Social determinants of fruit and vegetable intake and validation of Pro-Children Eating Habits Questionnaire for 3rd and 5th grade children

BACKGROUND: The Pro Children Eating Habits Questionnaire has been evaluated as a valid and reliable tool in Europe to measure determinants of fruit and vegetable intake for children; however, it has not been validation for United States populations. The purpose of this study was to (1) assess the reliability and discrimination validity of fruit and vegetable correlates for the Pro Children Eating Habits Questionnaire; (2) investigate the predictive validity of determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption for multi-ethnic elementary school children; and, (3) to assess the association of social determinants with fruit and vegetable consumption. METHODS: One hundred and thirty elementary school students from the 3rd and 5th grades completed this cross-sectional study. RESULTS: Fruit and vegetable determinants, had satisfactory internal consistencies. No differences were found between the test and the retest for the individual questions with the exception of the question for mean perceived vegetable intake. The discriminatory validity indicated the questionnaire could show differences across grade and gender levels for barriers of fruit and vegetables but not for other factors. Grade together with gender explained barriers to eating fruit and vegetables. Greater availability of fruit in the home and school was associated with higher frequency of consumption. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate the Pro-Children Eating Habits Questionnaire may be a reliable and valid tool for assessing fruit and vegetable consumption of children in the United States.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Discrete Trial Procedures for Teaching Receptive Discrimination to Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

Research has found that children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) show significant deficits in receptive language skills (Wiesmer, Lord, & Esler, 2010). One of the primary goals of applied behavior analytic intervention is to improve the communication skills of children with autism by teaching receptive discriminations. Both receptive discriminations and receptive language entail matching spoken words with corresponding objects, symbols (e.g., pictures or words), actions, people, and so on (Green, 2001). In order to develop receptive language skills, children with autism often undergo discrimination training within the context of discrete trial training. This training entails teaching the learner how to respond differentially to different stimuli (Green, 2001). It is through discrimination training that individuals with autism learn and develop language (Lovaas, 2003). The present study compares three procedures for teaching receptive discriminations: (1) simple/conditional (Procedure A), (2) conditional only (Procedure B), and (3) conditional discrimination of two target cards (Procedure C). Six children, ranging in age from 2-years-old to 5-years-old, with an autism diagnosis were taught how to receptively discriminate nine sets of stimuli. Results suggest that the extra training steps included in the simple/conditional and conditional only procedures may not be necessary to teach children with autism how to receptively discriminate. For all participants, Procedure C appeared to be the most efficient and effective procedure for teaching young children with autism receptive discriminations. Response maintenance and generalization probes conducted one-month following the end of training indicate that even though Procedure C resulted in less training sessions overall, no one procedure resulted in better maintenance and generalization than the others. In other words, more training sessions, as evident with the simple/conditional and conditional only procedures, did not facilitate participants’ ability to accurately respond or generalize one-month following training. The present study contributes to the literature on what is the most efficient and effective way to teach receptive discrimination during discrete trial training to children with ASD. These findings are critical as research shows that receptive language skills are predictive of better outcomes and adaptive behaviors in the future.

Workplace Discrimination Climate and Team Effectiveness: The Mediating Role of Collective Value Congruence, Team Cohesion, and Collective Affective Commitment

This study explored the relationship between workplace discrimination climate on team effectiveness through three serial mediators: collective value congruence, team cohesion, and collective affective commitment. As more individuals of marginalized groups diversify the workforce and as more organizations move toward team-based work (Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2010), it is imperative to understand how employees perceive their organization’s discriminatory climate as well as its effect on teams. An archival dataset consisting of 6,824 respondents was used, resulting in 332 work teams with five or more members in each. The data were collected as part of an employee climate survey administered in 2011 throughout the United States’ Department of Defense. The results revealed that the indirect effect through M1 (collective value congruence) and M2 (team cohesion) best accounted for the relationship between workplace discrimination climate (X) and team effectiveness (Y). Meaning, on average, teams that reported a greater climate for workplace discrimination also reported less collective value congruence with their organization (a1 = -1.07, p < .001). With less shared perceptions of value congruence, there is less team cohesion (d21 = .45, p < .001), and with less team cohesion there is less team effectiveness (b2 = .57, p < .001). In addition, because of theoretical overlap, this study makes the case for studying workplace discrimination under the broader construct of workplace aggression within the I/O psychology literature. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis found that workplace discrimination based on five types of marginalized groups: race/ethnicity, gender, religion, age, and disability was best explained by a three-factor model, including: career obstruction based on age and disability bias (CO), verbal aggression based on multiple types of bias (VA), and differential treatment based on racial/ethnic bias (DT). There was initial support to claim that workplace discrimination items covary not only based on type, but also based on form (i.e., nonviolent aggressive behaviors). Therefore, the form of workplace discrimination is just as important as the type when studying climate perceptions and team-level effects. Theoretical and organizational implications are also discussed.