(P28-004-23) Face Validity Assessment of the Food Literacy, Environment, and Waste (FLEW) Assessment

Objectives: To assess the face validity of the Food Literacy, Environment, and Waste (FLEW), which estimates food waste-related behaviors and psychosocial variables.

Methods: Online cognitive interviews were conducted with a voluntary response sampling of adults. Participants were required to have the means to complete an online survey and interview. 143 survey questions were split into sections regarding shopping, storage, cooking, leftover reuse, literacy and motivation. Interview transcripts were transcribed and analyzed using inductive thematic content analysis to assess participants’ comprehension of instructions, survey items and appropriateness of response options.

Results: Participants (n=60; 71.6% female, 70.0% White, 23.3% Black or African American) averaged 39 years of age (range: 19-71) and were from various US regions (68.3% Midwest, 11.6% Northeast, 8.3% Southeast, 6.6% West, 3.3% Southwest). Average household size among participants was 2.6 members (range: 1-5). Each survey section was tested for an average of 12 times (range:11-14). Participants demonstrated survey completion and submission feasibility for 7/8 survey sections tested. During the interview, participants identified problems with question phrasing/structure, specific vocabulary terms used such as “conserve” and noted questions may require a “not applicable” response option or different scale to better represent their answers. Only 3/143 survey items had issues reported by three or more participants. Although few reported confusion, participants provided specific suggestions to improve question wording or response options. Each participant understood photo upload directions well, with no reports of difficulty or confusion with the process.

Conclusions: The FLEW assessment demonstrated face validity and utility to assess food waste behaviors and psychosocial variables among adults. However, comprehension and validity can be strengthened upon revision guided by participants’ feedback.

Funding Sources: USDA, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (7001264)