categories of meanings associated with foods. One of these categories, aesthetic- sensory perceptions, has been specifically linked to appropriateness

(15*16) and to the more general term, food acceptance (17).

A related factor, the familiarity of a food item, has been shown to affect the appropriateness ratings of foods reported by subjects

(8). Persons unfamiliar with a specific food item tended to rate it as less appropriate for most uses than did persons familiar with the food item.

Since 1965* diets of less than adequate nutritional quality have been reported in the United States in several studies

(18,19,20,21). Mean nutrient intakes were more often below the

Recommended Dietary Allowances (HDA's) for women than for men (18). 3 Percentages of persons with Intakes below standards have tended to be higher for persons In low Income and minority groups (19) •

The Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) is a federally-funded program that was established to provide food and nutrition education to low-income families (22). Evaluation of dietary records of EFNEP program homemakers has shown that servings of the milk group and the fruit and vegetable group were frequently below the four food group recommendations (22,23,24). Correlations have been reported between scores based on intake of the milk or the fruit and vegetable group and scores based on nutrient content of the diet (24).

When the dollar value of food consumed per person per week was held constant, families with nutritionally adequate diets have been shown to have a different pattern of food expenditures than do families whose diets were not nutritionally adequate (25)* The families with nutritionally adequate diets allocated a greater proportion of their food expenditures to the milk group and the fruit and vegetable groups. This emphasizes that food habits do affect the nutritional adequacy of the diet.

1.1 Purpose

The appropriateness of foods for specific uses is one facet of the food habits of population groups. However, previous studies have not included uses based on any universe of possible uses and have included meanings associated with foods as well as uses.

Because the data were described based on factor analysis, selection of uses may have had an impact on results. Since the factors derived from analysis are limited by the variability of the original data, it is possible to produce artificial factors or to omit significant

factors due to sampling of scales and concepts included (26).

Furthermore, where respondents were characterized by ethnic

background (10), the foods included on the questionnaire varied for

the group. Comparisons of the appropriateness ratings of the groups

sampled were, therefore, difficult.

Because EFNEP participants represent a target group for nutrition

education, their views on the appropriate use of foods is of

considerable Interest. The appropriateness views of the faculty within

the School of Home Economics have an Impact on the content of nutrition

education in EFNEP.

The objectives of the study were toi

1. Identify use factors that describe conditions of use with

similar patterns of food-use appropriateness.

2. Determine weighted appropriateness ratings for specific food

items for each use factor identified.

3- Describe differences between the two population groups in

the weighted appropriateness ratings, expressed as

percentage scores, for specific food items.

1.2 Implications

Schutz (9) has emphasized the implications of appropriateness

data for menu planning, specifically for hospitals and more generally

for all foodservice operations. Similarly, the relationship of

preference to specific conditions of use has been related to menu

planning for foodservice operations (5,6) .

Baird (10) provided a wider view of the usefulness of information

on appropriateness. Such knowledge could be used by nutrition educators 5 in a wide range of situations to assist Ins l) evaluating the needs

of the clients and 2) presenting nutrition knowledge in a wanner

that will relate to their needs. Likewise» Fewster (1*0 stated that

Information on the use of foods can ".. .help educators design better

method8 of communicating nutrition information to change attitudes and behavior.1'

In discussing educational implications of the results of the

National Nutrition Survey, Schaeffer (2?) referred to outmoded

procedures and techniques of nutrition education and to an urgent need for a new approach. Similarly, the need for educational

materials more suited to the needs and life style of EFNEP participants was included in the findings of an evaluation of EFNEP (28) . Expanded knowledge of conditions under which foods axe used can assist in developing a new approach and new materials that will be related to the food behaviors and needs of the population.

1,3 Limitations

Limitations to the generalisabllity of the results of the study pertain to the selection of the subjects, the selection of the specific food items and the conditions of use, and the procedures of data collection.

Although subjects were selected to be representative of the population from which they were drawn* no generalisations can be made to other populations. The following restrictions which limit the general inability of the results were used In the study t

1. Only females were Included in the population.

2. Only data from persons living within the state of Ohio

for 2 years or more were included. 3* Only BCTEF hornsmakers already enrolled in the program for at

least six son the were Included.

4. Only full-time faculty members of the School of Hone Economics,

The Ohio State University, with twelve-month appointments

were included.

The selection of conditions of use and specific food items included in the food-by-item satrlx limits the generallzabllity of results because of the Influence of sampling of scales and concepts on the derivation of factors in factor analysis (26). Both conditions of use and specific food items were purposefully selected. Although items were selected based upon classification systems of conditions of use and of foods, the specific uses and food items included are not necessarily representative of a population of uses or foods nor of the classification unit from which they were selected.

Data collection procedures, which were designed to minimise non-response error, limit the generallzabllity of the results of the study. Faculty members were contacted by telephone prior to mailing the questionnaire to request cooperation. These questionnaires included identification of the respondent to facilitate follow-up of non-responses. The EFWSP hone makers were asked to participate by nutrition aides with idiom they had been working on a one-to-one basis for at least six months. The responses of the EFNEP homemakers were given orally to the aide by 82 percent of the respondents. Results of this study can not be generalised to situations where these conditions of data oollectlon do not exist. l.Jf Definitions of Terns

The following terms, used throughout this study In a specific

sense, are defined as follows*

Conditions of food use* a broad tern encompassing all clrcum- stanoes under which food nay be used. The tern is subdivided Into

two categories--situational uses of food and functional uses of food.

EFNEP* Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, a

component of the Cooperative Extension Service program, conducted with low-income families. Nutrition Aides work with homemakers on a one-to-one basis.

Factor loadings* indications of the degree of involvement of a single variable with a grouping of variables (a factor) generated

through factor analysis. Variables may be the pattern of appropriate­

ness ratings for either food items or for conditions of use. Factor

loadings are, in effect, a measure of the correlation between

individual variables and a group of variables. A loading of 0.50

is traditionally used as the cut-off point of association of

variables with a factor. The variables with the three highest

factor loadings are considered to be factor-defining.

Food-use factors; groupings of food items generated through

factor analysis* The foods within each factor aim grouped because

they have similar patterns of appropriateness ratings for conditions

of use. For example, one factor labeled a high calorie treat was

associated with wine, pie, and cake.

Functional uses of food* the purposes that the food serves

in the situation In which it is consumed. Such uses Include to

satisfy hunger, to Initiate interpersonal relationships, and to 8

Influence the behavior of others. Other functional uses of food are discussed in sore detail in the review of literature.

Percentage scores* scores calculated for the 2k food its as

Included on the food-by-ltem aatrlx on five use factors identified

In this study by dividing the aean of the weighted appropriateness rating for each food item by the total possible weighted appropriate­ ness rating for each factor.

Ratings of food-use appropriateness: ratings aade by respondents

concerning the appropriateness of 2U- specific food items for 12

conditions of use included on the food-by-lten matrix used for data

collection.

Situational uses of food: those conditions of food use which

relate to the environment in which the food is used, Including the

special and temporal conditions under which consumption takes place

and the characteristics of the persons involved. Situational uses

Include, but are not limited to:

a. time of day;

b. meal in which the food is eaten:

c. item within a meal;

d. temperature and/or season of the year;

e. method of preparation;

f. combination with other foods;

g. number, sex, and age of persons;

h. relationship of persons;

i. activities accompanying use; and,

j . resources available for obtaining food. Use factorsi groupings of conditions of food use generated through factor analysis. Hie uses within each factor are grouped because they have similar patterns of appropriateness ratings for foods. For example* one factor labeled a social factor was associated with the uses, "at parties", "with friends", and "for guests".

Weighted appropriateness ratings* ratings calculated for the 24 food items included on the food-by-item matrix on five use factors

Identified in this study by using factor loadings to weight individual ratings of food-use appropriateness. 11

Milk, the first food for all of us* usually be coma psychologically ooonsctsd with security sad comfort* particularly if our early experiences with our so there (or whoever feeds and cares for us) were satisfactory.

It has been reported recently'that in times of stress* the use of silk and silk products Increases* as If thereby* unconsciously* people seek to reassure them­ selves through the symbol of silk.

Thus, it Is the meanings of reassuring and comforting that axe relatfed to the use of milk under the condition of stress.

Conditions of food use reported fall into two categories: those pertaining to 1 ) the situation In which the food is consumed,

Including both the people present and the activity accompanying the food use; and 2 ) the function of food vised within a given situation.

Situational uses of food have been related to food behavior using a variety of categories. Jellinek (15) classified food-use situations as eating times* eating situation, and people. Pilgrim (5) referred to four vise situations— menu combinations* frequency of serving* satiety* and method of preparation and presentation. Menu combina­ tions have also been used as a type of situational use by Eindhoven

(6 ) and Dickens (4). The latter also included categories relating to characteristics of the people Involved in the situational use.

Similarly* the functional uses of food have been categorized by several authors. While Pumplan-Mlndlen (30) defined only two functional uses* symbolic uses and status uses* van Schalk (31 ) described physiological vises* social uses* status uses* recreation functions* function of enjoyment* means of family contact, and educational function— transmission of culture. Lelnlnger (32) has identified eight functional uses of food which are comun to all culturest <■

QiAPTBB 2

HE VIEW OF LITERATURE

Food habits have been described ss the behaviors of people In response to the society end culture In which they live (1). Schafer and Yetley (29) have proposed a nodal for explaining the development of food behavior. In this nodal, factors affecting behaviors axe divided Into external factors, such as friends, advertising, and family membersj and Internal factors, such as attitudes, beliefs, and biogenic needs. The factors are patterned by the individual and Interpreted In tarns of the totality. Hone of the factors affect food behavior directly. It Is the total of the Interrelated factors that Influence food behaviors through the patterning by the Indivi­ duals .

2.1 Conditions of Food Use

Categorization of conditions under which food is used have varied. The development of distinct categories of food use la wade difficult because meanings and uses of food have been used in combination with each other without distinguishing the two tarns.

For example, Baird (10) combined 25 uses and attributes of food that were based on cognitive elements affecting food behavior which were divided Into two subgroups) l) ways that people think and apeak about food and 2 ) values relating to food choices.

The association and distinction of the terms meanings and uses has been illustrated by Puaplan-Mindlln (30) in the following exoerptsi

10 11

Milk, the first food for all of us, usually bsooass psychologically oonaected with security and ooafort, particularly If our aarly experiences with our sothsrs (or uhosvsr foods and oazos for us) wore satisfactory.

It has boon roportod rooontly that In tlsos of strosst the use of silk and silk products Increases, as If thereby, unconsciously, people seek to reassure them­ selves through the symbol of silk.

Thus, It is the meanings of reassuring and comforting that axe related to the use of milk wider the condition of stress.

Conditions of food use reported fall Into two categoriest those pertaining to l) the situation In which the food Is consumed, including both the people present and the activity accompanying the food use} and 2 ) the function of food used within a given situation.

Situational uses of food have been related to food behavior using a variety of categories. Jelllnek (15) classified food-use situations as eating tines, eating situation, and people. Pilgrim (5) referred to four use situations--menu combinations, frequency of serving, satiety, and method of preparation and presentation. Menu combina­ tions have also been used as a type of situational use by Eindhoven

(6 ) and Dickens (4). The latter also Included categories relating to characteristics of the people involved in the situational use.

Similarly, the functional uses of food have been categorised by several authors. Vhlle Pumpian-Mlndlen (30) defined only two functional uses, symbolic uses and status uses, van Schalk (31) described physiological uses, social uses, status uses, recreation functions, function of enjoyment, means of family contact, and educational function— transmission of culture, Lelninger (32) has

Identified eight functional uses of food which are common to all cultures) 12 l) to provide energy and satisfy hunger) 2 ) to initiate and aa intain

Interpersonal relationships) 3 ) to determine the nature and extent of

Interpersonal relationships) 4) to express socio-religious ideas)

5) to cope with physiological stresses and needs) 6 ) to reward, punish* or Influence the behavior of others) 7) to influence the political and economic status of a group* and, 6 ) to detect, treat, and prevent social, physical, and cultural behavior deviations and illnesses.

In a different approach to categorizing conditions of food use,

Schutz (9 ) reported four categories of food use based on respondents' ratings of appropriateness of foods. These use factors were labeled utilitarian, casual, satiating, and social. The utilitarian factor included uses pertaining to the age of persons in the condition, the temperature of the environment, and the convenience of the food item.

The casual factor was defined by a variety of use conditions, with the three factor-defining uses being "when unhappy", "riding In a car”, and "not feeling well". Uses included in the satiating and social factors were more obviously related to the functional uses of food referred to by the factor names.

2.2 Meanings Associated with Foods

The meanings that axe associated with foods have been examined by Fswster and associates (14) and by Jellinek (13) . Fewster (14) further referred specifically to the implied or connotative meanings of food that Include "all the ideas, feelings, and attitudes that an

Individual associates with that word or canoe pt." It is the Implied meaning of foods that Lowenbexg and co-workers (13) referred to when they spoke of the images that are produced in the minds of citizens by specific products. 13 Twelve categories into which meanings of food can be classified

have been suggested (14-) *

1. economic perceptions} 2. food value perceptions} 3. convenience perceptions} 4. communication perceptions concerning intrapersonal, inter­ personal, and mass communication; 5. perceived health needs; 6. perceived health apprehensions} 7. aesthetic-sensory perceptions such as appearance, aroma, flavor, satiety; 8. perceived symbolism such as security, tradition and custom, reward and punishment, traditional and innovative; 9. perceived age-group differences; 10. perceived status-group differences; 11. perceived sex differences; and, 12. communication behavior perceptions concerning information needs and sources and personal and group influences.

Thro igh factor analysis, Fewster and associates (14) identified

four meaning factors which accounted for 41 percent of the total

variance in scores obtained through responses of subjects on semantic

differential scales. These meaning factors were, in order of

percentage of total variance; the evaluation factor, the communi­

cations factor, the nutrition factor, and the health apprehension

factor. When scores of low-income respondents (incomes of $5400 and

below) were analyzed separately, factors differed from those serived when scores of all respondents or of high-income respondents ($10,000 and over) were analyzed. For the low-income group analyzes separately,

the meaning factors were; the nutrition factor, the health factor, and the weight factor. The authors did not report scores on the

semantic differential scales for the foods used in the study.

Using a sample of 13- through 17-year-olds, Jellinek (15) obtained responses on 20 semantic differential scales for each of eight food items which he classified as snack foods. Some items on 14 the list, such as oranges, Ice creara, and hot dogs, would fit Into other classifications of food as well. Hie author made no attempt to classify the meanings of foods which were represented on the questionnaire or to related the differentials selected to categories from which meanings might he derived. Some of the differentials, particularly everyday/party and alone/together, might more appropriately he classified as situational uses, while others.

Including exciting/soothing, safe/risky, and strong/frail, more obviously refer to connotative meanings that may he associated with foods.

Factor analysis generated three factors which accounted for 93 percent of the total variation (15) • The author did not name these factors. The differentials with the highest positive and negative loadings are summarised in Tahle 1. A positive loading indicates that the initial term on the semantic differential pair tended to receive high scores on the factor and a negative loading that the initial term tended to receive low scores. Hie author (15) did not report scores for foods used in the study or relate foods to meaning factors.

2.3 Preference Related to Conditions of Use

The relationship of preference for a given food item to conditions of use has been reported by several authors (4,5,6,33)* The conditions of use examined have been primarily situational uses, with menu combinations being the type of use most frequently examined (4,5,6).

Both Pilgrim (6) and Eindhoven and Peryan (5 ) used the high correlation between food preference and measured food consumption as the rationale for examining preference under given conditions of use. 15 Table 1. Factor loadings of semantic differential scale pairs (15) •

Pairs grouped by direction of Factors loading (in numerical order) I n III

Positive bland/spicy everyday/ sharp/mild loadings light/heavy party exciting/ bland/ tart alone/toge the r soothing aromatic/ odorless

Negative aromatic/ unhealthy/ flat/salty loadings odorless wholesome sweet/sour sharp/mild exciting/ bland/spicy strong/frail soothing sharp/mild

In a review article, Pilgrim (5 ) examined the effect of four situation uses (preparation, menu combinations, frequency of serving, and satiety) and the effect of population characteristics on preference.

Increasing complexity of preparation was related to decreased preference and In preparations that combined foods, the preference was likely to reflect the food that was least liked. In general, as preference increased so did desired frequency of serving, although this relation­ ship was disrupted in some cases by what Pilgrim (5) described as the role of the food in our culture. Satiety properties of food, which were described as having both physiological and psychological components and could therefore be classified as a food value perception as described by Fewster (14) rather than a condition of use, was positively related to preference. The effect of menu combinations on preference was largest for foods served on the same plate 1 such as 16

M i n dish, potatoes, and vegetable si and saallest for combinations served aeparatelyi such as soups, salads, and desserts. The conclusion drawn by Pilgrim (5) concerning the effect of menu combinations on preference was that*

Although these reactions to menu combinations can be learned by means of survey or attitude-type questionnaire, I am of the opinion that in most cases, combinations do not represent a serious problem In menu pluming (5)*

Of the population characteristics described by Pilgrim (5) * age was found to be related to preferences for classes of food such as starches and potatoes, soups, or beverages. The region of origin was related more closely to preferences for subclasses of food such as rices or sweet potatoes within the starch class. Both level of education and size of town had more effect on preferences for individual foods than on preferences for classes or subclasses of food. Sex was referred to as a potential source of variation because findings reviewed were all obtained from studies of military service men.

Eindhoven and Peryam (6 ) studied the effect of combinations of meats, potatoes, and vegetables using a sample drawn from an Army training unit. Food combination effects refer to the non-additivity of combination ratings compared to Individual preference ratings and axe shown by significance of food Interaction termB in statistical analysis. Significant interactions were found on all forms of the questionnaire used for main dish-potato and main dish-vegetable com­ binations, but only on selected forms of potato-vegetable combinations.

The authors suggest that the difference in significance was related to food items included in the different forms rather than to the forms per as slnoe form-combination interactions were low. The effect of M n u combinations on preference of Southerners has

been reviewed by Dickons (4). Selection of food items was affected by

combinations of broads and vegetables* for example, turnip greens were more often served with corn bread than with biscuits* Preference among alternative menus did not reflect additive preferences for individual

food Items included on the menus. Choices between beverage combinations were shown to vary with the combinations of beverages presented to the

respondents and between black and white homemakers. Vithln these two

ethnic groups, no differences were found on the variables, level of

education and family income. Dickens (4) further described the effect

of age, income, and employment of homemaker on preference but did not

relate these factors to preference-use combinations.

In reporting two surveys of food preferences of non-commissioned

Army personnel. Pilgrim and Kamen (33) reported ten factors from each

study in terms of both food item and people type. Poods receiving high

loadings on these factors were not reported although it was stated that

factors did not uniformly reflect conventional food classes. It is

unclear whether factors interpreted in terms of people types were the

result of specific questions contained In the survey or were derived

from analysis of preference ratings only. The food factors derived

from the two surveys were relatively stable and where the same foods were used in the two surveys, they tended to be associated with the

same or similar factors if these were generated by the results. There was no appreciable correlation between the food factors and data

collected on age, length of Army service, education, and sise of town of upbringing. The limits of these parameters were not reported. 18

These reports Illustrated that soae situational uses of food do affect preference for the populations studied, Southerners and A m y personnel. The effect of w n u combinations on preference varied with the foods combined. Both Eindhoven and Feryam (6 ) and Pilgrim and

Kamen (33) suggested that variations In foods Included on questionnaires are one source of variation In results. In one case, age, level of education, and size of town of upbringing were reported to be related to preference results (5) and In another, they were not (33)* Level of education and family Income were not related to preference between food combinations when ethnic background was held constant.

Z.h Appropriateness of Food-Use Combinations

Variations In the appropriateness of food items for specific conditions of use have been reported In four articles (8 ,9 ,10,11).

Conditions of use Included in these studies have not been categorized by the authors although they Include both situational and functional uses and also some meanings associated with foods. The use of appropriateness as a basis for studying food-use combinations rather than preference has been supported by evidence that appropriateness of items and uses is less variable within a culture than is preference (12).

By applying factor analysis, Schutz and others (8) generated food-use factors which represent foods viewed as appropriate for similar patterns of use based on respondents scores on an item-by-use matrix. A similar approach was utilized in three more xeoent reports

(9*10,11). The factors identified axe summarised In Table 2, along with the foods that received the highest loadings on each factor where this information was reported by the authors. 19

Table 2. Food-use factors and factor-defining foods t in order of factor loadings, Identified froa analysis of appropriateness ratings In four studies (8,9*10,11).

Saaple Food-Use Factors Factor-De fin ing Foods

Hospital Healthy dinner Spinach salad. Pope ye salad, patients (8) roast beef Seldom appropriate Fried eggs, tacos, hamburger High calorie treat Vine, tacos, hamburger

Hospital Healthy dinner Spinach salad, Pope ye salad, staff (8 ) vegetables Seldom appropriate Fried eggs, tacos, hamburger High calorie treat Vine, ice cream, tacos

Middle-class Specialty meal item Liver, chili, chitterlings housewives Common meal item Chicken, roast beef, steak (9) a*freshing, healthy Jello, cottage cheese, orange food Juice High calorie treat Vine, pie, cake

EFNEP home makers8, (10) Blacks Ooauaon meal Item Hearty foods Quick, light, and healthy foods

Anglos Common meal item Quick, light, and healthy foods High calorie expensive treat

Chinese Foods for us Foods for them but not for us

Mexican Common meal item High calorie expensive treat

White, middle- Reward foods Candy bars, pie, potato chips class women High-protein foods Liver, chicken, cottage cheese (11) Nutritious foods Boast beef, Jello, chicken Specialities Vine

Factor-defining foods were not reported by the author* 2 0

Some similarities occurred in both the factors generated and the foods with high factor loadings. Thus, high calorie treats were identified as a factor for five of the seven groups of respondents and wine received a high loading on this factor for all three of the groups for which this Information was reported. Similarly, a common- meal item factor was reported for four of the seven groups analysed.

Differences between factors identified and factor-defining foods may be partially due to the variations In the foods and uses which the respondents were asked to score. For example, pie and cake, which received high loadings for the high calorie treat factor In one report (9) did not appear on the earlier questionnaire used by Schutz and coworkers (8 ). Similarly, Baird and Schutz (10) Included either cake or cookies as a food item on the questionnaire used for Anglo,

Mexican, and Chinese respondents, but not on the questionnaire given to Black respondents. In this same study (10), wine was not Included on any of the questionnaires and could not therefore have been a factor-defining food where a high calorie treat factor was identified.

However, differences in foods receiving high loadings on the sama factor did occur among foods appearing on more than one question­ naire. For example, tacos, hamburgers, and ice cream all appeared on the questionnaires used In two of the studies (8,9). While all three of these received high loadings on the high calorie treat factor in the earlier study by Schutz and associates (8), only ice cream received a factor loading of 0.59 or more for the high calorie treat factor for all respondents In the latter study (9).

Samples for these three studies (8,9*10) were drawn from different populations which oould also partially acoount for variations In the 2 1 results obtained. In the earlier study (8 ), respondents were hospital patients and nursing and dietary staff of a snail general hospital In

California. Although the hospital was characterized as drawing "a heterogeneous group of patients from a wide geographic area (8)," no evidence was presented to Indicate that the sample was representative of the population of either patients or staff. Die subjects were character­ ized by age, sex, and either length of hospitalization or length of employment, but these data were not used In analysis. Subjects were predominantly female and the age range was from 16 to 68 years.

Ratings by the two groups analyzed, patients and staff, were similar.

The sample used by Schutz and coworkers In a second study (9) was drawn from four cities, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, and Boston.

The chunk sampling method was used and again no evidence was presented to Indicate that the sample was representative of any given population.

Only female respondents were selected and they were characterized as being "white, well-educated, middle-class housewives between the ages of 25 and 55 (9)." Analyses were made separately for each city, as well as for the total group of respondents. Although the four food-use factors were Identified for each city, the loadings of foods

In these factors varied, especially for three factors! l) high-calorle treat; 2 ) refreshing healthy foods; and 3) Inexpensive, filling foods.

Because the samples were not shown to be representative of the popula­ tions of the cities and the characteristics of the respondents from the four cities were not compared, It is Impossible to conclude that the variable, city of residence, accounts for the difference In factor- defining foods. 22

Baird and Schutz (10) drew respondents from participants in the

Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program in Sacramento, California, but did not state the basis for including particular participants in the study. Although data were reported only for the ethnic background of the subjects, it was implied that all respondents were female.

Because the sample cannot be considered to be representative of the population of EFNEP participants, and because separate questionnaires were used for each of the ethnic groups, it cannot be concluded that ethnicity is the single variable accounting for the differences in food-use factors reported in this study and summarized previously in

Table 2.

In his most recent study, Schutz (11) selected the two factor- defining foods for food-use factors and the three factor-defining uses for use factors from a pervious analysis of appropriateness ratings (9) for Inclusion in a food-use matrix. Respondents were selected using a chunk sampling technique and were predominately white, middle- or upper-middle-class women. The food-use factors derived from analysis are Included in Table 2, along with factor-defining foods.

Although each food and use were included in both surveys, the factors derived from analysis of appropriateness ratings differed in terms of the groups of foods loading high on each (9,11). This difference may have reflected differences in the samples studied or differences due to the combinations of appropriateness ratings available for factoring due to differences in the sizes of the matrices.

In summary, food-use factors have been derived from respondents' scores of the appropriateness of food items for both situational and functional uses (8,9,10,11). Stability of results can be seen, 23 especially for a common meal item factor and a high calorie treat factor.

Differences could be due In part to specific food Items and uses which the respondents were asked to score. Samples used In these studies represent different populations and while variations In food-use combination factors were shown between respondents of different localities and of different ethnic backgrounds, It cannot be concluded that these were the single variables accounting for the differences.

In a more open-ended approach to appropriateness of food for

conditions of use, Lit man and coworkers (3*0 asked students ranging in age from ten to 21 years to describe foods that would make up "wonderful" and "terrible" meals. Results were tabulated as the number of food types either included or omitted for each meal. Distinctions made between good and poor meals by the students tended to be In terms of substitution and omissions of foods. In effect, students were simultaneously providing an evaluation of the total combination of foods as well as an opinion on appropriateness. There was more variability of responses In terrible meals than In wonderful meals, indicating stability of opinion concern­

ing suitable foods and food combinations for different meals.

The Relationship Between Preference and Appropriateness of Food-Use

Combinations

Although Schutz and coworkers (9 ) did not specifically relate preference to appropriateness, they did include "when I want something

I really like" as a use in their item-by-use matrix. Factor-defining foods were not rated "never appropriate" for this use In any of the five food-use combination factors and were rated "always appropriate" for this use only for the common meal Item factor. Ffcctar-deflnlng foods were steak, chicken, and roast beef, so that these ratings would 2 4

correspond with Pilgrim's statement (5) that most meats were well liked

In this country. Other foods that received loadings above 0 .50 for this factor were carrots, tomatoes, and tossed salads, although appropriate- ness ratings of these foods for specific uses were not reported (9)*

Pilgrim (5) pointed out that few vegetables are well liked, but did not specify relative preference for particular vegetables.

Of the conditions of use under which preference has been examined, only the use "when 1 am really hungry", which related to satiating properties described by Pilgrim (5), was rated as always appropriate for factor-defining foods and only for the common meal item factor generated by Schutz and associates (9) • The appropriateness ratings for these factor-finding foods on the uses "when 1 am really hungry", and

"when I want something I really like" were similar.

For food-use factors derived from appropriateness ratings, neither the use "when I want something I really like" nor the use "when I am really hungry" was a factor-defining use for any of the four factors

(9)* The former received factor loadings above 0.50 only for the utilitarian factor while the latter received similarly high loadings for both the utilitarian factor and the satiating factor.

These ratings would indicate that while preference for a food results in fewer uses for which it is never appropriate, preference alone does not dictate appropriateness in a given situation. Mane of the other authors reported appropriateness data which pertain to preference.

Meanings of Food Belated to Appropriateness

One of the categories of meanings associated with food that was listed by Fewater (14), aesthetic-sensory perceptions, has been 25 associated with appropriateness in two reports (15*16). Further, Jerome

(17) has described the sensory qualities of food patterns as a foundation for understanding acceptance and rejection.

From In forest Ion received from Afro-Americans of Southern rural origin, Jerome (1?) characterized texture as the major element associated with food patterns. Texture was largely divided into light and heavy and was characterized by whether or not a food "lasted all day." Foods described as heavy, such as dry peas and beans, greens, and meat, formed the core for dinner meals. Light foods, which included dry cereal, white bread, and toast, were eaten for breakfast, lunch, or snacks. Light foods were also considered to be foods for children or infants or for periods of Illness. Preparation and the food items themselves were equally Important in achieving the desired textural quality. West Xndian-Amerlcans, however, used preparation alone to achieve the sensory qualities of pungency and color which were equally

Important to acceptance.

Szczesniak and Kahn (16) asked both men and women from three cities to rate eight occasions as either best or second best or worst or second worst for 35 textural qualities. Although specific textures and ratings were not reported, the variety of textures available was found to vary with the meal occasion. Thus, the range of acceptable textures was lowest for breakfast and highest for dinner. Acceptability also varied between weekend and weekday breakfasts and between different courses during dinner. The authors further defined oonnotatlve meanings associated with textural qualities from interviews of primarily middle- class housewives. For example, tenderness was linked to quality and 26 good nutrition| sponginess to very feminine, even dainty foods; and softness to childishness and weakness.

Similarly, Jellinek (15) asked adults from three cities to rate the two best and the two worst eating times, eating situations, and people types for each of 15 flavor qualities. This technique was repeated with teenagers using ten flavor-denoting words. Associations were reported for each flavor for most appropriate and least appropriate situational uses. Selected flavors and associated uses are shown in

Table 3 illustrative purposes.

Scores obtained from the teenage sample were similar to those obtained from adults, and differences due to sex, geographic location, and socio-economic status were minor. Variations due to these character­ istics of the sample were not discussed further.

Table 3. Association of eating time, eating occasion, and people type with flavor (15)■

Flavor Most Appropriate Least Appropriate Fresh Breakfast TV snack Health diet Dinner date Child Invalid Model Gourmet

Mellow Hospital meal Picnic Health diet Teenager Mother Salesman

Sharp TV snack Hospital meal Picnic Breakfast Holiday dinner Health diet Salesman Invalid Child 2? 2.5 Familiarity Related to Appropriateness and Meaning Schutz et al. (8) examined the effect of familiarity on appropri­ ateness by including as a food item, Popeye salad. Although statis­ tical analysis was not used because of the small sample size of the group reporting familiarity, the patients unfamiliar with Popeye salad did have a different pattern of ratings than the patients that were familiar with the item. The group that was unfamiliar with the term rated Popeye salad less appropriate for eight of the 12 conditions of use than did the group that was familiar with the term. For the four remaining uses, the ratings were on the inappropriate side of the scale for both groups. When teenagers were asked to score eight snack foods on a list of semantic differential scales, the pair familiar/strange was included as one of the scales (15)* When factors were generated from results, familiar/strange scored zero on the first factor indicating that it was not related to that factor, and scored low on both of the other factors. The highest loading, 0.43, occurred for Factor II for which the highest positive factors were everyday/party and alone/together, and the highest negative factors included the pair unhealthy/wholesome

(see Table l). The foods included on the list of snack foods, potato chips, c o m chips, oranges, bananas, ice cream, marshmellows, pizza, and hot dogs, may have affected the scores for the familiar/strange pair. 2.6 Other Factors Related to Food Behavior Other factors have been related to food behavior, although not to the types of food-related behavior already described. Two of these, change in residence and stage in the family life cycle, refer to the characteristics of the people using the food. 28

In studying the effect of change of residence on food habits, Jerome

(35) compared traditional and contemporary meal patterns for black women in Wisconsin who were first generation migrants from the rural South.

Jerome constructed two stages of changes in food behavior. The first stage, the intermediate pattern, reflects basically changes in occupa­ tional schedules and is largely a new pattern of serving times and terminology. Traditional useage of food items within this intermediate pattern was characterized as lasting 16 months on the average. The second stage, new meal patterns, led to changes in food useage as well as changes in terminology and serving times and was described as relatively stable.

Cross and coworkers (36) studied the concerns associated with food selection for female respondents in Philadelphia characterized by stage in the family life cycle . Although equal sample sizes were selected from income strata for urban and suburban populations, there were significant differences in family income between the respondents in various stages of the life cycle. There were also differences in the employment of the female adult by stage in the life cycle. The stages were classified according to age of the female respondent, the presence or absence of a spouse, and presence and age of children. Differences were found in the food-selection concerns of subjects in the various stages of the life cycle.

2.7 Pood Consumption Behavior of 3PIJEF Participants

both Peaster \?.?') and Jones (23) have reported food consumption of SFirbi participants based upon food recall records normally attained by nutrition aides and available in program records. These records report food consumption in terms of servings of the Basic Pour food 29 groups. Information on specific food items is not reported. The minimum recommended number of servings of the Basic Four food group is used as a standard of nutritional adequacy. The fruit and vegetable group was reported to be adequate in the smallest percentage of diets both before entering the program and at a subsequent recording period (22,23). In a special eight-week nutrition program in Louisiana, the percentage of diets containing the recommended number of servings of fruit and vegetables increased from eight percent before the program to 23 percent at the completion of the program (23)•

In a survey of participants from 35 states and Puerto Hico, a similar

Increase from 18 percent prior to enrollment in EFNEP to 28 percent after six months of participation in the program was reported (22). Season of the year was suggested as a factor in the magnitude of the change, although a change occurred regardless of the season. The milk and milk products group was also often reported below adequate standards (22,23). Both Feaster (22) and Jones (23) reported that only about one-third of the homemakers (35 percent and 33 percent, respectively) consumed adequate quantities of milk products prior to enrollment in EFNEP. At the completion of an eight-week program, over one-half (53 percent) of the program homemakers reported consuming adequate quantities of milk products (23)■ The useage of milk and milk products was a topic that received emphasis during the program. Forty- seven percent of the respondents from 35 states and Puerto Rico reported that they consumed adequate milk and milk products after six months of participation in EFNEP (22) . The percentages of persons reporting adequate quantities of bread and cereal products were similar to the percentages for milk and milk products (2 2 ,23). When nutrient adequacy was reported rather than food intake adequacy, intakes below two-thirds of the RDA's were frequently seen for energy, calcium, iron, vitamin A, and vitamin C based on initial food recall records (3?) • The number of servings of milk was highly correlated to nutrient adequacy scores across the total sample (24) •

The number of servings of fruit and vegetables correlated positively with scores based on nutrient content for the total sample, but not for black program homemakers (24).

Other changes in food behavior have also been described after participation in EFUSP. In a three year study of program homemakers in two counties in Maryland, Green and coworkers (38) reported changes in the types of foods purchased and prepared due to program partici­ pation. After three years in EFUEP, 84 percent of the respondents reported that they had purchased different foods, 49 percent reported that they purchased new foods learned from the Nutrition Aide as often as once per week, 78 percent reported cooking foods differently, and

35 percent reported preparing new recipes at least once per week. Changes reported in the food behavior of EFNEP participants during enrollment include both servings of food groups per day (22,23) and specific food items (38). These changes were similar for program homemakers taking part in EFNEP for eight weeks (23) and for six months

(22). Hie relationship of these changes to the length of participation in EFNEP has been investigated by several authors (38,39). Green and associates (38) reported results of data collected from participants enrolled in EFNEP for one, two, and three years. In terms of nutritional adequacy, they concluded that the primary gain occurred 29 groups. Information on specific food items is not reported. The minimum recommended number of servings of the Basic Four food group is used as a standard of nutritional adequacy. The fruit and vegetable group was reported to be adequate In the smallest percentage of diets both before entering the program and at a subsequent recording period (22,23) ■ In a special eight-week nutrition program in Louisiana, the percentage of diets containing the recommended number of servings of fruit and vegetables increased from eight percent before the program to 23 percent at the completion of the program (23) ■

In a survey of participants from 35 states and Puerto Rico, a similar

Increase from 16 percent prior to enrollment in EFNEP to 28 percent after six months of participation in the program was reported (22). Season of the year was suggested as a factor in the magnitude of the change, although a change occurred regardless of the season . The milk and milk products group was also often reported below adequate standards (22,23). Both Feaster (22) and Jones (23) reported that only about one-third of the homemakers (35 percent and 33 percent, respectively) consumed adequate quantities of milk products prior to enrollment in EFUEP. At the completion of an eight-week program, over one-half (53 percent) of the program homemakers reported consuming adequate quantities of milk products (23)• The useage of milk and milk products was a topic that received emphasis during the program. Forty- seven percent of the respondents from 35 states and Puerto Rico reported that they consumed adequate milk and milk products after six months of participation in EFUEP (22). The percentages of persons reporting adequate quantities of bread and cereal products were similar to the percentages for milk and milk products (22,23). 31 during the first year of participation. The percentage of the subjects who reported purchasing new foods or preparing foods differently due to information learned from the Nutrition Aide was highest in the group enrolled for two years for each type of behavior.

Wharton (39) compared the food consumption practices of two groups of EFNEP program homemakers in Summit County, Ohio, for two six-month intervals. The groups differed only in the period of time during which they were enrolled in EFNEP. Food consumption practices over time were compared in terms of total adequacy as compared to the minimum number of servings in the Basic Four food group recommendations. On this basis, food consumption practices showed improvement after both six months and one year of enrollment, but the improvement after the second six-month period was less pronounced than after the first six months of participation. Consumption patterns by food groups were not reported.

2 .8 Summary

The complexity of factor's affecting food behavior and the inter­ dependence of the effect of these factors has been described (29).

This review of the literature has focused primarily on the factors conditions of use, preference, food-use appropriateness, and meanings and on the interrelationships of these factors. Other factors discussed which are related to food behavior included familiarity, change in residence, and stage in the family life cycle.

Conditions of use have been categorized invarious ways including categories based on the situation in which food is used (^,5*6,15)* the fuction of the food within the use (3 0 »3 1i32), and the pattern of food appropriateness (9). The way in which food is used has been shown to 32 affect both preference for a food item (4,5,6,33) appropriate­ ness of a food item (8,9,10,11).

The connotative meanings associated with foods have been described by several authors (13,14,15) and have also been categorized (14,15) •

One category of connotative meaning, aesthetic-sensory perceptions, has been related to food-use appropriateness (15,16) and to food acceptance

(I?)- The food habits of EFNEP homemakers are of considerable interest to nutrition educators. When intake patterns have been compared to the

Basic Four food groups, consumption of fruits and vegetables and milk and milk products has frequently been below recommended levels (22,23).

Consumption of milk products and to a more limited extent, fruits and vegetables, has been found to be correlated to nutritional adequacy scores (24).

Changes in food behavior observed after enrollment in the EFNEP program have included changes in the numbers of servings from the Basic

Four food groups (22,23,39) and the use of different foods and different preparation techniques (38). These changes occurred primarily within the first year of enrollment in EFNEP (38) with more pronounced changes occurring during the first six months of participation (39). CHAPTDd 3

I'Etho;xjlogy

The purpose of the research was to describe the appropriateness of

2U food items for 12 conditions of use as viewed by two populations— faculty members in the School of Home Economics, The Ohio State

University, and EFDEF homemakers in .‘•'franklin County, Ohio. Core specifically, the objectives of the study were to:

1. Identify use factors that describe conditions of use with

similar patterns of food-use appropriateness,

2. Determine the weighted appropriateness ratings for specific

food items for each use factor identified.

3. Describe differences in the weighted appropriateness ratings,

expressed as percentage scores, for specific food items

between the two population groups.

Datings of food-use appropriateness were obtained from faculty

members in the Dchool of Home Economics, 'The Ohio State University,

and from EFIIE]’ homemakers in P'ranklin County, Ohio, using a food-by-item

matrix which included 2d food items crossed with 12 conditions of use.

Factors that describe conditions of use were generated from the

ratings of food-use appropriateness. Weighted appropriateness ratings

were calculated for each food item for each use factor.

3-1 Instrumentation

Two instruments were used to collect data from the respondents.

Data on the characteristics of the sample and the familiarity of

33 34 respondents with food items were collected using a two-page questionnaire

(Appendix A) . A food-by-item matrix was developed specifically for obtaining ratings of food-use appropriateness in this study (Appendix B) .

The instrument used to collect data for the purpose of describing the sample included questions concerning! age, ethnic background, presence of children in the home, family income, length of residence in

Ohio, and state considered to be home. Because of the expected differ­ ences in income levels, separate scales were used for the two groups of subjects. Foods selected for inclusion on the food-by-item matrix were expected to be familiar to the majority of the respondents. In order to insure familiarity, food records of EFUEP homemakers on file in the office of the Franklin County EFNEP program were examined. All foods selected for the matrix were included in these food records except macaroni and cheese and cottage cheese.

To assess the extent to which the food items included in the food- by-item matrix were actually familiar to respondents, a rating scale for familiarity was included in the two-page questionnaire (Appendix A).

The scale included four levels of familiarity with food items which were: "have not heard of it"; "heard of it, but not tasted it";

"tasted it once"; and "tasted it more than once". In addition, food items were selected for inclusion on the food-by- item matrix to represent each of the Basic Four food groups. Macaroni and cheese and cottage cheese were selected without having been included in food records of EFNEP homemakers In order to increase the representa­ tion from the milk products group. The fruit and vegetable group and the milk products group were emphasized in the food-by-item matrix for two reasons: l) the higher dollar value of these foods In nutritionally adequate diets as compared to diets that are not nutritionally adequate when the total dollar value of food consumed is held constant (25)» and

2) the low intake of fruit and vegetables and milk products reported among uTrreli’ participants (22,23,24).

An arbitrary decision was made to include 24 food items in the matrix since this number permitted a one-page matrix. The food include were: hot chocolate, broccoli, potato chips, fried eggs, chili, orange juice, sliced tomatoes, ice cream, meat loaf1, rice, cake, spinach, apples, sweet jotatoes, vanilla pudding, cooked carrots, oatmeal, macaroni and cheese, peanut butter, cheese sandwich, peaches, cotta'e cheese, fried chicken, and coleslaw. The method of preparation was specified where it seemed most likely to affect ratings of food-use appropriateness.

The 12 conditions of use viere selected for inclusion in the food- by-item matrix based on be in inner* c classification of functional uses

3 2 -, on use factors obtained from previous studies of appropriateness

(?,10;, and on situational uses of food. The number of uses to be included in the matrix was arbitrarily selected based on the number shat can be accommodated in a manageable size matrix (10,.

. our of the conditions of use that were selcctcu represented functional uses of food as classified by Lein in per 02/ ana were either factor-defining uses or received factor loadings above .70 in previous studies of ap propria tone ss (■■>,10 . Those four uses were:

"when 1 want something filling", "for special holidays"f "for guests'', and "when I want a special treat". The remaining eight uses selected for inclusion in the food-by-ite matrix were situational uses. These uses were; as a part of the main meal of the day", "when 1 want something inexpensive", "for children",

"for breakfast", "for lunch", "as a snack", and "when I want somethin - easy to fix". Five of these eight uses--"as a part of the main meal of the day", "for children", "for breakfast” , "as a snack", ana "when I want something easy to fix"--were either factor-defininr uses or received factor loadings above .70 in previous studies of appropriate­ ness (9,10).

For each of the 24 foods for each of the 12 conditions of use, respondents were asked to answer the question "Would you use this fooa in this way?" This question could be answered "yes", "undecided", or

"no"; these three choices were numerically coded three, two, and one respectively. Complete directions for the completion of the food-by- ite n matrix are included in Appendix B.

3*2 Cample

samples were drawn from current female participants in JkhTI In

Franklin County, Ohio, and from current female faculty with 12-nor.th appoir. tnents in the School of Hone .Economies, The Ohio Btate University

The sample size was determined to correspond to the number of subjects recommended per variable for factor analysis (40,41). Kerlinger (u. recommends 1C subjects per variable, while Flumnel 'v41) recommend., four subjects per variable. Tor this study, seven subjects per variable was selected to determine sample size. The pertinent number of variable was the number of uses included on tho food-by-item matri:: since these were the variables to be subjected to factor analysis. 37 Among EFNEP homemakers only those enrolled in the program for six months or more were included because of changes in food consumption reported during the initial six months in the program (39)* All of the 100 EFNEP homemakers in Franklin County who met this criteria were included in the study to attain the desired sample size.

The sample of the faculty in the School of Home Economics was selected directly from a listing of the 156 female faculty members in the School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, including

Area and County Extension Agents, Home Economics, of the Cooperative

Extension Service. A table of random numbers was used to select 90 respondents . For both groups, only questionnaires from persons residing within

Ohio for two or more years were included in the results. This period of residency was chosen to correspond to the length of time generally resulting in stabilized meal patterns following a change of residence as described by Jerome (35) • A copy of the proposed research was submitted to the Human Subjects

Committee, The Ohio State University. A copy of the approval for research involving human subjects is shown in Appendix C. For both groups of respondents, willingness to participate in the study was requested and granted orally. 3-3 Data Collection and Analysis The following variables were investigated for each group of respondents: age, ethnic background, presence of children in the home, family income, length of residence in Ohio, state considered to be home, familiarity ratings for 2 ^ food items and ratings of food-use appropriateness for 24 food Items crossed with 12 conditions of use on a food-by-item matrix. Of the sources of invalidity applicable to descriptive survey research, sampling error, measurement error, and nonresponse error posed the greatest threats to validity. Frame error and selection error were controlled through the process of compiling and validating

the population lists from which the samples were drawn. The use of a probability sample allowed the estimation of the

sampling error. The degree of sampling error was affected by the

level of confidence, which was set at 95 percent, by the variability

In the sample, and by the sample size. Measurement error was a threat to validity due to the tendency

of respondents to answer as they believe they should (41). A previous

study of the food consumption patterns of EFNEP homemakers attributed

shifts in consumption of breads and cereals directly to measurement

error and noted a tendency of aides to establish a particular level

of food consumption on recall records (28). Efforts to control measurement error included avoiding the

inclusion of food-use combinations that would be expected to evoke

the greatest impression of correctness of response on the part of the

subjects and maximizing the separation of subject identification with

the completed questionnaire, particularly for EFNEP homemakers. Collection Procedure

Questionnaires were distributed to the two sample groups by

different procedures. Measures to decrease nonresponse error varied

with the method of data collection. 39

faculty of the School of Home Economics. -- Data from the faculty

of the School of Home Economics were collected through the use of mailed

questionnaires, Respondents were contacted by telephone before the

questionnaire was mailed to request cooperation, ftamped envelopes

wore provided for Area and County Extension Agents, Home Economics, of

the Cooperative Extension Service, not situated on the Columbus Campus

of The Ohio Jtate University, 'faculty members situates on the Columbus

campus of The Ohio State University were requested to return the

completed questionnaires in campus mail.

faculty mem tiers we re asned to include identification on the

returnee, questionnaires. This identification was renoveu immediately

upon receipt of the questionnaire *

A deadline was set for the return of tne completed questionnaire,

faculty members who had not returned the questionnaire by the initial

dead, lino us St.- sent a reminder postcard or were contacted by telephone, de menu, ins on tnc ir location.

J. rE: Hone mate r s . -- EfEEi homemakers included in the study were

contacted by the nutrition aides employed by EFIfEf' in Franklin County.

Each aide contacted only the honemakers with whom she usually worked.

The nutrition aides received an initial train ins session on the

procedure for ccr. pie I inthe foou-by-iten matrix. The proposed matrix

was completes sy she nutrition aides as a part of this initial trainin',

session to insure unucrstaridiny of the directions for completion. Eiror

adjustment:; were naae to the foods and uses, based upon questions raised

and comments naxie oy the aides duriny this trial procedure.

mhe aides were instructed to ask the homemaker each question on

the food-by-item matrix and to record responses on the questionnaire. uo

Similarly, the aides were instructed to ask homemakers for the infor­ mation requested on the remaining questionnaire and to record responses.

The entire questionnaire was to be completed during the aide's visit.

Aides were asked to complete the matrix and familiarity checklist with two homemakers who would not be participating in the study.

A second training session was held to answer any questions arising from those trial interviews and to distribute the final lists of names of

J.-’AJ. no:.*;makers to be interviewed, The aides were instructed not to place any information identifying the homemaker on the completed questionnaire .

^•&tmoa.: of Analysis

_.ata were analysed by computer using the Statistical rackage for the social Sciences (.dPSdj i.i'3/.

.eatings of food use appro or lateness obtained from the food-by-iter, ma t r i x were analyses ny factor analysis for all uses across all foods for each group of rcsiondentc. Total values for each use across all food:.; were calculated for all respondents and entered into a factor program using a principle-component solution.

One of the nos L distinctive characteristics of factor analysis is its data-reduction capability (-+3;- factor analysis techniques reduce uata to a smaller group of factors by examining underlying patterns of relationship: L‘. -be daca, In principle-component analysis, the amour t o: variaxr is she original uata accounted for by each derived factor is reprc3om.ee by oho statistic, the eigenvalue. In this study, the eigenvalue was set oqual ro l.b, so that only factors with eigenvalues equal to or greater than 1.0 were included in the output. This eigenvalue means that only factors that account for at least as much of 41 the total variance in the original data as a single variable were retained. Rotation of* initial factors to a final solution was performed using a varimax solution. One of the major purposes of rotation is to satisfy the criteria of simple structure of the factors (4l). For each factor, a weighted appropriateness rating was calculated for each food which combined the ratings of that food on each condition of use taking into account the association of the individual condition of use with that factor. To accomplish this, the rating of food-use appropriateness for each food item on every condition of use was

multiplied by the factor loading of the specific use on the individual

factor. This resulted in 12 weighted numbers for each food on each

factor— one for each condition of use. These 12 weighted numbers were

totaled, resulting in a weighted appropriateness rating. This procedure

was repeated for each respondent with ratings of the two groups of

respondents being used only for the factors derived from their ratings

of food-use appropriateness. Weighted appropriateness ratings were

combined to calculate a mean and a standard error of the mean. A total possible weighted appropriateness rating was then

calculated for each factor. This was done by multiplying the factor

loading for each condition of use on each factor by the highest

possible rating of food-use appropriateness, three. When added, these

12 weighted ratings were the total possible weighted appropriateness

rating. The total possible weighted appropriateness rating for each

factor was divided into the mean of the weighted appropriateness

ratings for each food on that factor and the result multiplied by

100 to determine the percentage scores. CHAPTh^ 4

HSaULTS AM) uLJlUdJlCm The purpose of the study was to identify use factors that descrioe conditions of use with similar patterns of food-use appropriateness ano to describe differences in weighted appropriateness ratings, expresses as percentage scores, for each of 29 foou items includes, on a food-Ly- item matrix for each use factor identified. The sample selected for data collection includes 90 faculty members of the school of Horae economics, The Lhic State University, and 100 STN'Si homemakers in

Msanklin lour.ty, Ohio.

t f the 90 faculty members of the School of Home Economics, The

Ohio Jtate '.university, who were contacted by telephone, :<3 indicated willingness to participate in the study. Complete questionnaires were received from .2 of shese faculty members.

If the I.1,, ...--h.:: homeraariers who were selected for inclusion in the study, only dd actually completed questionnaires. Cf those home­ makers not participating, nine wore to have been contacted by a ikranxlln founty E ..utrition Aide who resigned between the second training session and the collection of aata from progran homemakers,

.Since the homemakers were not reass ignec to Nutrition Aine:: curing the collection of data and since their addresses were not make available to the researcher for personal contact, these homemakers were never contacteu concerning willingness to participate. ^3 A second Franklin County Nutrition Aide left the questionnaires with the program homemakers for completion. The length of time that

the questionnaires were in the homemakers’ possession was increased due to the illness of this Nutrition Aide. Only eight of the 39 questionnaires to be distributed by this Aide were completed and

returned. Of the EFNEP homemakers to be contacted by the remaining three

Franklin County Nutrition Aides, an average of 69 percent completed

the questionnaires, with the completion rate ranging from 33 to 100

percent. To assess the effect of non-response error on results, the age, ethnic background, and yearly family income of all persons enrolled

in the EFNEP program in Franklin County, Ohio, for the six-month

period ending March 31* 1973, were compared to these same character­

istics for EFNEP homemakers participating in this study. Since

respondents had all been enrolled in the EFNEP program for six months

or longer, they were included in the figures for the total program. Compared to the total EFNEP enrollment, there was a higher

percentage of the EFNEP homemakers participating in this study in the

25 to 55 year age range; of black, non-Hispanic ethnic background;

and with yearly family incomes in the ranges between $1,000 and

$4,000. A higher percentage of the total EFNEP participants were

24 years of age and under; of white, non-Hispanic ethnic background;

and had yearly incomes over $4,000. Because of these differences,

generalizability of the findings of this study to the total EFNEP

enrollment is limited. 4 4 4.1 Characteristics of Respondents Hie age, ethnic background, age of the youngest child in the home, length of residence in Ohio, and state considered to be home are shown

In Table 4 for EFNEP homemakers, for faculty members, and for the two groups combined. The age and ethnic background of the total EFNEP enrollment for the period ending March 31• 1978, and of the study participants are shown in Table 5* All questions on the questionnaires were not answered by every respondent. The total number of participants indicated in the tables varies because the number of persons who responded to each question varied. Age The percentage of respondents in the age range of 24 to 55 years was similar for faculty members and for EFNEP homemakers. However, a lower percentage of faculty members were in the age range of 24 years and under and a higher percentage in the age range of 58 years and over than were EFNEP homemakers. Slightly under one-half of the respondents were in the 24 to 34 year age range for faculty members (44 percent), for EFNEP homemakers

(45 percent), and for the two groups combined (44 percent). Approxi­ mately one-fifth of the subjects were in each of the age ranges, 35 to

44 years and 45 to 55 years, for faculty members (24 and 18 percent),

for EFNEP homemakers (IS and 18 percent), and for the two groups

combined (22 and 18 percent), Only a small portion of the faculty members (l percent) were under

24 years of age while 16 percent of the EFNEP homemakers were in this

same age range. In contrast, 12 percent of the faculty members were 56 years of age and over, while only a small portion of EFNEP home­

makers (3 percent) were in this age range. Table 4. Characteristics of faculty eeaberc, School of Hoae Econoaics, The Ohio State Unlversityi of EFNEP hoaeaakers, Franklin County, Ohloi and of faculty nenbers and GfNEP hoaeaakers contained.

Characteristic Faculty Heabers EFNEP Hoi ikers Coablned Croupe Nunber Percent Nunber Percent Nunber Percent

Under 24 yean 1 1 6 16 7 6 24-34 years 36 44 17 45 53 45 35 - 44 years 19 24 7 18 26 22 45 - 55 years 15 19 7 18 22 18 56 years and over 10 12 _1 3 U J 81 100 38 100 119 100

Ethnic background Black, non-Klspaitlc 1 1 27 79 28 24 White, non-Hispanic 77 96 7 21 84 74 Other _2 3 _0 _0 _2 _2 80 100 34 100 114 100

Children In the hone None 59 73 3 8 62 53 Youngest inder 6 years 10 12 16 45 26 22 Youngest 6-19 years U i5 17 47 29 25 ei 100 36 100 117 10O Hunter of years of residence In Ohio 5 years and under 13 17 2 15 15 17 6-25 years 19 25 7 54 26 29 26 - 45 years 36 47 4 31 40 44 46 years and over 3 U _0 _0 _? 10 77 100 13 100 90 100 State considered to be hone Ohio 69 85 27 79 96 83 Other than Ohio 12 H _7 21 1? 17 01 100 34 100 115 100 46

Table 5* Characteristics of EFNEP homemakers enrolled In Franklin County, Ohio, for the six-month period ending March 31 , 1978, and of EFNEP homemakers participating in this study. Characteristic Total Enrollment Study Participants Number Percent Number Percent Age 24 years and under 82 38 6 16 25 - 55 years 131 60 31 81 56 years and over 2 1 - 1 2li 100 38 100 Ethnic background White, non-Hispanic 94 40 7 21 Black, non-Hispanic 143 60 27 79 Other 1 -* 0 0 23§ Too -yi 100 Yearly family income Under $1,000 1 1 0 0 $1,000 - $2,000 13 7 5 17 $2,000 - $3,000 63 36 14 48 $3,000 - $4,000 49 28 10 35 $4,000 - $5,000 2? 15 0 0 Over $5,000 22 -12 0 0 175 100 29 100 ♦less than 0.5 percent.

The percentage of EFNEP respondents in the 24 years and under age range was smaller than the percentage of the total EFNEP participants in this same age range. Less than one-fifth of the EFNEP homemakers participating in this study (16 percent) were aged 24 years and under while nearly two-fifths of the total EFNEP participants (38 percent) were in this same age range.

Hie percentage of EFNEP respondents in the 25 to 55 year age range was larger than the percentage of the total EFNEP participants in this same age range. Slightly over four-fifths of the EFNEP homemakers participating in this study (82 percent) were aged 25 to

55 years, while only three-fifths of the total EFNEP participants

(60 percent) were in this same age range. 4 ?

A similar percentage of EFNEP homemakers participating in this

study and of the toted EFNEP participants were in the 56 years and

over age range (3 and 2 percent respectively).

Ethnic Background

Almost all of the faculty members (96 percent) were white, non-

Hispanic. The remaining portion of the faculty members included both

black, non-Hispanic persons (1 percent) and persons of other ethnic

backgrounds (2 percent).

In contrast, almost four-fifths of the EFNEP homemakers (79

percent) were black, non-Hispanic. All of the remaining EFNEP home­

makers (21 percent) were white, non-Hispanic.

The percentage of white, non-Hispanic EFNEP respondents was

smaller than the percentage of white, non-Hispanic persons in the

total EFNEP enrollment. Only about one-fifth of the EFNEP homemakers

participating in this study (21 percent) were white, non-Hispanic

while almost two-fifths of the total EFNEP participants (39 percent) were white, non-Hispanic,

The percentage of black, non-Hispanic EFNEP respondents was

larger than the percentage of black, non-Hispanic persons in the

total EFNEP participation. Nearly four-fifths of the EFNEP home­

makers participating in this study (79 percent) were black non-

Hispanic while only three-fifths of the total EFNEP participants

(60 percent) were black-non-Hispanic.

Less than 0.5 percent of either the EFNEP homemakers partici­

pating in this study or of the total EFNEP participants had other ethnic backgrounds. Children in the Home

Jiearly three-fourths of the faculty members { 7 3 percent) reported

that no children under the a^.c of 19 years were present in the home .

The remainder of the faculty members were about evenly divided between those reportin' the youngest child in the hone to be under 6 years of are \.l.: percent’ and those reporting the youngest child in the hoc? ic

'dc Dctvfeeri o and 19 yearn of are (It percent,.-.

In contrast, less than one-tenth of the tkft.,: homemahcrs ( per­

cent; rci'orted that no children under the ar;c of 19 years were present

In the horu?. the remainder of the Jffbr homemakers were about evenly dlvidec ucsvfucthose reportin: the younrest chile in the hone to so

unacr - year, of aye percentanc those re port in * the younyest

child in the hone to ue bct’-fcer. 6 ario 19 years of af,c (A7 percent, .

Lcnpth of residence in Ohio

fver h«al f of the .Iffuk honena••lers '.cl i^erccrt, indicates that

they hat see:, resiaer.ts of Chic for their entire lives. Jone of the

re rain in. hvfh hone ;-sr:er nay also have lived in Ohio for their entire

lives nut ray have answered the question by indicating their a^e rather

than by us in the ohrase "all of riy life". Of the Ji-TiSf homemakers re port in the ::urd>er of years of residence in Ohio, over one-half had lived in C-hic for f te It years ^ 9n percent •, nearly one-third

for Is to u. year:-. ,31 -Jt-rcor.f , and the remainder for five year:, or

less ,1. ■arsons, .

Only a snail T^rccrtare of oho faculty members l. f percent) reporter

that they hax: bees residents, of Ohio for their entire lives. Of the

faculty re port in ; the lenpth of residence in Ohio in years, nearly 49 one-half had lived in Ohio for 26 to 45 years (47 percent) t one-fourth for six to 25 years (25 percent), 17 percent for five years or less, and 12 percent for 46 years and over.

State Considered to be Home

Of the faculty members of the School of Home economics, The Ohio

State University, 85 percent considered Ohio to be their home. West

Virginia was the state considered to be home by the next largest percentage of the faculty members, six percent. North Carolina was considered to be home by two percent of the faculty members and four states— California, Florida, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Texas--were each considered to be home by one percent of the faculty members.

A slightly smaller percentage of EFNEP homemakers (79 percent) indicated that they considered Ohio to be home. Of the EFNEP home­ makers indicating that they considered other states to be home, a similar percentage considered Georgia and West Virginia to be home

(12 and 9 percent respectively). No other state was considered to be home by any of the EFNEP homemakers.

Income

Yearly family income for the faculty members in the School of

Home Economics, The Ohio State University, and for EFNEP homemakers,

Franklin County, Ohio, are shown in Table 6. Yearly family income for the total EFNEP enrollment for the period ending March 31, 1978, and for study participants are shown in Table 5.

Almost one-third of the faculty members (30 percent) reported yearly family incomes in the $30,000 and over range. One-fifth of the faculty members (20 percent) reported yearly family incomes in the

$13,000 to $16,000 range. Only 10 percent or less of the faculty 50 members reported yearly family incomes in each of the remaining Income ranges.

Nearly one-half of the EFNEP homemakers 0 8 percent) reported yearly family incomes in the $2,000 to $3,000 range. Slightly over one-third of the EFNEP homemakers (34 percent) reported yearly family incomes in the $3|000 to $4,000 range. The remaining EFHEP homemakers

(1? percent) indicated yearly family Incomes in the $1,000 to $2,000 range.

A larger percentage of EFNEP respondents had income in each of the ranges between $1,000 and $4,000 than did the total EFNEP participants. None of the EFNEP respondents reported Incomes in the

Table 6. Yearly family income of faculty members in the School of Home Economics, The Ohio ^tate University, and of EFNEP homemakers in Franklin County, Ohio.

Respondent Group Number Percent Income

Faculty Members $10,000 - $13,000 4 5 $13,000 - $16,000 16 20 $16,000 - $19,000 8 10 $19,000 - $21,000 7 9 $21,000 - $24,000 4 5 $24,000 - $27,000 ' 8 10 $27,000 - $30,000 8 10 $30,000 and. over 24 31 79 100

EFNEP Homemakers $1,000 - $2,000 5 17 $2,000 - $3,000 14 48 $3,000 - $4,000 10 0 5 - 29 100 g- .---- rr-- :—— — aData collected by indicating appropriate range on separate scales. 51 ranges above $4,000 while over one-fourth of the total EFNEP participants

(28 percent) reported Incomes In the ranges above $*+,000.

Nearly one-fifth of the EFNEP respondents (1? percent) had

Incomes In the $1,000 to $2,000 range while less than ten percent'

of the total EFNEP participants (? percent) had incomes in this range.

Nearly one-half of the EFNEP respondents (*+8 percent) had incomes in

the $2,000 to $3,000 range while slightly over one-third of the total

EFNEP participants (36 percent) haul Incomes in this range. The

percentage of EFNEP homemakers with incomes in the $3,000 to $4,000 range wan slightly over one-third of the participants in this study

(34 percent) and slightly under one-third for the total EFNEP

participants (28 percent).

4.2 Familiarity Ratings for Specific Food Items

Familiarity ratings for all of the 24 food items included in the

food-by-item matrix are shown in Appendix D for both groups of

respondents.

Familiarity ratings of both faculty members and EFNEP homemakers

indicate that respondents were familiar with the food items included

on the food-by-item matrix. All of the 24 food items had been tasted

more than once by at least 98 percent of the faculty members and 14

foods had been tasted more than once by at least 98 percent of the

EFNEP homemakers. At least 80 percent of the EFNEP homemakers had

tasted the remaining ten foods more than once.

The familiarity rating "have not tasted" was selected only by

EFNEP homemakers for six foods1 sliced tomatoes, rice, cooked

carrots, cottage cheese, coleslaw, and oatmeal. Hie percentage of EFNEP hone makers indicating that they had not tasted these six foods ranged from two to seven percent. The familiarity rating "have not heard of" was not selected by any of the respondents in either group for any of the 24 food items.

4.3 Ratings of Pood-Use Appropriateness

Ratings of food-use appropriateness for each of the 24 food items for each of the 12 conditions of use included on the food-by-item matrix are shown in Appendix E for both groups of respondents.

The division of ratings of food-use appropriateness into levels of appropriateness was done subjectively. The distribution of ratings of specific food items for individual conditions of use were studied and levels of appropriateness established to reflect apparent groupings in the data.

Food items rated appropriate for a specific condition of use by over 80 percent of the respondents were considered highly appropriate for that use. Food items rated appropriate for a specific condition of use by 20 percent or fewer of the respondents were considered inappropriate for that use, The terms "highly appropriate" and

"inappropriate" will be used throughout the remainder of this dissertation with these meanings. Ratings of food-use appropriateness were analysed separately for the two groups of respondents at all times.

In general, more foods were rated highly appropriate by the faculty members than by the EFNEP homemakers. Over half of the food items were rated highly appropriate by the faculty members for three conditions of use, while over half of the food items were rated highly appropriate by the EFNEP homemakers for only one condition of 53 use. None of the food items was rated highly appropriate by the EFNEP homemakers for seven conditions of use? at least one food item was rated highly appropriate by the faculty members for each of the conditions of use.

The number of food items rated inappropriate was similar for both the faculty members and the EFNEP homemakers. Over half of the food items were rated inappropriate by both groups of respondents for only one condition of use.

The percentage of respondents indicating that they were undecided about using a food item for a condition of use was small for all food- use combinations for both groups of respondents. Only for one use was the rating "undecided" used by as many as 15 percent of either group for more than one food.

As a Fart of the Main Meal of the Day

Eight food items were rated highly appropriate for the use "as a part of the main meal of the day" by EFNEP homemakers and 15 food items by faculty members. The eight foods rated highly appropriate for this use by both groups of respondents were: broccoli, chili, meat loaf, spinach, sweet potatoes, cooked carrots, macaroni and cheese, and fried chicken.

Two foods, potato chips and oatmeal, were rated inappropriate for the use "as a part of the main meal of the day" by both faculty members and EFNEP homemakers. No other food item was rated inappro­ priate for this use by either group of respondents.

The ratings for food items rated highly appropriate for the use

"as a part of the main meal of the day" by faculty members but not by

EFNEP homemakers are shown in Table ?• Hie foods included salad items, & fruit, and a dessert item. In general, the foods rated highly appropriate for this use by faculty members but not by EFNEP homemakers axe ones that can be considered as accessories to the meal rather than as an integral part of the main course.

When I Want Something Inexpensive

Few food items were rated either highly appropriate or inappropri­ ate for the use "when I want something inexpensive". None of the food

items was rated highly appropriate for this use by EFNEP homemakers and only four foods— meat loaf, rice, oatmeal, and macaroni and

cheese— by faculty members. The largest percentage of EFNEP home­

makers rating any food appropriate for the use "when I want something

inexpensive" was d-6 percent for fried chicken. Only two foods, potato

chips and orange juice, were rated inappropriate for this use by

faculty members and only one food, cooked carrots, by the EFNEP home­

makers .

At least 15 percent or more of the faculty members selected the

rating "undecided" for the use "when I want something inexpensive" for

eight foodsi hot chocolate, broccoli, spinach, apples, sweet potatoes,

cottage cheese, peaches, and fried chicken. The rating "undecided"

was selected for only one food, sweet potatoes, by at least 15 percent

of the EFNEP homemakers.

Five of the eight foods for which 15 percent or more of the

faculty members selected the rating "undecided" for the use "when I

want something inexpensive" were from the fruit and vegetable group.

Respondents' perceptions of the form in which these foods were

purchased may have Influenced their selection of ratings for this use. 55 Table 7 - Ratings of food-use appropriateness for selected food items for the use "as a part of the main meal of the day" by faculty members, School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, and by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohio.

Food Appropriateness Rating Respondent Group Yes Undecided No

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Sliced tomatoes Faculty 80 98 1 1 1 1 EFNEP 21 51 3 7 17 bz Ice Cream Faculty 66 80 b 5 12 15 EFNEP 10 Zb l 2 30 73 Rice Faculty 76 93 l 1 5 6 EFNEP 32 76 l 2 9 21

Apples Faculty 71 8? 5 6 6 7 EFNEP 11 26 3 7 28 67 Cottage cheese Faculty 73 89 1 1 8 10 EFNEP 16 39 1 2 2b 58 Peaches Faculty 77 9* 2 2 3 b EFNEP 11 28 3 8 26 65 Coleslaw Faculty 78 95 1 1 3 b EFNEP 22 5b 1 2 18 bb

In the Summer

Many food items (16 foods) were rated highly appropriate for the use "in the summer” by faculty members, but none was rated highly appropriate by EFNEP homemakers. Pew foods were rated inappropriate for this use by either group of respondents— one by EFJEP homemakers and none by faculty members. 5 6

Ice cream was rated appropriate for the use "In the summer*' by the largest percentage of EFNEF homemakers, ?8 percent. Only hot chocolate was rated inappropriate for this use by EFNEP homemakers.

The eight foods that were not rated highly appropriate for the use

"in the summer" by faculty members weret chili, macaroni and cheese, rice, oatmeal, hot chocolate, sweet potatoes, cake, and potato chips*

For Children

Thirteen of the food items Included on the food-by-Item matrix were rated highly appropriate for the use "for children" by EFNEP home­ makers and 21 foods by the faculty members. None of the Zh food items was rated inappropriate for this use by either group of respondents.

The only foods not rated highly appropriate for the use "for

children" by faculty members were potato chips, coleslaw, and cedes.

Two of these foods, potato chips and cake, were rated highly appropriate for this use by EFNEP homemakers. The ten food items rated highly appropriate for the use "for children" by the faculty members but not by the EFNEP homemakers weret broccoli, chill, sliced

tomatoes, rice, meat loaf, spinach, sweet potatoes, cooked carrots,

cottage cheese, and peaches.

For Breakfast

Both EFNEP homemakers and the faculty members rated four foods highly appropriate for the use "for breakfast" and 13 foods

inappropriate. The four foods that were rated highly appropriate for

this use by both groups of respondents weret hot chocolate, fried eggs, orange juice, and oatmeal.

The six food items included on the food-by-item matrix that were not rated either highly appropriate or inappropriate for the use "for 5? breakfast'* by either group of respondents are shown in Table 8. The foods rated appropriate by the highest percentages of faculty members were fruits and peanut butter and by the highest percentages of EITflSP homemakers were fruits and rice. Since these foods were not rated inappropriate for the use "for breakfast", they have potential importance for nutrition educators concerned with making recommenda­ tions for breakfast menus.

For Lunch

Three of the 24 food items included on the food-by-item matrix were rated highly appropriate for the use "for lunch" by EFNEP home­ makers and 11 foods by faculty members. Both groups of respondents rated only one food, oatmeal, inappropriate for this use.

The three foods rated highly appropriate for the use "for lunch" by both groups of respondents werei peanut butter, cheese sandwiches, and peaches. The additional eight foods rated highly appropriate for this use by the faculty members but not by the EPTiEP homemakers weret chili, sliced tomatoes, ice cream, apples, vanilla pudding, macaroni and cheese, cottage cheese, and coleslaw.

When I Want Something Filling

Few foods were rated highly appropriate for the use "when I want something filling" by either group of respondents— none by EFNEP home­ makers and three by the faculty members. However, nine foods were rated inappropriate for this use by EFNEP homemakers and eight by faculty members. In general, meats and meat alternates were the foods rated highly appropriate for this use and foods from the fruit and vegetable group were among those rated Inappropriate. 58

Table 8. Ratings of food-use appropriateness for selected food items for the use "for breakfast" by faculty members, School of Home Economics, Hie Ohio State University, and by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohio.

Food ' Appro priatene ss Rating Respondent Group Yes Undecided No

Number Percent Number Percent N Limber Percent

Sliced tomatoes Faculty 21 26 6 7 55 67 EFNEP 9 22 2 5 29 72

Rice Faculty 19 23 1 1 62 76 EFNEP 20 k9 0 0 21 51

Apples Faculty 43 52 2 2 37 45 EFNEP 18 45 2 5 20 50

Peanut butter Faculty 53 65 6 7 23 28 EFNEP 10 25 1 2 29 72 Cottage cheese Faculty 24 29 4 5 54 66 EFNEP 9 22 1 2 30 75 Peaches Faculty 62 ?6 4 5 16 20 EFNEP 16 41 2 5 21 54

The three foods rated highly appropriate for the use "when I want

something filling" by the faculty members were: chili, meat loaf, and

macaroni cheese. Meat loaf and fried chicken were rated appropriate for

this use by the largest percentages of the EFNEP homemakers, 52 and 51

percent respectively.

The seven food items rated inappropriate for the use "when I want

something filling" by both groups of respondents were: broccoli, potato

chips, orange juice, sliced tomatoes, spinach, cooked carrots, and 59 peaches. Two additional foods, cheese sandwiches and cottage cheese, were rated inappropriate for this use hy the EFNEP homemakers but not by faculty members. One other food, coleslaw, was rated inappropriate

for this use by faculty members but not by the EFNEP homemakers.

For Special Holidays

Few foods were rated highly appropriate for the use "for special holidays"— none by the EFNEP homemakers and three by faculty members.

A larger number of foods were rated inappropriate for this use— ten by EFNEP homemakers and seven by the faculty members. Four of the five foods rated inappropriate for this use by both groups of respon­ dents were meat alternatives.

The three foods rated highly appropriate for the use "for special holidays" by faculty members weret cake, sweet potatoes, and ice cream.

Cake was rated appropriate for this use by the largest percentage of

EFNEP homemakers, 72 percent.

The five food items rated inappropriate for the use "for special holidays" by both groups of respondents were* fried eggs, chili,

oatmeal, peanut butter, and cheese sandwiches. An additional five

foods— hot chocolate, spinach, rice, cooked carrots, and cottage cheese

— were rated inappropriate for this use by the EFNEP homemakers but not

by the faculty members. Two foods, meat loaf and macaroni and cheese,

were rated inappropriate for this use by the faculty members but not

by the EFNEP homemakers.

As a Snack

Both the EFNEP homemakers and the faculty members rated six foods highly appropriate for the use "as a snack” and nine foods inappropri­ ate . However, the food items were not identical for the two groups. 60

The three foods rated highly appropriate for the use *’as a snack'1 by both groups of respondents were: ice cream, apples, and peaches.

The foods rated highly appropriate by only one of the groups of respondents are shown in Table 9- The foods rated highly appropriate for this use by EFNEP homemakers only were dessert Items and potato chips. In contrast, faculty members rated hot chocolate, orange juice, and peanut butter highly appropriate for this use.

The foods rated inappropriate for the use "as a snack" were primarily meat substitutes and vegetables. The foods rated inappropri­ ate for this use by both groups of respondents were: chili, rice, spinach, sweet potatoes, cooked carrots, oatmeal, and macaroni and cheese; by EFNEP homemakers only: broccoli and fried eggs; and by faculty members only: meat loaf and coleslaw.

For Guests

None of the food items was rated highly appropriate for the use

"for guests" by EFNEP homemakers. In contrast, ten foods were rated highly appropriate for this use by faculty members. Few foods were rated inappropriate for this use by either group of respondents--three by EFNEP homeamkers and none by faculty members. The three foods rated inappropriate for the use "for guests” by EFNEP homemakers were fried eggs, oatmeal, and cottage cheese.

The ten foods rated highly appropriate for the use "for guests" by faculty members represented all of the Basic Four food groups; these ten foods were: broccoli, orange juice, sliced tomatoes, ice cream, rice, cake, sweet potatoes, peaches, fried chicken, and cole­ slaw. Eight of these ten foods were also rated highly appropriate for the use "as a part of the main meal of the day" by faculty members. 61

Table 9. Ratings of food-use appropriateness for selected food Items for the use "as a snack" by faculty memberst School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, and by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohio.

Food Appropriateness Rating Respondent Group Yes Undecided No

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Potato chips Faculty 63 77 2 2 17 21 EFNEP 37 90 1 2 3 7

Cake Faculty 61 74 2 2 19 23 EFNEP 35 84 1 2 5 12 Vanilla pudding Faculty 57 70 7 8 18 22 EFNEP > 85 0 0 6 15 Hot chocolate Faculty 73 89 2 2 7 8 EFNEP 24 58 2 5 15 37 Orange juice Faculty 68 83 2 2 12 15 EFNEP 18 44 2 5 21 51 Peanut butter Faculty 76 93 1 1 5 6 EFNEP 21 54 1 3 17 44

The foods that received the highest ratings for the use "for guests" by the EFNEP homemakers were primarily dessert items . Cake was rated appropriate for the use "for guests" by the largest percentage of EFNEP homemakers, 70 percent. The other foods rated appropriate for this use by over percent of the EFNEP homemakers were; ice cream, vanilla pudding, and fried chicken. Of these foods, only fried chicken was rated highly appropriate for the use "as a part of the main meal of the day" by the EFNEP homemakers. 62

When I Want a Special Treat

For both groups of respondents, few foods were rated highly appropriate for the use "when 1 want a special treat" and several foods were rated inappropriate. Only Ice cream was rated highly appropriate for the use "when I want a special treat" by faculty members and none of the foods was rated highly appropriate for this use by EFNEP homemakers. Few foods were rated appropriate for this use by over 50 percent of either group and the foods that were, were primarily fruit and dessert items— hot chocolate, cake, and peaches for faculty members and ice cream, cake, vanilla pudding, and peaches for EFNEP homemakers.

The seven food items rated Inappropriate for the use "when X want a special treat" by both groups of respondents were* fried eggs, meat loaf, rice, spinach, cooked carrots, oatmeal and coleslaw.

Three additional foods— broccoli, sliced tomatoes, and cottage cheese

— were rated Inappropriate for this use by the EFNEP homemakers but not by the faculty members. Four other foods— chili, macaroni and cheese, peanut butter, and cheese sandwiches— were rated inappropri­ ate by the faculty members but not by the EFNEP homemakers.

When I Want Something Easy to Fix

Faculty members rated nine food Items highly appropriate for the use "when X want something easy to fix" and none of the food items

Inappropriate for this use. In contrast, EFNEP homemakers rated none of the food items highly appropriate for this use and five food items inappropriate. One food, cottage cheese, was rated highly appropriate for this use by faculty members and Inappropriate by EFNEP homemakers. Only four foods— apples, ice cream, cheese sandwiches, and peaches— were rated appropriate for the use "when I want something easy to fix"

"by over SO percent of the EFNEP homemakers. Hie five foods rated inappropriate for this use by the EFNEP homemakers weret broccoli, cooked carrots, oatmeal, macaroni and cheese, and cottage cheese. These low ratings of appropriateness for this use by EFNEP homemakers tend to support the need of these women for assistance with techniques of food preparation.

The nine food items rated highly appropriate for the use "when I want something easy to fix" by the faculty members were* fried eggs, orange juice, sliced tomatoes, Ice cream, apples, peaches, peanut butter, cheese sandwiches, and cottage cheese.

4.4 Use Factors, Weighted Appropriatness Ratings, and Percentage Scores

Using factor analysis, three use factors were derived from responses of facility members in the School of Home Economics, The Ohio

State University, and two use factors from responses of EFNEP home­ makers in Franklin County, Ohio. The number of factors derived by principle-component factor analysis is determined by the specified eigenvalue, a statistic that represents the amount of variance in the original data accounted for by each factor. Only factors that account for a prespecified amount of total variance, an eigenvalue of 1.0 in this study, are retained.

For each factor, a weighted appropriateness rating was calculated for each food which combined the ratings of that food on each condition of use taking Into account the association of each condition of use with that factor. To accomplish this, the rating of food-use 64 appropriateness for each food item on every condition of use was multiplied "by the factor loading of the specific use on the individual

factor and these weighted ratings were totaled for each food.

Weighted appropriateness ratings were calculated for each respondent, keeping the two groups separate, and the mean and the standard error of the mean was determined.

A total possible weighted appropriateness rating was then calculated. The factor loading for each condition of use on each factor was multiplied by the highest possible rating of food-use appropriateness, three, and these weighted ratings were totaled. The total possible weighted appropriateness rating for each factor was divided into the mean of the weighted appropriateness rating for each food on that factor to determine the percentage scores.

Weighted appropriateness ratings and percentage scores for each of the 24 foods on the five use factors are shown in Appendix F.

Percentage scores represent the proportion of the total possible rating that each food received on each factor. The range of percent­ age scores was examined and subjectively divided into three levels based on the distribution of scores. Percentage scores from 41 to

60 percent were classified as low, from 6l to 80 percent as medium, and from 81 to 100 percent as high. The terms "low*’,' medium",' and

"high" will be used throughout the remainder of this dissertation with these meanings. All percentage scores were encompassed by these three ranges.

Factors derived from the ratings of food-use appropriateness of faculty members and EFNEP homemakers can be compared both in terms of the distribution of percentage scores on conditions of use for each 65

factor and in terms of the specific conditions of use which had high

factor loadings on the factors. The former comparison Indicates

similarities and differences in the number of appropriate foods while

the latter indicates similarities and differences in the type of

specific conditions of use associated with each factor.

To facilitate the discussion of the results, names were used to describe the conditions of use with high factor loadings on each

factor. In each case, the uses were studied to determine similarities

in the type of specific conditions of use associated with each factor.

Names were then assigned to these uses as a group. While these names are subjective, they are intended to reflect similarities among the uses.

Faculty Members

Factor Number One (Special/Highly Defined), — The conditions of use most closely associated with Factor Number One are similar

because few foods are highly appropriate for these uses and a large

number of foods are Inappropriate. The conditions of use with high

loadings on Factor Number One include those that imply the use of

special food Items ("when I want a special treat" and "for special holidays") as well as those in which the situational use rigidly

defines the choice of food ("for breakfast*' and "as a snack").

The rotated factor loadings, communalities, and percentage of

variance for Factor Number One are shown in Table 10. The three

factor-defining uses for Factor Number One were: "when I want a

special treat", "for breakfast", and "as a snack'?. For each of these

uses, one to six food items were rated highly appropriate and nine to

13 food items were rated inappropriate. Only two other conditions of Table 10. Use factors with rotated factor loadings, coHunallties, and proportion of variance for faculty Habers, School of Hone Econoalcs, The Ohio State University, and for EFHEP hoHaakers, Franklin County, Ohio.

Faculty heaters BPfBP Hoaeaaksrs Condition of Use Factor ttuaber Goaauna- Factor Umber ITniaaie litles 111X108 1 AUa One Two Three Four live . . . factor loading . . factor loading . As a part of the sain mal of the day .309 .555 .204 .610 .473 .568 .547 When I want aonthlng Inexpensive .245 .262 .625 .520 .837 .112 .712 In suaner .345 .735 .103 .669 ■395 •735 .697 For children -.027 .769 •375 •734 ■157 .822 .701 For breakfast .729 .201 .250 .634 .172 .705 .526 For lurch .338 .532 .503 .649 .148 .781 .632 When I want something filling .397 .142 .574 .508 .745 .471 .776 For special holidays .643 .452 .204 .660 ■837 .341 .817 As a snack .699 .253 .299 ,642 .647 .475 .644 For guests .345 .605 .244 .545 .635 .563 .720 When I want a special treat .754 .124 .370 .721 .8?0 .US .771 When I want something easy to fix .274 .272 .783 .763 .827 .254 .748

Percent of variance 53-4 10.4 8.7 39.4 14,8 Total percent of variance 72.5 ?4.2 67 use had factor loadings above 0.50 on Factor Number One. For the use

"for special holidays", three food items were rated highly appropriate and seven food items were rated inappropriate. For the use "as a part of the main meal of the day", 14 food items were rated highly appropri­ ate and two food items were rated inappropriate. The distribution of percentage scores on Fkctor Number One is shown in Figure 1. Only two food items received high percentage scores and nearly one-half of the 24 food items, 11, received low percentage scores on this factor. The percentage scores for the 24 food items on Factor Number One and the number of percentage of "yes" responses for each of the factor-defining uses for Factor Number One are shown in Table 11. The two foods with high percentage scores were a fruit and a dessert item.

All of the other fruits and dessert items included on the food-by-item matrix had medium percentage scores and were among the foods with the highest percentage scores in that range. The 11 foods with low percentage scores on Factor Number One included meats, meat substitutes, and vegetables in addition to oatmeal and rice. Some food items were rated highly appropriate for one factor- defining use for Factor Number One and inappropriate for at least one of the remaining factor-defining uses. For example, even ice cream, which had a high percentage score on this factor, was rated inappropri­ ate for the factor-defining use "for breakfast". Due to the nature of the uses closely associated with Factor

Number One, the specific foods viewed as appropriate vary with the individual conditions of use. These special and highly defined uses Figure 1. Distribution of percentage scores for 24 food items on five use factors derived from analysis of ratings of food-use appropriateness of faculty members, School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University* and EFNEP hosematers, Franklin County, Ohio.

Low (41-60)()

Medium (6l-80Jt)

High (81-100)0

11 11

^Factors Dumber One, Two, and Three factors Humber Four and Five O' 00 6 9

Table 11. Die percentage scores for 24 food items on Factor Number Oie and the number and percentage of "yes'’ responses for the three factor- defining uses for Factor Number One, derived from ratings by faculty members. Die School of Home Economics, Die Ohio State University.

Number and Percent of "Yes” Responses ______for Specific Uses______Percentage Food Score When I Want For Break- As a a Special fast Snack Treat

No. % No. % No. % Peaches 84 43 53 62 76 79 96 Ice cream 82 74 90 13 16 74 90

Apples 79 35 43 43 52 81 99 Cake 78 63 78 10 12 6l 74 Hot chocolate 78 4? 57 71 87 73 89 Orange juice 74 19 23 81 99 68 83 Sliced tomatoes 71 30 37 21 26 47 57

Fried chicken 68 34 42 12 15 35 43 Cottage chee se 64 17 21 24 29 51 62 Vanilla pudding 64 26 32 14 17 57 70 Peanut butter 63 9 11 53 65 76 93 Broccoli 63 30 37 2 2 21 26 Sweet potatoes 61 26 32 2 2 5 6

Fried eggs 60 5 6 79 98 20 24 Cheese sandwiches 58 10 12 32 39 56 68 Potato chips 55 18 22 1 2 63 77 Rice 55 9 11 19 23 5 6 Coleslaw & 9 11 2 2 13 16 Cooked carrots 53 8 10 2 2 10 12 Heat loaf 52 5 6 9 11 15 18 Oatmeal 52 4 5 77 94 14 17 Spinach 52 12 15 3 4 2 2

Chili 49 6 7 4 5 14 17 Macaroni and cheese 49 8 10 4 5 9 11 are similar because of the pattern that few foods were rated highly appropriate and many rated inappropriate, not because the foods that were rated highly appropriate were necessarily the sane for all uses.

Therefore, a high percentage score cannot be assumed to mean a large percentage of "yes*1 responses on each of the factor-defining uses.

Factor Number Two (Routine). — The conditions of use most closely associated with Factor Number Two are similar because many foods are highly appropriate for these uses and few foods axe inappropriate. The conditions of use with high factor loadings on

Factor Number Two represent routine uses of food.

The rotated factor loadings, communal!ties, and percentage of variance for Factor Number Two are shown in Table 10. The three factor-defining uses for Factor Number Two were: "for children",

"in the summer", and "for guests". For each of these uses, eight to

21 food items were rated highly appropriate and none of the 24 food items was rated Inappropriate.

Only two other conditions of use had factor loadings above 0.50 on Factor Number Two. For the use "as a part of the main meal of the day", 14 food items were rated highly appropriate and two items were rated Inappropriate. For the use "for lunch", 11 food items were rated highly appropriate and only one food item was rated

Inappropriate.

The distribution of percentage scores on Factor Number Two is shown in Figure 1. Twenty food items received high percentage scores on this factor and none of the 24 food items received low percentage scores. 7 1

The percentage scores for the 2b food Items on Factor Number Two and the number and percentage of "yes" responses for each of the factor-defining uses for Factor Number Two are shown in Table 12. The only four foods that did not receive high percentage scores on Factor

Number Two weres peanut butter, hot chocolate, potato chips, and oatmeal. Two of these foods, hot chocolate and peanut butter, also received medium percentage scores on Factor Number One, while the remaining two foods received low percentage scores on Factor Number

One.

The large number of high percentage scores for food items on

Factor Number Two reflects, in general, a large percentage of "yes" responses for foods on each of the factor-defining uses. All but one food item, potato chips, was rated highly appropriate for at least one of the factor-defining uses for Factor Number Two. None of the

2b food items was rated inappropriate for any of the factor-defining uses for this factor.

For the 2k- food items studied, more foods were highly appropriate for conditions of use with high factor loadings on Factor Number Two than on Factors Number One or Three. For the nutrition educator, appropriateness would appear to be less of a restriction when making recommendations for food items to be used for conditions of use closely associated with Factor Number Two than when maJHng recommenda­ tions for other uses.

Factor Number Three (Resources/Hunger'). — The conditions of use most closely associated with Factor Number Three a n similar because a limited nimber of foods are highly appropriate for them, but few foods are inappropriate. The conditions of use with high 72

Table 12. The percentage scores for Zk food Items on Factor Number Two and the number and percentage of "yes" responses for the three factor- defining uses for Factor Number Two, derived from ratings by faculty members, The School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University. Number and Percent of ,fYes" Responses Food Percentage for Specific Uses Score For Children In the For Guests Summer

No. % No. % No. % Peaches 97 79 96 81 99 69 8k Sliced tomatoes 97 71 87 81 99 78 95 Broccoli 96 73 89 80 98 79 96 Ice cream 95 78 95 81 98 78 95 Apples 9k 79 96 73 89 63 77 Fried chicken 9k 75 92 78 95 ?k 90 Coleslaw 93 6k 78 80 98 66 80 Cottage cheese 93 72 38 78 95 57 70 Meat loaf 91 78 95 70 85 55 67 Spinach 91 71 87 76 93 59 72 Cooked carrots 89 71 87 67 82 57 70 Cake 8? 66 80 63 77 78 95 Orange juice 87 79 96 81 99 7k 90 Vanilla pudding 87 78 95 67 82 k3 52 Macaroni and cheese 86 76 93 61 Ik 31 38 Rice 86 67 82 6o 73 65 80 Cheese sandwich 85 79 96 77 9k 30 37 Fried eggs 8J+ 72 88 72 88 50 61 Chili 83 71 87 33 kO k$ 55 Sweet potatoes 83 68 83 kQ k9 72 88 Peanut butter 79 76 93 71 87 17 21 Hot chocolate 75 76 93 25 30 62 76 Potato chips 73 k6 56 63 77 5^ 66 Oatmeal 62 75 92 3k k2 2? 33 73 factor loadings include those uses pertaining to the allocation of resources and to the satisfaction of hunger.

Die rotated factor loadings, comraunalities, and percentage of variance for Factor Number Three are shown in Table 10. The three factor-defining uses for Factor Number Three were: "when I want something easy to fix", "when I want something inexpensive", and

"when X want something filling". For each of these uses, three to nine food items were rated highly appropriate and zero to eight food items were rated inappropriate.

Only one other condition of use had a factor loading above 0.50 for Factor Number Three. For the use "for lunch", 11 foods were rated highly appropriate and only one food was rated inappropriate.

The distribution of percentage scores on Factor Number Three is shown in Figure 1. Although none of the 24 food items received low percentage scores on this factor, only nine food items received high percentage scores on Factor Number Three.

The percentage scores for the 24 food items on Factor Number

Three and the number and percentage of "yes" responses for each of the factor-defining uses for Factor Number Three are shown in Table 13.

With the exception of apples and rice, the foods that received high percentage scores on Factor Number Three were meats and meat alterna­ tives . Fried chicken was the only meat included on the matrix that did not receive a high percentage score on this factor.

For Factor Number Three, the division of the percentage scores into medium and high categories is less helpful in Identifying foods rated highly appropriate for a factor-defining use than in identi­ fying those rated Inappropriate. All foods that received high 74- Table 13. The percentage scores for 24 food Items on Factor Number Three and the number and percentage of "yes” responses for the three factor- defining uses for Factor Number Three, derived from ratings by faculty members, The School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University. Number and Percent of "Yes" Responses Percentage ______for Specific Uses______Food Score When X Want When I Want When I Want Something Something Something Easy to Fix Inexpensive Filling

No. % No. % No. % Peanut butter 91 71 87 66 80 66 80 Cheese sandwich 90 71 87 62 76 58 71

Chili 89 54 66 61 74 76 93 Macaroni and cheese 89 55 6? 74 90 76 93 Meat loaf 86 52 63 71 87 71 87 Apples 83 77 94 41 50 35 43 Cottage cheese 83 75 92 40 49 40 49 Rice 83 58 72 68 83 58 71 Fried eggs 82 69 84 56 68 46 56

Vanilla pudding 79 4-8 58 53 65 44 54 Ice cream 77 76 93 18 22 38 46 Fried chicken 76 26 32 57 70 66 80 Peaches 76 78 95 21 26 15 18 Sliced tomatoes 76 79 96 26 32 6 7 Cooked carrots 74 4-9 60 66 80 16 20 Oatmeal 74 47 57 69 84 65 79 Coleslaw 71 38 46 61 74 9 11

Spinach 70 57 70 43 52 9 11 Hot chocolate 70 54 66 24 29 36 44 Broccoli 69 57 70 18 22 14 17 Sweet potatoes 66 33 40 17 21 57 70 Cake 65 23 28 27 33 44 54 Orange juice 65 71 87 13 16 4 5 Potato chips 62 58 71 5 6 15 18 75 percentage scores were rated highly appropriate for at least one factor- defining use for this factor and none was rated inappropriate for any of the factor-defining uses. However, some food items with medium percent­ age scores were rated highly appropriate for one factor-defining use for

Factor Number Three and Inappropriate for at leant one of the other factor-defining uses.

Again, the conditions of use closely associated with Factor Number

Three are similar because of the pattern that a limited number of foods are highly appropriate for these uses and few foods are Inappropriate not because food items received the same percentage of "yes" responses on each factor-defining use. While a high percentage score on Factor

Number Three generally indicates a majority of "yes" responses, a medium percentage score does not necessarily indicate a small percentage of "yes" responses on each factor-defining use.

EFNEP Homemakers

Factor Number Four (Special/Resources). — Conditions of use most closely associated with Factor Number Four are similar because few foods are appropriate for them and a large number of foods are inappropriate.

The conditions of use with high factor loadings include those that imply the use of special food items ("when I want a special treat" and "for

special holidays") and those pertaining to the allocation of resources

("when I want something inexpensive" and "when I want something easy to fix").

The rotated factor loadings, communalities, and percentage of variance for Factor Number Four are shown in Table 10. The three factor-defining uses for Factor Number Four werei "when I want a special treat", "when I want something Inexpensive", and "for special holidays". For each of these uses, none of the 2b food items was rated highly appropriate and one to ten food items were rated inappropriate.

Four other conditions of use had factor loadings above 0.50 on

Factor Number Four. For three of these four uses— "when I want something easy to fix”, "for guests", and "when I want something filling"— none of the 2b food items was rated highly appropriate and three to nine foods were rated Inappropriate. For the fourth use,

"as a snack", six foods were rated highly appropriate and nine foods were rated inappropriate.

The distribution of percentage scores on Factor Number Four is shown in Figure 1. Seventeen of the 2b food items received low percentage scores on this factor and none of the 2b food items received high percentage scores.

The percentage scores for the 2b food items on Factor Number

Four and the number and percentage of "yes" responses for each of the factor-defining uses for Factor Number Four are shown in Table 14.

Five of the seven food items that received medium percentage scores on Factor Number Four were fruits and dessert items, with cake and ice cream being the only two food items to receive percentage scores in the upper half of that range. Only one fruit, orange juice, did not receive a medium percentage score.

Food items that received low percentage scores were varied, although three of the seven foods with scores in the lower half of that range were vegetables. The remaining four food items with scores in the lower half of the low range werei oatmeal, fried eggs, cottage cheese, and rice. 77 Table 14. The percentage scores for 24 food items on Factor Number Four and the number and percentage of "yes” responses for the three factor- defining uses for Factor Number Four, derived from ratings by BFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohio.

Number and Percent of "Yes" Responses ______for Specific Uses______Percentage Food Score When I Want When I Want For Special a Special Something Holidays Treat Inexpensive

No. % No. % No. % Cake 72 26 67 16 39 28 72 Ice Cream 71 22 56 16 39 24 62 Peaches 68 25 66 16 39 16 43 Vanilla pudding 68 20 53 18 44 15 40 Apples 67 17 45 17 42 15 40 Fried chicken 65 15 38 19 46 24 62 Potato chips 63 14 36 13 32 14 36

Hot chocolate 60 15 38 15 37 7 18 Cheese sandwich 59 13 35 17 42 6 16 Orange juice 58 11 28 13 32 11 28 Peanut butter 58 11 30 18 44 6 16 Macaroni and cheese 56 8 22 16 39 14 38 Meat loaf 56 5 12 13 31 14 36 Sweet potatoes 55 8 21 10 24 18 47 Sliced tomatoes 55 7 18 13 32 13 34 Chili 54 2 22 14 34 5 13 Coleslaw 53 8 20 10 24 13 34

Rice 50 2 5 15 37 8 20 Broccoli 49 2 5 13 32 9 23 Cottage cheese 49 7 18 11 27 6 16 Fried eggs 48 6 15 13 32 3 8 Spinach 4? 2 5 11 27 5 13 Oatmeal 44 1 3 13 32 2 5 Cooked carrots 43 2 5 8 20 6 16 78

Of the seven foods that received medium percentage scores on Factor

Number Four, none was rated inappropriate for any of the three factor- defining uses. Of food items that received low percentage scores on

Factor Number Four, 13 of the 1? were rated inappropriate for at least one of the factor-defining uses.

Factor Number Five (Routine) . — Conditions of use most closely associated with Factor Number Five are similar because a limited number of foods were rated highly appropriate for these uses and few foods were rated inappropriate. Hie conditions of use with high factor loadings on Factor Number Five represent routine uses of food.

The rotated factor loadings, communalities, and percentage of variance for Factor Number Five are shown in Table 10. The three factor-defining uses for Factor Number Five werei "for children",

"for lunch", and "in the summer". For each of these uses, no more than one food item was rated inappropriate and zero to 12 food items were rated highly appropriate.

The three other conditions of use that had factor loadings above

0.50 on Factor Number Five werei "for breakfast", "as a part of the main meal of the day", and "for guests". For the latter two uses, only two and three food items were rated inappropriate respectively! however, for the use "for breakfast", 13 foods were rated inappropri­ ate, The number of food items rated highly appropriate for these uses ranged from zero for the use "for guests" to eight for the use

"as a part of the main meal of the day".

The distribution of percentage scores on Factor Number Five is shown in Figure 1. Twenty-three of the 24 food items Included on the food-by-item matrix received medium percentage scores on this factor. The percentage scores for the 24 food items on Factor Number Five and the number and percentage of "yes" responses for each of the factor defining uses for Factor Number Five are shown in Table 15* Cottage cheese was the single food item that received a low percentage score on Factor Number Five. Of the ten foods with percentage scores in the upper half of the medium range, seven were fruits, meats, or meat alternatives.

The large number of medium percentage scores for Factor Number

Five reflects the large number of foods, 10, that were rated neither highly appropriate or inappropriate for any of the factor-defining uses. Although food items that were rated highly appropriate for one or more factor-defining use tended to receive percentage scores in the upper half of the medium range, some foods with percentage scores in the lower half of that range also received a large percentage of "yes" responses.

4.5 Use of Fruits and Vegetables and Dairy Products by EFNEP Homemakers

Consumption of the fruit and vegetable group and the milk and milk products group by EFNEP participants has been reported to be below standards of nutritional adequacy (22,23). Therefore, ratings for these foods are of special importance to nutrition educators.

Six of the food items included on the food-by-item matrix were from the milk and milk products group. Ice cream was the only one of these food items that received a percentage score of 70 or over on both factors derived from ratings by EFNEP homemakers. Cottage cheese was the only food item from this group that received low percentage scores on both Factor Number Four and Factor Number Five. 80

Table 15■ percentage scores for 24 food items on Factor Number Five and the number and percentage of "yes” responses for the three factor- defining uses for Factor Number Five, derived from ratings by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohio.

Number and Percent of "Yes" Responses for Specific Uses Percentage Food Score For For Lunch In The Children Summer

No. % No. % No. % Fried chicken 79 34 85 31 78 25 62 Orange juice 77 37 88 23 56 30 73 Peaches 75 31 80 34 82 28 68 Hot chocolate 74 39 93 38 78 7 17 Apples 72 33 82 28 70 28 70 Fried eggs 72 37 90 14 35 23 56 Heat loaf 72 30 73 24 60 21 51 Peanut butter 72 36 90 32 84 27 68 Cake 71 33 82 26 6? 27 68 Macaroni and cheese 71 33 83 21 52 23 58

Ice cream 70 35 85 23 58 32 78 Vanilla pudding 70 33 82 27 69 27 68 Broccoli 69 30 73 22 54 20 49 Cheese sandwich 69 33 82 34 87 24 58 Chili 69 33 80 25 61 15 37 Rice 69 2? 66 19 48 20 49 Sweet potatoes 69 31 78 17 44 22 55 Potato chips 68 33 80 26 63 26 63 Sliced tomatoes 67 22 55 27 66 24 60 Spinach 65 29 72 15 38 17 42 Oatmeal 64 34 85 6 15 13 32 Cooked carrots 63 28 70 15 38 17 42 Coleslaw 62 16 39 34 85 23 58 Cottage cheese 56 16 39 16 40 17 42 81

On Factor Number Five, characterized by a limited number of highly appropriate foods and associated Kith routine uses, three additional food items from the milk and milk products group received percentage scores over 70 percenti hot chocolate, macaroni and cheese, and vanilla pudding.

Ten of the food items Included on the food-by-item matrix were from the fruit and vegetable group. None of these food items received a percentage score above ?0 percent or a low percentage score on both

Factor Number Four and Factor Number Five.

On Factor Number Four, characterized by few highly appropriate foods and associated with special and resource uses, none of the food items from the fruit and vegetable group received percentage scores over 70 percent. Only three food items from this group received percentage scores over 60 percenti peaches, apples, and potato chips.

The three vegetables with percentage scores under 50 percent werei broccoli, spinach, and cooked carrots.

On Factor Number Five, three food items from the fruit and vegetable group, all fruits, received percentage scores over 70 percent: orange Juice, peaches, and apples. Hie percentage scores for the remaining vegetables were all between 60 and 69 percent.

In general, the percentage scores for the fruit and vegetable group and the milk and milk products group were higher on Factor

Number Five than on Factor Number Four. Fruits tended to receive higher percentage scores on each factor than did vegetables. Milk and milk products with a sweet taste tended to receive higher percentage scores on each factor than did other milk and milk products. 82

4.6 Comparison of EFNEP and Faculty Factors

From the ratings of food-use appropriateness of both the faculty members and the EFNEP homemakers, one factor was generated that was characterized by few highly appropriate foods and one that was characterized by a limited number of highly appropriate foods. Hie third factor that was derived from analysis of the ratings of faculty members was characterized by many highly appropriate foods and did not have a counterpart derived from the ratings of EFNEP homemakers.

Few Highly Appropriate Foods. — Factor Number One which was derived from the ratings of faculty members and Factor Number Four which was derived from the ratings of EFNEP homemakers were similar In that both were characterized by few foods receiving high percentage scores (2 and 0 respectively) and many foods receiving low percentage scores (11 and 1? respectively). In addition, conditions of use classified as special had factor loadings above 0*50 on both of these factors. However, other conditions of use closely associated with these factors differed. Highly defined uses were associated with

Factor Number One and resource uses with Factor Number Four.

Hie use "for guests" also had a factor loading above 0.J50 on

Factor Number Four. 'However, for faculty members, the use "for guests" had a factor loading above 0.50 only on Factor Number Two which was defined by routine uses.

Although the percentage scores varied, -the four fruit and dessert

Items with the highest percentage scores on both Factor Number One and Factor Number Four weret peaches, ice cream, apples, and cake.

Similarly, the three foods with among the lowest percentage scores on both Factor Number One and Factor Number Four werei cooked carrots, oatmeal, and spinach.

Limited Number of Appropriate Foods. — Factor Number Three which was derived from the ratings of faculty members and Factor Number Five which was derived from the ratings of EFNEP homemakers were both characterised by a limited number of appropriate foods, with the majority of food items receiving medium percentage scores (15 and 23 respectively) . Each of the remaining food items received a high percentage score on Factor Number Three and a low percentage score on

Factor Number Five .

There was little similarity in the conditions of use receiving high factor loadings on Factor Number Three and Factor Number Five.

Resource and hunger uses were associated with Factor Number Three, while routine uses were associated with Factor Number Five.

In terms of the conditions of use receiving high factor loadings,

Factor Number Five was more similar to Factor Number Two which was derived from ratings of facility members and characterized by many

Mghly appropriate foods than to Factor Number Three. Five conditions of use had factor loadings above 0.50 on both Factor Number Two and

Factor Number Five.

There were few similarities between the food items receiving the highest percentage scores on Factor Number Five and Factor Number

Three. Although percentage scores varied, peaches, apples, and fried chicken received among the highest percentage scores on both Factor

Number Five and Factor Number Two. Only one food, oatmeal, received among the lowest percentage scores on both Factor Number Five and

Factor Number Two. 84 4.7 Comparison to the Literature

Use factors derived from analysis of ratings of food-use-appropri­ ateness obtained in this study reflect categories based on the respondents' use of food items. This basis of categorizing conditions of use differs from that employed in several previous reports (4,5.6,

15.30,31,32) in which categories of food use were primarily generated by the researcher. The use of respondents' ratings to derive categories of food use is most similar to the method employed previously by Schutz (9) and by Baird (10).

This study also differs from several reports in that it includes both situational and functional conditions of use. Previous researchers have often included only situational uses (4,5,6,15) or only functional uses (30,31,32). Because of the differences in the conditions of use considered, comparisons that can be made with earlier reports are limited. Factors with Few Appropriate Foods For both faculty members and EFNEP homemakers, a use factor was identified which was characterized by few appropriate foods. This pattern of ratings is similar to that described by the Casual Factor identified by Schutz (9) and characterized by no foods being appropriate for all uses and several foods not being appropriate for any use.

The specific conditions of use associated with the Casual Factor

(9) included the uses "when unhappy", "when riding in a car", "when not feeling well", "when not hungry", and "for dessert". None of these conditions of use was included in the present study. The factors characterized by few appropriate foods were associated with special 85 and highly defined uses for faculty members and with special and

resource uses for EFNEP homemakers. Two uses, "for breakfast" and "as a snack", which had factor loadings above 0.50 on Factor Number One, derived from the ratings of faculty

members, also had factor loadings above 0.50 on the Casual Factor (9)*

Only the use ’’as a snack" had a factor loading above O.JjO on both Factor

Number Four, derived from the ratings of EFNEP homemakers, and the Casual

Factor (9) ■ Foods rated as never appropriate for uses associated with the Casual

Factor included chili, liver, and chop suey (9)- Foods with consistent

ratings of never appropriate on the Casual Factor (9) and with low

percentage scores on factors characterized by few appropriate foods in

this study included chili, carrots, meat loaf, fried eggs, and broccoli. Baird (10) did not describe the distribution of appropriateness

ratings for use factors identified from ratings of EFNEP homemakers.

None of the factors identified from the ratings of black respondents

clearly parallels Factor Number Four, derived from ratings of EFNEP

homemakers. The Self-Indulgence Factor (10) identified from ratings of

white EFNEP respondents was similar in some respects to Factor Number

One, derived from ratings of facility members. The uses "as a reward",

"as a snack", and "for special occasions" all had factor loadings above

0.50 on the Self-Indulgence Factor (10 ) and were similar to uses with

loadings above 0.50 on Factor Number One. Appropriate foods for the

Self-Indulgence Factor (10) were steak, soda, and cookies. Neither Factor Number One nor Factor Number Four clearly parallels

categories of food use described by other researchers. Instead, they

appear to combine segments of categories. 86

Factors with Limited Appropriate Foods

Factor Number Three, derived from ratings of faculty members, and

Factor Number Five, derived from ratings of EFNEP homemakers, were both characterized by a limited number of appropriate foods. The Satiating

Factor identified by Schutz (9) has a limited similarity to Factor

Number Three, in terms of associated conditions of use.

Conditions of use associated with the Satiating Factor (9) included the uses "when really hungry" and "for dinner". The use "when

I want something filling" had a factor loading above 0.50 on Factor

Number Three. However, the Satiating Factor had almost one-fifth of the food items consistently rated always appropriate and a larger proportion consistently rated never appropriate. Heats tended to be rated high for uses associated with the Satiating Factor (9) •

Conditions of use associated with Factor Number Three are situational, uses pertaining to the allocation of resources, with the exception of the use "when I want something filling". This latter use corresponds to the function of providing energy and satisfying hunger identified by Lelninger (32) and relates to the physiological uses as defined by Van Schalk (31),

Factors with Many Appropriate Foods

Factor Number Two, derived from ratings of faculty members, was characterized by many appropriate foods. It was associated with routine uses of food, as was Factor Number Five, derived from ratings of EFNEP homemakers and characterized by a limited number of appropriate foods. When distribution of ratings are considered, Factor Humber Two is similar to the Utilitarian Factor described by Schutz (9). The

Utilitarian Factor was described as an all-purpose factor for which no foods were consistently perceived as inappropriate. Conditions of use identified with the Utilitarian Factor (9) included the uses

"for children" and "in the summer" which also received high factor loadings on Factor Number Two. Factor Number Five was similar to the Utilitarian Factor (9) in terms of the conditions of use associated with the factor, but not in the distribution of ratings of food items.

The uses referring to the allocation of time and money had high factor loadings on the Utilitarian Factor (9). These uses did not have factor loadings above 0.50 on either Factor Number Two or

Factor Number Five.

Baird (10) identified a Utilitarian Factor from ratings of black homemakers that was closely associated with the uses "easy to make",

"a filling food” , and "when I want to stretch my budget” as well as the uses "for children", "for men", "for women”, and "a popular food now". A similar factor was identified from responses of white EFNEP homemakers. Patterns of appropriateness ratings were not reported.

Foods indicated as appropriate for utilitarian uses by Baird (10) included chicken, eggs, and corn for black respondents and hamburger, eggs, and pork for white respondents. Foods with consistent ratings of always appropriate on the Utilitarian Factor identified by Schutz

(9) and also high percentage scores on Factor Number Two in eluded i ice cream, orange juice, apples, and chicken. The conditions of use closely associated Kith Factor Number Two and Factor Number Five are situational uses, with the exception of the use "for guests" which had a factor loading above 0.50 on both factors.

This use corresponds to the functional uses pertaining to interpersonal relationships described by both Van Schaik (3l) and by Lein Inge r (32) . CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purposes of the study were to identify use factors that describe conditions of use with similar patterns of food-use appropri­ ateness and to describe differences in weighted appropriateness ratings, expressed as percentage scores, for each of the 24 food items included on a food-by-item matrix for each use factor identified. Data were collected from 82 faculty members of the

School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, and from 44

EFNEF homemakers in Franklin County, Ohio.

Using principle component factor analysis, ratings of food-use appropriateness were grouped across all conditions of use for all food items for each group of respondents. Five use factors were identified--three from ratings of faculty members and two from ratings of EFNEF homemakers.

Ratings of Food-Use Appropriateness

For ten of the 12 conditions of use included on the food-by-item matrix, more foods were rated highly appropriate by the faculty member than by the EFNEF homemakers. For seven conditions of use, none of the food items was rated highly appropriate by the EFNEP homemakers, while at least one food item was rated highly appropriate for each condition of use by faculty members.

The number of food items rated inappropriate for each use was similar for both the faculty members and the EFNEP homemakers. The percentage of "undecided" responses was small for all food-use

combinations for both groups of respondents.

Use Factors and Percentage Scores— Faculty Members

Factor Number One (Special/Highly Defined). — Hie conditions of use most closely associated with Factor Number One are similar because few foods are highly appropriate for these uses and a large number of foods are inappropriate. Hie conditions of use with high loadings on Factor Number One Include those that Imply the use of special food items ("when I want a special treat" and "for special holidays") as well as those in which the situational use rigidly defines the choice of food ("for breakfast" and "as a snack").

Only two food items received high percentage scores and nearly one-half of the 24 food items, 11, received low percentage scores on

Factor Number One. Fruits and dessert items tended to receive the highest percentage scores on this factor.

Factor Number Two (Routine). — Hie conditions of use most closely associated with Factor Number Two are similar because many foods are highly appropriate for them and no foods are inappropriate.

The conditions of use with high factor loadings on Factor Number Two represent routine us6s of food ("for children", "In the summer", and

"for guests") .

Twenty food items received high percentage scores on Factor

Number Two and none of the 24 food items received low percentage scores. The only four foods that did not receive high percentage scores on this factor werer peanut butter, hot chocolate, potato chips, and oatmeal. 91

Factor Number Three (Resources/Hunger). -- The conditions of use most closely associated with Factor Number Three are similar because a limited number of foods are highly appropriate for these uses, but few foods are inappropriate. The conditions of use with high factor loadings include those uses pertaining to the allocation of resources

("when I want something easy to fix" and "when I want something

inexpensive") and to the satisfaction of hunger ("when I want some­ thing filling").

Although none of the 24 food items received low percentage scores on Factor Number Three, only nine food items received high percentage scores. With the exception of apples and rice, the foods that received high percentage scores on this factor were meat and meat alternatives.

Use Factors and Percentage Scores— EFNEF Homemakers

Factor Number Four (Special/Resources). — The conditions of use most closely associated with Factor Number Four are similar because few foods are highly appropriate for them and a large number of foods are inappropriate. Ihe conditions of use with high factor loadings include those that imply the use of special food items ("when I want a special treat" and "for special holidays") and those pertaining to the allocation of resources ("when I want something inexpensive" and

"when I want something easy to fix").

Seventeen of the 24 food items received low percentage scores on

Factor Number Four and none of the 24 food items received high percentage scores. Fruits and dessert items received among the highest percentage scores on this factor. Factor Number Five (Routine) . — The conditions of use most closely associated with Factor Number Five are similar because a limited number of foods were rated either highly appropriate or

Inappropriate for these uses. The conditions of use with high factor loadings on Factor Number Five represent routine uses of food ("for children", "for lunch", and "in the summer").

Twenty-three of the 24 food items included on the food-by-item matrix received medium percentage scores on Factor Number Five. The majority of foods with the highest percentage scores on this factor were fruits, meats, and meat alternatives.

Conclusions

The need for educational materials more suited to the needs and life styles of EFNEP participants has been stressed previously (28).

Information on the use of food has been cited as being helpful in designing nutrition education methods and materials (14). Data on appropriateness indicate the range of foods considered suitable for various conditions of use and provide insight into the types of food considered appropriate.

Appropriateness of food for specific conditions of use appears to be more restrictive for the EFNEP homemakers in this study than for the faculty members. For the conditions of use and the specific food items included in this research, EFNEP homemakers rated fewer food items highly appropriate for the majority of uses. Percentage scores were also lower on factors derived from ratings of EFNEP homemakers than on those from ratings of faculty members. 93 Conditions of use concerning the allocation of resources were more

closely associated with the factor with the smallest range of appropriate foods for EFNEP homemakers than for faculty members. No food item was rated highly appropriate by EFNEP homemakers for conditions of use

concerning the allocation of either time or money.

Conditions of use characterized as routine had the widest range of appropriate foods both for EFNEP homemakers and for faculty members in this study. Food items from the fruit and vegetable group and from the milk and milk products group, which have been reported to be consumed

by EFNEP participants in amounts below standards of nutritional adequacy (2 2 ,23), had generally higher percentage scores on the factor derived from ratings of EFNEP homemakers that was defined by these uses.

F'ruits and milk products with a sweet taste generally had higher

percentage scores than other food items from these two food groups.

Some stability of the distribution of ratings, the factor

structure, and ratings of specific food items has been shown by

comparison with previous studies (9,10), particularly for conditions

of use characterized as highly defined and routine. The associate

of conditions of use concerning the allocation of resources with use

factors differed from that in previous studies (9,10).

Although the limited sample of EFNEP homemakers in this study

restricts the generalization of specific data to other groups,

comparisons with other studies (9,10) support the usefulness of the

factor structure to nutrition education. In particular, conditions

of use characterized as routine represent uses in which appropriateness

places the least restriction on food selection. Suggestions for

changes in food intake to increase the nutritional adequacy of diets 9^ are least likely to be considered inappropriate if food items with relatively high percentage scores on this factor are recommended for these uses.

Differences in factor structure and in ratings of food-use appropriateness suggest differences in food habits that should be examined further. The lack of a factor derived from ratings of EFNEP homemakers that was characterized by many highly appropriate foods suggests that appropriateness is more of a restriction on food intake for this group than for faculty members. Differences in the ratings for the uses "as a part of the main meal of the day" and "for guests" indicates differences in the concept of these uses between the two groups.

The relatively high percentage scores of fruits on both factors derived from ratings of EFNEP homemakers suggest possible recommenda­ tions for increasing the intake of the fruit and vegetable group to raise the nutritional adequacy of the diets of this population group.

Further research is needed to provide information on the generalis- ability of these findings.

The association of the use "when I want something easy to fix" with the factor derived from EFNEP data and characterized by few highly appropriate foods has implications for both nutrition education for this group and for the preparation of professionals and para- professionals. Lack of skill in food preparation is one possible explanation for the low percentage of "yes" responses for this use.

Identification of the level of skill and instruction in deficient areas appears to be essential both for the EFNEP homemakers and for the persons responsible for instruction of these homemakers. Because of the nature of factor analysis, the conditions of use and food items selected for Inclusion in the food-by-item matrix had a considerable impact on use factors generated. Therefore, further research is needed to examine the stability of use factors. Use factors provide needed information not only on the selection of food items for specific conditions of use, but also on the degree of restriction that appropriateness places on food selection. APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COLLECTION OF DATA ON CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS AND FAMILIARITY WITH SPECIFIC FOOD ITEMS

96 Diractlaaai h r l u k of tha follow!**, okook tko o h that applloo to you. Faailr laooao -

Uadar 24 f*«ro_ Uador >1.000 24-14 »*•»_ >1.000-42.000 35 - 44 jooro_ >2.000-41.000 45 - 55 fooro_ >1.000—44.000 56 jroaro u d avar_ >4,000-45.000 >5.000-46.000 Ethaia b>oltir«M* - >6.000-17.000 Blaok, *#»-fii*pa*ic_ >7 fOOO aad orar_ Vhlto, Otkor______Buabar of w«r» of w i i d W H la Ohio - ______Chlldraa llviaa !a tha ho Baaa S^ata oonaldarad ta ba haw. Yauagaat ahild uadar 6 if aat. Ohta - ______raara Tauagaat ohild 6-19 raara 98

Tmr -rt*~ of tto fallawiaf, thiofc tto that appllaa ta /uu.

Uadar 24 Uadar *10,000_ 24-34 ju r a ___ •iotooo-li3, ooo_ 35-44 w w *13,000-*l6,000_ 45-55 m » *16,000-419,000_ 56 jr*ar* aa6 a»ar_ $19,000-421,000__ •21,000-424,000__ Bthalo baa leer aaad - •24,000—«27*000_ Blaok, na»-Hiipui*a *27,000-*30,000_ Vhita, aa«-Hiapaaio_ •3 0 , 0 0 0 aad m r _ Other_____ Baabar if yaara af raaidaaaa Chlldraa lirlag la tha ha— la Ohla - ______

Yaua«uat ahlld uadar 6 State t w H rttrt If aat Ohio - Yauagaat ahild 6-19 yaara

Ta ba dataahad hr raaaarahar upaa ratura

• ■ ■ a t

Yaur aaaa la laoludad aa thla queetionaalra for tha aala purpaaa of raaardlag raapoaaaa. It vlll ba raaovad bafora any uaa la aada of tha iafaraatlon. PifHiltMi N r M« k af tha fallaaia* faada, ahaak tha apaaa tkat daaaribaa haw m k jr«u haa* abaut that faad.

T u t M It it Haard af It but aat taatad tt

Bat ahaaalata

Braaoali

Patata aklpa

Fria* *CC*

Chili

Oraa«a Juioa

Slioad taaataaa

Iaa eraaa

Matt laaf

Aloe, boilad

Caks

Splaaah

Applaa

Svaat patataaa

Vaailla puddlag

Caakad aarrata

Oataaal

Kaaaraal aad ahaaaa

Faaaat battar

Chaaaa aaadalah

Paaabaa

Catta^a ohaaaa

Prlad ahiakaa

Cala ala* ATTENDIX B

FOOD-BY-ITEM MATRIX FOR COLIECTION OF RATINGS OF FOOD-USE APPROPRIATENESS FOR 24 FOOD ITEMS FOR 12 CONDITIONS OF USE

100 101

Ths Ohio State Uai— rsity Soheol af Bn— laonoaion Dept. mt Hu— a Butrities u i Food Ha— gmmmat

Directions!

Poods are uesd la easy ways by different people. Tha purpose af tha— questions ia to find aut whan you weuld u— apaolfie tom da mat if you u— thaa or haw eften. You say u— a food wary often, but aot ia aay af tha way* Xiatad. Start with tha first food listed. dak your— If if you would a— that food ia tha way listad ia tha first ooluan. In tha first box, sntar your raspon— using tha following ausborsa 3 - y*» 2 - uadsoidad 1 ■ no Bator tha first naswsr to tha quo*tian that aoours to you. tt— p going aorsss ths pegs, asking your— If tha wans question about that food far sash u— listad, Vhsn you haws answarsd all ths questions about oas food, so­ ts ths next food on ths list* Whan you ha— finished, every square should be filled with either 1, 2, or 3. Bxasplsi Would you u— this food ia this wayi

For ds a For breakfast anaok din— r

Fried eggs 3 1 1 Spaghetti 1 1 3 Potato ships 1 3 2

Tea— d — lad 1 1 3

2a this exesple, the first question ist Would you u— fried eggs for breakfast? Ths 3 in the first box says that ths answer was yen, Ths — oond question lai Would you u— fried eggs as a — k?

Ths 1 la ths — sond box — ys that the a n s w e r was as. n m n 0 M CA o n •a M • • 7 10 » a a * *? F I H- H*•i 7 *» Si • «* •r F F 1 f* 2 p a m \ i H 2 Si s «t a I ** a. a H 1 1 1* i H • « ia • w « ■ 6 » I«r 3 a M s M- » €*• U £ a z H-z ■ 6 : aI ►- 1 *» 5 ** I f • 9 f 1 ► 1 S *¥r r ' t • r i o f a ia 1 s V r £ a s

■ As a part of the as in "■eel of the day

When I sent so-'etMnr Inexpensive «W »T F*«* *m *»n «*»•*

In the earner

jfor children H N W ■ ■ • S 6 ) ,For breakfast t m

------For lunch ; __ i _ 1 When I went so*e- , thin* rilHrw i | . IFor special holidays

{A* o snack

1 jFor guests

When I want a 1 I special treat H When I want s«ne- O i tMng easy to fix i | ■ APPENDIX C

APPROVAL FOR RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

103 Protocol No. 73R 217

Original Review □ Continuing Review

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

PROPOSED USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS: ACTION OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE

The Behavioral S Social Sciences Review Committee has taken the followingwing action: yf 1. Approve 2. Approve with Conditions

3. Disapprove

with regard to the employment of human subjects in the proposed research

entitled: Appropriateness Ratines of Food as Reported by Partiripant.___

in the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program and hv Faculty_____

Tjw._School _gf_Hgae Economics^ the Ohio State University______

Rachel M. Hubbard/ is listed as the princ' 26S Campbell, 1787 Neil Ave investigator.

The conditions, if any, are attached and are signed by the committee chairperson and by the principal investiqator. If disapproved, the reasons are attached and are signed by the committee chairperson.

It is the responsibility of the principal investigator to retain a copy of each signed consent form for at least four (4) years beyond the termination of the subject's participation in the pro­ posed activity. Should the principal investigator leave the University3 signed consent forms are to be transferred to the H u m a n Subjects Review Committee for the required retention period.

Date______April 6, 1979 Sig n ed (Chairperson) 104 A PTE NLIX D

FAMILIARITY RATINGS FOR 2k POOD ITEfE

105 106

Table 16. Familiarity ratings for 24 food Items by faculty members, School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, and by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohio.a

Food Familiarity Rating

Respondent Tasted It More Tasted it Heard of it Group than once once but not tasted it No. % No. % No. % Hot chocolate Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP 43 98 1 2 0 0 Broccoli Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP 41 93 3 7 0 0 Potato chips Faculty 82 100 o 0 0 0 EFNEP kk 100 0 0 0 0

Fried eggs Faculty 81 99 1 1 0 0 EFNEP 44 100 0 0 0 Q

Chill Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP 44 100 0 0 0 0 Orange Juice Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP k2 96 2 4 0 0

Sliced tomatoes Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP kZ 96 1 2 1 2 Ice cream Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP 44 100 0 0 0 0 Meat loaf Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP 43 98 1 2 0 0 *1116 rating "have not heard of it" is omitted because it was not selected by any of the respondents. Table 16 (continued). Familiarity ratings for 24 food items by faculty members, School of Home Economics, The Ohio State Univer sity, and by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohio.a

Food Familiarity Rating

Respondent Tasted it More Tasted it Heard of it Group than once once but not tasted it

No. % No. % No. % Rice Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP 40 91 3 7 1 2 Cake Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP 44 100 0 0 0 0

Spinach Faculty 80 98 2 2 0 0 EFNEP 41 93 3 7 0 0 Apples Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP 44 100 0 0 0 0

Sweet potatoes Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP 43 98 1 2 0 0 Vanilla pudding Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP 41 93 3 7 0 0 Cooked carrots Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP 35 80 8 18 1 2

Oatmeal Faculty 81 99 1 1 0 0 EFNEP 40 91 2 4 2 4

Macaroni and cheese Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP 44 100 0 0 0 0 aThe rating "have not heard of it" is omitted because it was not selected by any of the respondents. 1 0 8

Table 16 (continued). Familiarity ratings for 24 food Items by faculty members, School of Home Economics, The Ohio State Univer­ sity, and by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohlo.a

Food Familiarity Rating

Respondent Tasted it More Tasted it Heard of it Group than once once but not ' tasted it

No. % No. % No. % Peanut butter Faculty 81 99 1 l 0 0 EFNEP 44 100 0 0 0 0

Cheese sandwiches Faculty 81 99 1 1 0 0 EFNEP 44 100 0 0 0 0

Cottage cheese Faculty 81 99 1 1 0 0 EFNEP 35 79 6 14 3 7 Peache s Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP 43 100 0 0 0 0 Fried chicken Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP 44 100 0 0 0 0

Coleslaw Faculty 82 100 0 0 0 0 EFNEP 36 82 7 16 1 2 aThe rating "have not heard of it" Is omitted because it was not selected by any of the respondents. APPENDIX E

APPROPRIATENESS RATINGS OF 24 POOD ITEMS

ON 12 CONDITIONS OF USE

1 0 9 n o Tuhle 1?. Appropriateness ratings for 2U food ltsas on speciflo conditions of use by futility Mtlaiti School of H o m Xoonoalcs, Iho Ohio State university. Pood Condition of Use Ao t Port of tiw Hein Wool Nhen I Wont Soaehlng of the Doy Inexpensive Appro par la tens m» Bating Appropriateness Bating Yes Undecided Mo Yoo Undecided Mo Mo. % Mo. % Mo. % No. % Mo. % No. % Hot chocolate 33 40 3 9 46 56 24 29 13 16 45 55 Broccoli 60 96 0 0 2 2 16 2 2 19 23 45 55 Pototo chips 1 -1* 17 4 5 64 76 5 6 73 89 73 69 Fried eggs 1*0 49 6 7 36 44 56 6 6 5 6 21 26 Oilll 73 69 1 1 8 10 61 74 8 10 13 1 6

Orange juice 26 y* 6 7 46 50 13 16 1 1 13 58 71 Sliced too*toes 60 96 1 1 1 1 26 32 1 1 14 44 54

Zoo eras* 6 6 80 4 5 12 15 18 2 2 n 13 53 65 Meat loaf 6 1 99 0 0 1 1 71 67 4 5 7 8 Aloe 76 93 1 1 5 6 66 83 6 7 6 10

Coke 6 2 76 3 4 17 21 27 33 1 1 13 44 54 Spinech 79 96 0 0 3 4 43 52 13 1 6 26 32 Apples 71 07 5 6 6 7 41 50 16 2 0 25 30 Sweet potatoes 77 94 0 0 5 6 17 21 25 30 40 49 Vanilla pudding 64 76 3 4 15 16 53 65 7 8 22 27 Cooked carrots 77 94 0 0 5 6 6 6 80 4 5 12 15

Gntassl 7 8 2 2 73 69 69 84 3 4 10 12 Ihoaronl and cheese 75 92 4 5 3 4 74 90 4 5 4 5 Peanut butter 26 32 3 4 53 65 6 6 60 3 4 13 16 Cheese sandwiches **3 52 4 5 35 43 62 76 8 10 1 2 15 Cottage cheese 73 89 1 1 8 10 40 49 14 17 28 34 Peaohes 77 94 2 2 3 4 2 1 26 19 24 41 51 Pried chicken 82 100 0 0 0 0 57 70 12 15 13 16 Coleslaw 76 95 1 1 3 4 61 74 7 8 14 17 Ill ThUe 17 (oontlnued) • Approprlateneae ratings for 24 food Lteae on specific oco<lons of two by faculty eesbere. School of Hoae loonoaloa, The Ohio State University. food Condition of Uao » In tha SxauMr Per Qilldnn Appropriateness Rating Appropriateness Hating To* Undoeldod No Tea Undecided No

No. % No. * No. % No. % No. * No. * Hot chocolate 25 X 3 4 54 6 6 76 93 1 1 5 6 Brocooll 80 98 0 0 2 2 73 89 6 7 3 4 Potato chips 63 7? 1 1 1 8 22 46 56 4 5 32 39 Pried eggs 72 8 8 3 4 7 8 72 88 3 4 7 B

Chill 33 40 5 6 44 54 71 8? 5 6 6 7

Orange Juice 81 99 1 1 0 0 79 96 1 1 2 2

Siloed toaatoes &1 99 0 0 1 1 71 87 3 4 8 10 loe cxean 61 99 0 0 1 1 78 95 1 2 3 4 Heat loaf 70 85 5 6 7 8 78 95 1 2 3 4

Rice 60 73 8 10 14 17 6? 62 3 4 1 2 15 Cake 63 77 5 6 14 17 6 6 80 6 7 10 12

Spinach 76 93 1 1 5 6 71 87 1 1 10 12

Apples 73 89 1 1 B 10 79 96 1 1 2 2

Sweet potatoes 40 49 9 11 33 40 6 8 83 3 4 1 1 13

Vanilla pudding 67 B2 2 2 13 16 78 95 2 2 2 2 Cooked oaxrots 67 82 3 4 12 15 71 87 5 6 6 7

Ostaeal 34 42 7 8 41 50 75 92 1 1 6 7 Macaroni and cheese 61 74 5 6 16 ‘20 76 93 3 4 3 4 Peanut butter 71 87 1 1 10 1 2 76 93 1 1 5 6

Cheese sandwiches 77 94 1 1 4 5 79 96 1 1 2 2

Cottage cheeee 78 95 3 4 1 1 72 8 8 6 7 4 5

Peaches 81 99 0 0 1 1 79 96 1 1 2 2 Pried chicken 78 95 2 2 2 2 75 92 3 4 4 5 Coleslaw 80 96 0 0 2 2 64 78 9 11 9 1 1 112

Tabl* 1 7 (oontinued). Appropriateness rating* for 24 food Its as on specific oondltlona of use by faculty asRbert, School of Hob* Eoanoalca, The Ohio 9tat* University. FOod OoadltioA of UOo

For Breakfast For Lwoh Appropriateness Ratine Approprlateness Ratine To* UndooUod Ho Yea Undaoldod Ifo Ho. * HO. % Ho. % Ho. * Ho. % Ho. * Hot chocolate 71 87 2 2 9 11 49 60 B 1 0 25 3 0 Broccoli 2 2 0 0 80 96 65 79 2 2 15 18

Potato chips 1 1 1 1 80 96 54 66 3 4 25 >0

Fried eggs 79 98 0 D 2 2 54 66 9 1 1 19 23

Oilll 4 5 5 6 73 89 79 96 1 1 2 2

Orange Juice 81 99 0 0 1 1 45 55 6 7 31 38 Siloed toaatoes 21 2 6 6 7 55 67 80 98 0 0 2 2

Ice cream 13 1 6 1 1 6 8 63 67 83 2 2 12 15 fteat loaf 9 1 1 3 4 70 85 58 71 4 5 20 24 Rloe 19 23 1 1 62 76 47 57 3 4 32 39

Cake 10 1 2 2 2 70 85 49 60 3 4 30 37 Spinach 3 4 1 1 78 95 61 74 3 4 18 22

Apples 43 52 2 2 37 45 79 96 2 2 1 1 Sweet potatoes 2 2 2 2 78 95 37 45 6 7 39 48 Vanilla pudding 14 17 2 2 66 80 69 84 3 4 10 1 2

Cooked carrots 2 2 2 2 78 95 57 70 2 2 23 28 Oataeal 77 94 1 1 4 5 7 e 4 5 71 87 Macaroni and cheese 4 5 3 4 75 92 6 6 83 4 5 10 12 Peanut butter 53 65 6 7 23 28 76 93 0 0 6 7 Cheese sandwiches 3 2 39 5 6 45 55 78 95 0 0 4 5 Cottage cheese 24 29 4 5 54 6 6 78 95 2 2 2 2 Peaches • 62 76 4 5 16 20 79 96 1 1 2 2 Pried chicken 12 15 1 1 69 84 61 74 1 1 2 0 24 Coleslaw 2 2 1 1 79 96 72 88 3 4 7 6 113

Table 17 (continued) ■ Appropriateness ratings for 24 food itees on specific conditions of d m by faculty m b i n , School of Hone E o o o o m Ic s , Iho Ohio State utol varsity. h o d Condition of Uee When I bant So«a thing for Special Holidays Pilling Appropriateneaa Ratine Approprlataneaa Ratine

Tea Undecided Ho Yea Uhda elded Ho

Ho. * He. * Ho. % Ho. % Ho. % Ho. % Hot chocolate 36 44 u 13 35 43 31 38 9 11 42 51 Broccoli 14 17 11 13 57 70 58 71 7 6 17 21 Potato chips 15 18 4 5 63 77 31 38 3 4 48 58 fried eggE 46 56 10 1 2 26 32 12 15 5 6 65 79 Chili 76 93 3 4 3 4 9 1 1 2 2 71 87

Orange Juice 4 5 B 10 70 85 34 42 6 10 40 49 Sliced tons toes 6 7 13 16 63 77 54 6 6 5 6 23 28 Ice ciean 38 46 7 8 37 45 70 85 2 2 10 12 Heat loaf 71 87 6 7 5 6 1 2 15 7 8 63 77 Rice 58 71 7 a 17 21 33 40 8 1 0 41 50 Cake 44 54 5 6 33 40 76 93 2 2 4 5 Spinach 9 1 1 2 2 71 87 31 38 5 6 46 56 Apples 35 43 4 5 43 52 48 58 4 5 30 37 Sweet potatoes 57 70 5 6 2 0 24 73 89 4 5 5 6

Vanilla pudding 44 54 7 8 31 38 23 28 5 6 54 66 Cooked Carrote 16 2 0 10 12 56 6 8 37 45 4 5 41 50 Qataaal 65 79 3 4 14 17 3 4 1 1 76 95 Macaroni and cheese 76 93 1 1 5 6 11 13 3 4 6 8 83 Peanut butter 66 60 3 4 13 16 5 6 3 4 74 90 Cheese sandwiches 56 71 7 e 17 2 1 9 11 1 1 72 88 * Cottage cheese 40 49 5 6 37 45 26 32 4 5 52 63 Peaches 15 16 6 7 61 74 46 56 2 2 34 42 Fried chicken 66 ao 2 2 14 17 56 6 6 4 5 2 2 27 Coleslaw 9 11 9 11 64 78 33 40 7 8 42 51 114 M U * 17 (continued). Approjrlatenea# rating* for 24 food ltees on •p*clflc conditions of use by faculty ■eabers, School of Hons Eoononica, The Ohio State Unlenraity. Pood Condition of. Us* As a Snack Por Guest*

Appropriateness Ratine Appropriateness Rating I** Undecided No Tea Undecided Ho

No. % No. * Ho. % Mo. * No. % No. % Hot chocolate 73 89 2 2 7 B 6 2 76 6 7 14 17 Broccoli 2 1 26 1 1 60 73 79 96 1 1 2 2 Potato chips 63 77 2 2 17 21 54 6 6 6 7 22 27

Pried eggs 20 24 1 1 61 74 50 61 8 10 24 29 Olill 14 17 3 4 65 79 45 55 5 6 32 39 Orange juice 66 83 2 2 12 15 74 90 3 4 5 6 Sliced toaatoes 47 57 3 4 32 39 78 95 2 2 2 £ Ice crean 74 90 2 2 6 7 78 95 3 4 1 1 Neat loaf 15 1 6 e 10 59 72 55 67 5 6 22 27 Dice 5 6 2 2 75 92 65 80 3 4 13 16 Cake 61 74 2 2 19 23 78 95 2 2 2 2 Spinach 2 2 3 4 77 94 59 72 5 6 18 2 2

Apples 61 99 0 0 1 1 63 77 7 8 12 15

Sweet potato*e 5 6 0 0 77 94 72 8 8 1 1 9 11 Vanilla pudding 57 70 7 e 1 8 22 43 52 3 4 36 44 Cooked carrots 1 0 12 2 2 70 6 5 57 70 7 8 16 2 2 Oats**] 14 17 1 1 67 82 27 33 4 5 51 62 Macaroni and cheese 9 11 2 2 71 •87 31 38 4 5 47 57 Peanut butter 76 93 1 1 5 6 17 21 6 7 59 72 dies** sandwiches 56 6 8 1 1 25 30 30 37 4 5 48 56 Cottage cheese 51 6 2 5 6 26 32 57 70 4 5 21 26 Peachet 79 96 0 0 3 4 69 84 6 7 7 a

Fried chicken 35 43 4 5 43 52 74 90 1 1 7 8

Coleslaw 13 16 2 2 67 82 6 6 80 4 5 12 15 115

Table 17 (continued). Appropriateness ratings for 29 food lteae cm specific conditions of u m by faculty eesbera, School of K o m Bccooalcat The Ohio State University.

rood Condition of U m

When 1 Want a Khan I want So m thine Special Treat Baay to fix Appropriateness Ratine Appro pi latanaaa Ratine Yaa Undecided No Yaa Undecided No No. * No. * No. * No. * Bo. % No. * Hot chocolate 97 57 7 e 28 39 59 6 6 9 5 29 29 Broccoli 30 37 8 1 0 99 59 57 70 7 8 10 2 2

Potato chips 1 6 22 9 5 6 0 73 58 71 0 0 29 29 Fried eggs 5 6 2 2 75 92 69 89 l 1 1 2 15

Chill 6 7 6 7 70 85 59 6 6 6 7 22 27

Orange juloe 19 23 8 10 55 67 71 B7 2 2 9 1 1 Siloed toaatoes 30 37 9 11 93 52 79 96 0 0 3 9

Ioe cream 79 90 3 9 5 6 76 93 1 1 5 6 Heat loaf 5 6 9 5 73 69 52 63 6 7 29 29 Rice 9 1 1 9 5 6 8 89 50 72 5 6 18 2 2 Cake 63 78 2 2 1 6 2 0 23 28 12 15 96 57 Spinach 1 2 15 7 8 63 77 57 70 0 0 25 30 Apples 35 93 7 8 90 99 77 99 2 2 3 9 Sweet potatoes 26 32 9 5 52 63 33 90 7 8 92 51 Vanilla pudding 26 32 10 12 96 56 98 50 7 8 2 ? 33 Cooked carrots a 10 6 7 6 8 83 99 60 6 7 27 33 Oatesel 9 5 9 5 79 90 9? 57 9 5 31 38 Macaroni and cheese 8 10 1 1 73 ■89 55 67 5 6 22 27 Peanut butter 9 11 9 5 69 89 71 87 3 9 8 10 Oteese sandwiches 10 12 2 2 70 85 71 87 3 9 8 10 Cottage cheese 17 21 6 7 59 72 75 92 2 2 5 6 Peaches 93 53 B 10 >0 37 70 95 2 2 2 2

Fried chicken 39 92 9 11 39 98 26 32 7 8 99 6 0 Coleslaw 9 11 3 9 70 85 38 96 2 2 92 5L 116 Table 18. Appro ^-lateness ratings for 24 food lt«M on specific conditions of use by EVNEP homenakers, Franklin Cointy, Chio.

Food Condition of U m As a Part of the thin ttaal When I Want Something of the Say Inexpensive Appropriateness Rating Appropriateness Rating Yes Undecided No Yes Undecided No

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Hot chocolate 9 22 1 2 31 76 15 37 3 7 23 56 Broccoli 37 90 0 0 4 10 13 32 5 1 2 23 56 Potato chips 5 12 2 5 32 83 13 32 4 1 0 24 58 Fried eggs 1 0 24 5 1 2 26 63 13 32 2 5 26 63 Chili 38 93 0 0 3 7 14 34 4 10 23 56 Orange Juice 9 22 2 5 30 73 13 32 2 5 26 63 Sliced to mates s Z1 51 3 7 17 42 13 32 4 10 23 56 Ice cream 10 24 1 2 30 73 16 39 2 5 23 56 Meat loaf 37 90 1 2 3 7 13 31 3 7 26 62 Rice 32 76 1 2 9 21 15 37 2 5 24 58 Cake 11 2 ? 4 10 26 63 16 39 2 5 23 56 Spinach 3 4 81 1 2 7 17 11 27 4 1 0 26 63 Apple s ii 26 3 7 28 67 l? 42 2 5 22 54

Sweet potatoes 38 90 2 5 2 5 10 24 6 15 2 5 61 Vanilla pudding 9 22 2 5 3° 73 1 8 44 3 7 20 49 Cooked carrots 36 86 0 0 6 14 8 20 0 0 33 80 Oatmeal 5 12 1 2 35 85 13 32 3 7 25 61 Macaroni and cheese 37 88 1 2 4 10 1 6 39 5 12 20 49 Peanut butter 11 26 4 9 28 65 18 44 1 2 22 54 Cheese sandwiches 9 22 3 7 29 71 17 42 3 7 21 51 Cottage cheese 16 39 1 2 24 58 11 27 1 2 29 71 Peaches 11 28 3 8 26 65 16 39 1 2 24 56 Fried chicken 40 95 l 2 1 2 19 46 2 5 20 49 Cole slaw 22 54 l ?. 18 44 10 24 1 2 31 74 117 Tmbl» 18 (continued). Appropriateness ratings for 24 food lteaa on specific conditions of uaa by 1PMEP hoae ankers. taankLln Cowty, Ohio. Pood Condition of Uaa

In the Siwr Por children A ppmin. la tana a» Ratine Appropriateneee Ratine Yes Undecided Mo Taa Undecided Mo

Mo. % Mo. % Mo. % Mo. % Mo. % No. % Hot chocolate 7 17 1 2 33 80 39 93 0 0 3 7 Broccoli 2 0 k9 2 5 19 46 30 73 2 5 9 2 2 Potato chips 26 63 3 7 12 29 33 80 0 0 8 20

Prlad eggs 2 3 56 1 2 17 kZ 37 90 0 0 4 10

Oilll 15 37 1 2 25 6 1 33 80 0 0 8 20

Orange Juice 30 73 0 0 1 1 27 37 8 8 0 0 5 12 Sliced toaatoes 24 60 2 5 14 35 22 55 l 2 17 42 Ice cream 32 78 0 0 9 2 2 35 85 0 0 6 15

ftsat loaf 2 1 51 6 10 1 6 39 30 73 l 2 10 24 Rloa 20 49 2 5 19 46 27 6 6 i 2 13 32 Cake 27 6 8 1 2 12 30 33 82 0 0 7 IB

Spinach 17 kz 3 8 2 0 50 29 72 2 5 9 22

Apples 28 70 0 0 12 30 33 82 0 0 7 18

Sweet potatoes 22 55 1 2 17 42 31 78 0 0 9 2 2 Vanilla pudding 27 6 8 1 2 12 30 33 82 0 0 7 18

Cooked carrots 17 kZ 2 5 21 52 28 70 0 0 12 30

Oataeal 13 32 3 8 2it 60 34 85 2 5 4 1 0 Macaroni and cheese 23 58 3 e 14 35 33 63 0 0 7 18

Peanut butter 27 6 8 0 0 13 32 36 90 0 0 4 10

Cheese sand niches 2k 58 2 5 15 37 33 82 0 0 7 18

Cottage cheese 17 kZ 0 0 2k 58 16 39 1 2 24 58

Beaches 26 6 8 0 0 13 32 31 80 0 0 6 20

Fried chicken 25 62 0 0 15 36 34 85 0 0 6 15 Coleslaw 23 58 0 0 17 42 16 39 2 5 23 56 ne Table IS (continued). Appropriateness ratings for 21* Tood its so cn specific oondltleos of us* by EmtP howmJan, Franklin County, Ohio. Food Condition of Us* ■ Fbr Breakfast For Lunch A ppi-Mpr lateness Hating Appropriateness Hatii« Yes Uodseidsd Wc Yes Uhdecldsd Mo

No. % No. * No. * No. % No. 91 No. 91 Hot chocolate 3 a 93 1 2 2 5 38 78 2 5 7 17 Broccoli 2 5 0 0 39 95 22 54 5 12 14 34 Potato chips 2 5 1 2 38 93 26 63 5 12 10 24 Fried eggs 40 95 1 2 1 2 14 35 3 8 23 58 Chill z 5 2 5 37 90 25 6 1 4 10 12 29

Orange Juice 39 93 0 0 3 7 2 3 56 4 10 14 34 Sliced toaatoes 9 22 2 5 29 72 27 66 2 5 12 29 Ice cream 9 10 0 0 37 90 23 58 5 12 12 30 Meat leaf 6 20 2 5 31 76 24 60 4 10 12 30 Rice 20 99 0 0 21 51 19 48 3 B 18 45 Cake 3 6 1 2 36 90 26 67 4 10 9 23 Spinach 2 5 0 0 37 95 15 38 4 10 20 51 Apple 5 ie 95 2 5 20 50 28 70 3 8 9 22 Sweet potatoes i 2 3 8 36 90 17 44 3 8 19 49 Vanilla pudding 7 18 1 2 32 80 27 69 3 8 9 23 Cooked carrots 1 2 0 0 39 98 15 38 2 5 22 56 Oataeal 40 98 0 0 1 2 6 15 0 0 33 85 fecexoni and cheese 2 5 0 0 38 95 21 52 4 10 15 38 Peanut butter 10 25 1 2 29 72 32 84 2 5 4 10 Owese sandwiches e 20 1 2 31 78 34 8? 1 3 4 10 Cottage cheese 9 22 1 2 3 0 75 16 40 2 5 22 55 Peaches • 16 41 2 5 21 59 34 82 1 3 4 10 Fried chicken 9 22 0 0 31 78 27 69 3 6 9 23 Coleslaw 5 12 1 2 34 85 20 50 2 5 16 45 119 I k U i 18 (continued), Approjvlate— ittlan for 24 food I t m on opoolflc cond itions of d m by K R K F hr— asks rs, Franklin County, Ohio.

food Condition of Um H i m I Bant So— thing m i l n g Fbr Special Holidays Appropriateness Rating Appropriateness Rating Y m tkide elded No Too Undecided No No. % Mo. * No. 91 No. % No. * No. % Hot chocolate 10 2k 5 12 26 63 7 18 2 5 31 78 Broccoli 6 15 5 12 29 72 9 23 3 8 27 69 Potato chips 6 15 1 2 33 82 14 36 1 3 24 62 Pried eggs 9 22 3 8 28 70 3 8 0 0 36 92 Chili 19 48 2 5 19 46 5 13 2 5 32 82 Orange juice 8 20 9 10 29 71 11 28 3 8 26 65 Sliced tomatoes 5 13 9 10 30 77 13 34 1 3 24 63 Ice cream 10 25 5 12 25 62 24 62 2 5 13 33 Heat loaf 21 52 2 5 17 42 14 36 4 10 21 54 Rice 16 90 3 8 21 52 6 20 1 3 30 77 Cake 10 26 3 8 26 67 28 72 0 0 11 28 Spinach 6 15 4 10 29 74 5 13 3 8 30 79 Apples 16 91 0 0 23 59 15 40 l 3 22 56 Sweet potatoes 13 33 5 13 21 5* 18 47 0 0 20 53 Vanilla pudding li 28 2 5 26 67 15 40 l 3 22 56 Cooked carrots 3 a 3 a 33 85 6 16 2 5 30 79

Oat— al 11 28 z 5 26 67 2 5 1 3 35 92 Macaroni and cheese 17 kk 4 10 16 46 14 38 1 3 22 60 Peanut butter 15 38 3 8 21 5** 6 16 0 0 31 84 Qieese sandwiches 7 18 4 10 28 72 6 16 0 0 31 84 Cottage cheese • 6 15 1 3 32 82 6 16 0 0 31 84

Fsaches ? 18 4 10 2B 72 16 43 2 5 19 51 Fried chicken 21 51 3 7 17 42 24 6 2 0 c 15 38 Coleslaw 9 22 2 5 29 72 13 34 □ 0 25 66 120 Table IS (ooDtlautd). AppEoprlateoaea ntlni* for 24 food Ate— on a pacific a M d l t l o M of u m by H W ho— eakirs, Franklin Ooisitjr, Ohio. Pood Condition of U— Ai * Snaok For Cueste Appropriateness Bating A f p n p l t t m t n Rating Yea ikidecided No Too Undecided No

N o . 91 No. % Mo. % Do. * No. % Mo. % Hot chooolate 2b 58 2 5 15 37 14 34 2 5 25 61 Broccoli b 10 0 0 36 90 18 45 0 0 22 55 Potato chips 37 90 1 2 3 7 22 55 2 5 1 6 40 Fried eggs 5 12 3 8 32 80 7 18 3 8 30 75 Chill 8 20 0 0 32 80 15 38 4 10 21 52 Orange juice 10 bb 2 5 21 51 16 39 2 5 23 56 Sliced toaatoes 19 49 1 3 19 49 13 33 1 3 25 64 Ice cream 35 06 0 0 5 12 24 60 2 5 14 35 Heat loaf 10 25 2 5 28 70 17 42 3 8 20 50 Rioe 2 5 1 2 37 92 11 28 2 5 27 68 Cake 35 04 1 2 5 12 28 70 0 0 12 30 Spinach 4 10 0 0 35 90 9 23 3 8 27 69 Apples 36 92 0 0 3 8 15 40 3 8 20 53 Sweet potatoes 7 10 1 3 31 80 17 44 2 5 20 51 Vanilla pudding 3b 85 0 0 6 15 22 55 2 5 16 40

Cooked carrots 3 B 2 5 33 87 9 23 3 8 27 69 Oat— al 2 5 1 3 36 92 5 13 2 5 31 82 Macaroni and c.

Pood Condition of Um Khan 1 Want a Whan 1 Want go— thing Spaclal Treat laay to PI*

Appropriateness feting Appropriatane— feting Yaa bbdeelded Mo Ye* Utadecided Ho

Mo. % Ho. * Ho. * Ho. % Ho. % Ho. * Hot chooolate 15 38 3 8 2 2 55 20 50 2 5 18 45 Broccoli 2 5 l 3 36 92 8 20 2 5 29 74 Potato chips 14 36 3 8 2 2 56 15 38 1 3 23 59 Pried eggs 6 15 1 3 32 82 1 2 31 2 5 25 64 Chill 9 2 2 3 8 29 70 1 2 29 3 7 26 63 Orange Juloe 11 28 4 10 25 62 17 42 1 2 22 55 Sliced toaatoes 7 19 1 3 30 79 14 36 1 3 24 62 Joe cream 2 2 56 2 5 15 38 2 1 54 1 3 17 44 Heat loaf 5 12 3 B 32 80 9 22 5 1 2 26 65 Rice 2 5 2 5 35 90 1 0 26 2 5 27 69 Cafe 26 67 3 8 10 26 15 40 4 1 0 19 50 Spinach 2 5 0 0 36 95 9 24 0 0 28 76 Apples 1? 45 1 3 20 53 21 55 0 0 17 45 Sweet potatoes e 21 0 0 30 79 8 21 0 0 30 79

Vanilla pudding 20 53 2 5 16 42 19 49 2 5 18 46 Goofed carrots 2 5 0 0 35 95 4 10 1 3 33 87 Oetanal 1 3 1 3 36 95 7 18 1 3 30 79 feoaronl and cheese 8 2 2 1 3 26 ' 76 5 13 0 0 33 8? feanut butter 11 30 0 0 2 6 70 19 50 0 0 19 50

OiaaM sandwiches 13 35 1 3 23 62 20 53 1 3 1 ? 45 Cottage cheese 7 16 0 0 31 82 7 18 0 0 31 82 Ibaches 25 6 6 3 e 10 26 2 1 54 1 3 17 44 Pried chicken 15 38 2 5 22 56 1 2 31 1 3 26 67 Coleslaw 6 20 1 3 30 77 12 32 1 3 25 6 6 APPENDIX F

WEIGHTED APPROPRIATENESS RATINGS AND PERCENTAGE SCORES FOR Zh FOODS ON FIVE USE FACTORS

122 123 Table 1 9 . v*i|ht*d apiaopi'iateeie M rttlA|i and p im nt«|* Boons for 2 4 food l t m on three u m factors l»l««d Oraa iMljilt of ratings of feod-uM appiuyilatans ee by faculty ambers, School of H o m Economics, iho Ohio State Ihlwnlty. ------g------6------e Rhetor Number On* factor Riahr Two factor Nutter 1tvn» Appru prl- Feroent- Appropri- Peroent- Appro pri- Peroent- atenaaa age ateneee age steneas age Rating Score Rating Soore Hating Sooxe Mean 3 1 . Mean SI. Kean S I . Hot chocolate 7.8 .1 6 76 7.2 .18 75 5-3 .17 70 Potato chips 5.5 .16 55 7.0 .24 73 4.6 .1 6 6 2 Fried eggs 6 . 0 .15 6 0 8 .0 .17 84 6 . 1 ■ 15 82

Siloed toaatoes 7.1 .2 0 71 9.3 .08 97 5-6 .09 76 Heat loaf 5.2 .15 52 6.7 .0 1 91 6.4 .14 8 6 Apples 7.9 .17 79 9.0 .1 1 94 6 . 2 .1 1 83

Sweet potatoes 6 . 1 .13 61 7.9 .18 83 5.0 .1 6 6 6

Vanilla pudding 6.4 .2 0 64 8.4 .17 8? 5-9 .1 8 79

Cooked carrots 5.3 .15 53 8-5 .17 89 5-5 .15 74 Macaroni and cheese 4.9 ■ 15 49 8 .2 .1 6 8 6 6.7 .13 89 Cheese sandwiches 5.8 .19 56 8 .2 .13 85 6.7 .13 90

Cottage cheese 6 .4 .2 1 64 8.4 .13 93 6 .2 .1 2 83 Pried chicken 6 . 6 .19 6 6 9.1 .1 1 94 5.7 .15 76

Coleslaw 5-* ■ 15 54 8.9 .14 93 5 0 .13 71 Broccoli 6.3 .14 63 9.2 .09 96 5-1 •13 69 Chill 4.9 .14 49 7.9 .15 83 6 . 6 .13 89

Ice ere an B .2 • 13 82 9.1 .1 1 95 5-7 .14 77 Spinach 5.2 .14 52 8.7 .15 91 5.2 .15 70 Oataeal 5-2 .1 2 5-9 .1 6 6 2 5-5 .14 74 Peanut butter 6-3 .1 6 63 7.6 .1 6 79 6 . 8 .13 91

Orange Juice 7.4 .1 6 74 8.3 .1 2 8? 4.8 .1 2 65 Rice - 5-5 .1 6 55 8 .3 .2 0 8 6 6 .2 .1 6 83 Cake 7.8 .17 78 8.3 .18 87 4.8 .19 65 Peaches 8.4 .18 84 9.3 .09 97 5.7 .1 0 76

*Total possible - 9.999i Pactor-def In In* u m * — special treat, breakfast, snacks T'otal possible - 9*588) factor-defining uses— children, suntr, guests ®Total possible - 7>455) Factor-defining uses— easy to fix, inejtpanslve, filling 124

Table 20. Weighted approprlateness ratings and percentage scores for 24 food Items on two use factors derived from analysis of ratings of food-use appropriateness by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohio.

Factor Number Four* Factor Number Five**

Food Appropria­ Percent­ Appropria­ Percent­ teness age teness age Rating Score Rating Score

Mean S .E. Mean S >£.

Hot chocolate 9.8 • 57 60 9.2 .24 74 Potato chips 10.2 • 57 63 8.5 • 37 68 Pried eggs 7.8 .43 48 9.0 .29 72 Sliced tomatoes 8.9 .59 55 8.4 .47 67 Meat loaf 9.1 .52 56 9.1 • 38 72 Apples 10.9 • 58 6? 9.1 .46 72 Sweet potatoes 8.8 • 53 55 8.6 .43 69 Vanilla pudding 11.0 •62 68 8.8 .38 70 Cooked carrots 7.0 .48 43 7.9 • 37 63 Macaroni and cheese 9*0 .50 56 8.9 • 31 71 Cheese sandwich 9.5 • 57 59 8.7 • 36 69 Cottage cheese 8.0 • 51 49 7.0 .46 56 Fried chicken 10.6 .61 6 5 9.8 • 35 79 Coleslaw 8.6 .59 53 7.8 .42 62 Broccoli 8.0 .43 49 8.6 .32 69 Chili 8.8 .48 54 8.7 •34 69 Ice cream 11.5 .57 71 8.8 • 38 70 Spinach ' 7-5 .46 47 8.1 • 34 65 Oatmeal 7.2 • 39 44 8.0 .27 64 Peanut butter 9.4 • 57 58 9.0 .34 72 Orange juice 9.3 .61 58 9.7 .35 77 Rice 8.1 .45 50 8.7 .48 69 Cake 11.7 • 56 72 8.9 .36 71 Peaches 11.0 .60 68 9.4 .42 75 ^Total possible = 16.194* Factor-defining uses--when I want a special treat, for special holidays, when 1 want something inexpensive, al possible = 12.522} Factor-defining uses— for children, for lunch, In the summer. REFERENCES

1 . National Research Council. 1945. Manual for the study of food habits. Washington, D. C.: National Research Council.

2. Schuh, C. C., A. N. Moore, and B. H. Tuthill. 196?. Measuring food acceptability by frequency ratings. J. Amer. Dietet. Assn. 51040 -343.

3- Schutz, H. G. 1957- Preference ratings as pedictors of food consumption. American Psychologist 12: 412.

4. Dickins, D. 1 9 6 5 . Factors related to food preference. J. Home Ec. 57: 427-430.

5. Pilgrim, F. J. 1961. What foods do people accept or reject? J. Amer. Dietet. Assn. 3 8 : 439-443.

6. Eindhoven, J., and D. R, Peryam. 1959* Measure of preferences for food combinations. Food technol. 13: 379-382.

7* Lee, D. 1957- Cultural factors in dietary choice. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 5: 166-170 *

8 . Schutz, H. G., M. H. Rucker, and J. D. Hunt. 1972. Hospital patients' and employees’ reactions to food-use combinations. J. Amer. Dietet. Assn. 6O1 207-212.

9* Schutz, H. G., M. H. Rucker, and G. F. Russell. 1975* Food and food-use classification systems. Food Technol. 29: 50-64.

1 0 . Baird, P. C. and.H. G. Schutz. 1976. The marketing concept applied to "selling" good nutrition. J. Nutr. Ed. B: 13-17*

11. Schutz, H. G., S. M. Moore, and M. H. Rucker. 1977. Predicting food purchase and use by multivariate attitudinal analysis. Food Tbchnol. 31: 85-92.

12. Stefflre, V., P. Reich, and J. McClaran-SteffIre. 1971* Some eliciting and computational procedures for descriptive semantics. Ini Kay, P., ed. Explorations in Mathematical Anthropology. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

13. Lowenberg, M. E., E. N. Todhunter, E. D. Wilson, J. R. Savage and J. L. Lubawski. 1974. Food and Man. Second edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 125 1 2 6 14. Fewster, W. J., L. R. Bostian, and R. D. Powers. 1973* Measuring the connotatlve meanings of foods. Home Ec. Res. J. 2i Ml— 53*

15. Jelllnek, J. S. 1973. The meanings of flavors and textures. Food Technol. 27: 46-55-

16. Szczesniak, A. S., and E. L. Kahn. 1971* Consumer awareness of and attitudes to food texture. J. Text. Stud. 2: 280-295*

17* Jerome, N. W. 1975* Flavor preferences and food patterns of selected U. S. and Caribbean blacks. Food Technol. 29: MS-51 •

18. U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1969* Food intake and nutritive value of diets of men, women, and children in the United States, Spring 1965: A preliminary report. ARS Publ. 62-18.

19* U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1968. Dietary levels of households in the United States, Spring 1965* A preliminary report. ARS Publ. 62-17.

20. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Public Health Service. 1974. First health and nutrition examination survey, United States, 1971-1972: Dietary intake and biochemical findings. Rockville, Maryland: Health Resources Administration.

21. Citizens* Board of Inquiry into Hunger and Malnutrition in the United States. 1968. Hunger, U.S.A. Boston: Beacon Press.

22. Feaster, J. G. 1972. Impact of the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program in low-income families: An indepth analysis. Agri. Edonomics Report No. 220. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Agriculture.

23. Jones, J. H. 1970. Evaluation of the Louisiana Nutrition Education Program. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University, Cooperative Extension Service.

24. Bowering, J., M. A. Morrison, R. L. Lowenberg, and N. Tirado. 1977* Evaluating 24-hour dietary recalls. J . Nutr. Ed. 9: 20-25.

25* Ward, C. 1970. Better diets possible by shifting food expenditure pattern. Family Economics Review, December, p. 13.

26. Osgood, C. E., G. J. Suci, and P. H. Tannenbaum. 1971* The measurement of meaning. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

27* Schaeffer, A. E. 1970. Findings and implications of the National Nutrition Survey. In: DuPont, J., ed. Dimensions of Nutrition. Boulder, Colorado: Colorado Associated University Press.

28, Synectics Corporation. 1971* Program performance, 1971: Expanded Food and Nutrition Program. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1 2 ? 29. Schafer, R., and E. A. Yetley. 1975* Social psychology of food faddlsm. J. Amer. Dietet. Assn. 66: 129-133*

30. Pumpian-Hindi In, E . 1954. The meanings of food. J. Amer. Dietet. Assn . 301 576-580 .

31. Van Schaik, T. P. S. K. 1964. Food and nutrition relative to family life. J. Home Ec. 56* 225-231.

32. Leininger, M . M. 1970. Some cross-cultural universal and non- unlversal functions, beliefs, and practices of food. Ini DuPont, J ., e d. Dimensions of Nutrition. Boulder, Colorado t Colorado Associated University Press.

33- Pilgrim, F. J., and J. M. Kamen. 1959. Patterns of food preference through factor analysis. J. Market. 24* 68-72.

34. Lltman, T. J., J. P. Cooney, and R. Stief. 1964. The views of Minnesota school children on food. J. Amer. Dietet. Assn. 45: 433-440.

35- Jerome, N. W. 1968. Charging meal patterns among southern-bom negroes in a Midwestern city. Nutr. News 31: 9-12.

36. Cross, B., R. 0. Herrmann, and R. H. War land. 1975* Effect of family llfe-cycle stage on concerns about food selection. J. Amer. Dietet. Assn. 6?i 131-134.

37. Bowering, J., M. A. Morrison, R. L. Lowenberg, and N. Tirado. 1976. Role of E F N E P aides in Improving diets of pregnant women. J. Nutr. Ed. 8* 111-11?,

38. Green, L. W., V. L. Wand, and P. H. Ephross. 1972. A three-year longitudinal study of the impact of nutrition aides on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of rural poor homemakers. Paper. Presented before the Food and Nutrition Section, Centennial Meeting of the American Public Health Association, Altantic City, New Jersey.

39. Wharton, C. S. 1972. The impact of the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program on participant families. Ihesis. The Ohio State University.

40. Hollingsworth, D. F. 1961. Dietary determination of nutritional status. Fed. Proc. 20* 50-56,

41. NIe, N. H., C. H. Hull, J. G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, and D. H. Bent. 1975* SPSS* Statistical package for the social sciences. Second ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.