R E P O RT

Children’s Social Desirability and Dietary Reports

S U Z A N N E D O M E L B A X T E R , P H D, RD, LD, FADA 1 ; A L B E RT F. S M I T H , P H D, M S 2 ;

M A R K S. L I TA K E R , P H D 3 ; M I C H E L L E L. B AG L I O , RD, LD 4 ;
C A RO L I N E H. G U I N N , RD, LD 1 ; N I C O L E M. S H A F F E R , RD, LD 1
1
Arnold School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Center for Research in Nutrition and
Health Disparities, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina; 2Department of Psychology, Cleveland State
University, Cleveland, Ohio; 3Office of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia;
4
Department of Pediatrics, Georgia Prevention Institute, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia

who tend to respond in a socially desirable way may err sys-

ABSTRACT tematically in responding to a variety of questions, including
questions about dietary intake; thus, social desirability is an
We investigated telephone administration of the Children’s
example of a response bias.1
Social Desirability (CSD) scale and our adaptation for chil-
dren of the Social Desirability for Food scale (C-SDF). Each Among adults, social desirability is most commonly mea-
of 100 4th-graders completed 2 telephone interviews 28 sured using the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability
days apart. CSD scores had adequate internal consistency (MCSD) scale,2 which consists of 33 items that describe
and test–retest reliability, and a 14-item subset was identified either desirable but uncommon everyday behaviors (eg,
that sufficiently measures the same construct. Our C-SDF admitting mistakes) or undesirable but common everyday
scale performed less well in terms of internal consistency and behaviors (eg, gossiping).1 Possible scores range from 0 to 33,
test–retest reliability; factor analysis revealed 2 factors, 1 of with higher scores indicating a higher tendency to respond
which was moderately related to the CSD.The 14-item sub- in a socially desirable way. High test–retest reliability3 is con-
set of the CSD scale may help researchers understand error sistent with the presumption that an individual’s level of
in children’s dietary reports. social desirability is an enduring characteristic.
Crandall et al 4 used the MCSD scale as a model to
KEY WORDS: children, social desirability, dietary reports
develop 2 versions of the Children’s Social Desirability
(J Nutr Educ Behav. 2004;36:84-89.) (CSD) scale: the version for grades 6 through 12 has 48 true-
false items, and the version for grades 3 through 5 has 46 yes-
no items. In the latter version, shown in Table 1, possible
scores range from 0 to 46, with higher scores indicating a
INTRODUCTION higher tendency toward socially desirable responding. 5
Crandall et al evaluated the reliability of the CSD scale with
Research on personality has identified characteristics on a total sample of 956 children in grades 3 through 12, includ-
which individuals vary systematically; among these is the ing about 110 children in each of grades 3 through 5.4
tendency to respond in a socially desirable way. Socially Spearman-Brown–corrected split-half reliabilities were high,
desirable responding is presumed when an individual reports ranging from .82 to .95 for subsamples of males and females
never performing a behavior that most everyone performs at at various grade levels. One-month test–retest reliabilities on
least occasionally or always performing a behavior that most subsamples of 63 younger children and 98 10th-graders were
people usually perform but omit occasionally. Individuals .90 and .85, respectively.Thus, children’s social desirability, as
measured by the CSD, was found to be both internally con-
sistent and consistent over a 1-month interval. Socially desir-
This research was supported by R01 grant HL 63189 from the National Heart, Lung,
and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health with Suzanne Domel Baxter,
able responses were more frequently given by younger than by
PhD, RD, LD, FADA, as principal investigator. older children, by less intelligent than by more intelligent chil-
Work was completed while S.D.B., C.H.G., and N.M.S. were at the Medical College dren, by females than by males, and by black than by white
of Georgia, Department of Pediatrics, Georgia Prevention Institute, Augusta, GA.
Address for correspondence: Suzanne Domel Baxter, PhD, RD, LD, FADA, Center children.4 Klein et al replicated the age and gender findings of
for Research in Nutrition and Health Disparities, University of South Carolina, 2718 Crandall et al4 with 1,008 males and females ages 7 to 14.6
Middleburg Dr, 2nd Fl, Columbia, SC 29204; Tel: (803) 251-6367; Fax: (803) 251-
7954; E-mail: [email protected].
Some evidence for the validity of the CSD scale is avail-
©2004 SOCIETY FOR NUTRITION EDUCATION able: Crandall showed that CSD scores for 10th-graders were

84
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 36 Number 2 March • April 2004 85

Table 1. Items on the Children’s Social Desirability (CSD) Scale,5 with Factor Loadings and Endorsement Rates from Our Study with 100 4th-
Grade Children

Loadings Endorse

Item A1 A2 A1 A2

1. Do you ever get angry if you have to stop in the middle of something you’re doing to eat dinner or
go to school? (N) 30 63 42 48
2. Does it sometimes bother you to share your things with your friends? (N) 30 50 65 72
3. Do you always enjoy yourself at a party? (Y) 31 40 91 83
4. Are you always polite to older people? (Y) 38 45 82 80
5. Do you sometimes tell a little lie? (N) 26 42 13 25
6. Do you ever hit a boy or a girl who is smaller than you? (N) 16 42 85 83
7. Sometimes, do you feel like doing other things instead of what your teacher wants you to do? (N) 41 69 55 54
8. Do you ever act “fresh” or “talk back” to your mother or father? (N) 26 51 85 83
9. When you make a mistake, do you always admit that you are wrong? (Y) 30 52 76 71
10. Do you feel that your parents always show good judgment (ie, do they always make good choices)? (Y) 38 53 92 86
*11. Have you ever felt like saying unkind things to a person? (N) 45 67 55 54
12. Have you sometimes felt like throwing or breaking things? (N) 42 38 76 69
13. Do you ever let someone else get blamed for what you do wrong? (N) 41 43 87 83
*14. Are you always careful about keeping your clothing neat and your room picked up? (Y) 49 55 78 72
15. Do you ever shout when you feel angry? (N) 27 46 64 57
*16. Do you sometimes feel like staying home from school even if you are not sick? (N) 49 57 38 48
17. Sometimes do you wish your parents didn’t check up on you so closely? (N) 29 45 55 58
18. Do you always help people who need help? (Y) 50 49 86 79
19. Do you sometimes argue with your mother to let you do something she doesn’t want you to do? (N) 34 44 77 78
*20. Do you ever say anything that makes somebody else feel bad? (N) 63 65 74 68
21. Do you think your teachers know more about everything than you do? (Y) –14 –10 73 62
*22. Are you always polite, even to people who are not very nice? (Y) 47 50 68 68
*23. Sometimes do you do things you’ve been told not to do? (N) 53 69 37 50
24. Do you ever get angry? (N) 21 30 10 16
25. Do you sometimes want to own things just because your friends have them? (N) 42 37 63 54
*26. Do you always listen to your parents? (Y) 61 56 78 79
27. Do you ever forget to say “please” and “thank you”? (N) 31 42 47 44
*28. Do you sometimes wish you could just play around instead of having to go to school? (N) 57 64 43 50
29. Do you always wash your hands before every meal? (Y) 52 49 85 81
30. Do you sometimes dislike helping your parents even though you know they need your help around
the house? (N) 33 9 35 43
31. Do you ever find it hard to make friends? (N) 19 12 38 58
*32. Have you ever broken a rule? (N) 51 60 34 37
33. Sometimes do you try to get even when someone does something to you that you don’t like? (N) 45 53 42 48
*34. Do you sometimes feel angry when you don’t get your way? (N) 50 70 49 46
35. Do you always help a hurt animal? (Y) 16 4 39 29
36. Do you sometimes want to do things your parents think you are too young to do? (N) 21 51 55 53
*37. Do you sometimes feel like making fun of other people? (N) 62 70 80 72
38. Have you ever borrowed anything without asking permission first? (N) 35 61 73 72
39. Do you sometimes get mad when someone disturbs something you’ve been working on? (N) 18 45 19 22
40. Are you always glad to cooperate with others? (Y) 37 51 90 78
41. Do you ever get angry when your best friend wants to do something you don’t want to do? (N) 34 33 59 61
42. Do you sometimes wish that the other kids would pay more attention to what you say? (N) 32 33 40 44
*43. Do you always do the right things? (Y) 64 53 58 49
44. Are there some times when you don’t like to do what your parents tell you? (Mind your parents?) (N) 56 62 45 41
45. Are there times that you don’t like it if somebody asks you to do something for him? (N) 36 60 51 56
*46. Do you sometimes get mad when people don’t do what you want them to do? (N) 56 58 59 56

The Y or N in parentheses after each item indicates whether the yes or no answer is the socially desirable response. Loadings are on the first (only
retained) factor, multiplied by 100. Endorse is the percentage of children who gave the socially desirable response. A1 indicates first administration;
A2, second administration. Items with an asterisk before the question were selected for the 14-item subset of the CSD.
86 Baxter et al/CHILDREN’S SOCIAL DESIRABILITY AND DIETARY REPORTS

related in the predicted direction to certain subscales of the eligible to receive free or reduced-price school meals. Of the
California Personality Inventory (social presence, self-accep- 262 children invited to participate, 170 (65%) provided writ-
tance, good impression, self-control); for younger children, ten child assent and parental consent. Of these 170 children,
CSD scores were related to certain social and achievement each of 100 randomly selected children was interviewed
behaviors in free play.7 For children from 4th to 12th grade, twice, with a minimum of 28 days between any child’s 2
CSD scores were negatively associated with achievement test interviews. Each child’s 2 interviews were conducted by a
performance. Klein et al found that social desirability was different 1 of 3 research dietitians. Interviews were con-
associated with children’s inability to express dislike for ducted by telephone in the evening. Children were told that
peers.6 they would be asked “questions about things that happen to
It is plausible that social desirability would be related to all children your age.”The 46-item CSD scale was adminis-
dietary reports in general and to dietary reporting error in tered first, followed by the 14-item C-SDF scale. Beginning
particular. Because many foods are regarded generally as and ending times were recorded, and interviews were
“good” or “bad,”8-12 a respondent who tends to answer in a audiorecorded. Children were paid $10 per interview.
socially desirable way might underreport consumption of Quality control for interviews was assessed daily through-
“bad” foods and overreport consumption of “good” foods.10-12 out data collection. QCI assessed on 69 random interviews
Worsley et al developed a scale to measure Social Desirabil- (35%) showed that interviewers adequately followed the
ity for Foods (SDF) and tested it with 309 Australian Air protocol.
Force recruits; a subsample of 96 recruits also completed the Answers that matched the socially desirable choice were
MCSD scale.10 SDF scores correlated positively to both scored 1 point. Possible scores ranged from 0 to 46 for the
MCSD scores and self-reported consumption of fresh fruit CSD scale and from 0 to 14 for our C-SDF scale, with
and vegetables on a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and higher scores indicating a greater tendency toward socially
correlated negatively to FFQ-reported consumption of desirable responding. For each administration of each scale,
snack foods.Worsley et al concluded that psychological char- internal consistency was estimated by Cronbach α.
acteristics such as social desirability might influence individ- Test–retest reliability for each scale was estimated by Pear-
uals’ dietary reports. (Note that they did not assess response son’s correlation coefficient. Mean scores and administration
validity or the relationship of social desirability to reporting times for the repeat administrations were compared using
error.) paired t tests. Means by gender were compared using t tests.
Over the past 10 years, evidence collected concerning Factor analysis was used to investigate the latent structure of
the relationship of social desirability to adults’ dietary reports the scales and to guide the selection of items for a shortened
has tended to show a negative association between social social desirability scale.
desirability and reporting accuracy, particularly for females,13-17
although one study found no effect of social desirability on
adults’ dietary reports.18 Investigators of children’s diets have LESSONS LEARNED
also been concerned about the relationship of social desir-
ability to children’s dietary reports19-21 but have neither Across children, a mean of 29.34 days (minimum = 28, max-
assessed social desirability and children’s self-reported dietary imum = 40) separated the 2 interviews. The mean total
behaviors concurrently nor attempted to relate children’s length of questionnaire administration (for the 60 items of
dietary reporting errors to social desirability. Anticipating the 2 scales) was 10 minutes (minimum = 7, maximum = 16)
such investigations, we carried out this study to (1) assess and 9 minutes (minimum = 7, maximum = 15) for the first
test–retest reliability of telephone administration of the CSD and second interviews, respectively.
scale; (2) adapt Worsley et al’s SDF scale10 for children and
assess test–retest reliability of telephone administration of
CSD Scale
the resulting Children’s Social Desirability for Foods (C-
SDF) scale (Table 2); (3) evaluate the relationship between For the CSD scale, α’s were .88 and .93 for the first and sec-
the CSD and the C-SDF scales; and (4) identify a subset of ond administrations, respectively. Test–retest reliability was
CSD scale items to permit efficient measurement of social .79. Table 3 shows means and standard deviations of scores
desirability. on the CSD scale by administration and gender. Mean scores
of males and females did not differ significantly in either the
first or second administration (P = .96 and .48, respectively),
DESCRIPTION OF THE EVALUATION and overall means did not differ between the 2 administra-
tions (P = .72).
The study had Institutional Review Board approval. During To examine the latent structure of the scale, factors were
the spring of 2002, all children from the 14 4th-grade classes extracted from the data from each administration using the
at 3 public elementary schools in 1 district in a southeastern principal factors method with squared multiple correlations
state were invited to participate.At the 3 schools, 96%, 91%, as prior communality estimates. In each set of data, the pro-
and 69%, respectively, of the children across all grades were portion of common variance accounted for by the first fac-
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 36 Number 2 March • April 2004 87

Table 2. Items on a Children’s Social Desirability for Food (C-SDF) Table 3. Means (and Standard Deviations) by Administration and
Scale Created by Adapting Worsley et al’s10 Social Desirability for Gender for the Children’s Social Desirability (CSD) Scale, the
Food (SDF) Scale Children’s Social Desirability for Food (C-SDF) Scale, and a 14-Item
Subset of the CSD Scale
1. Do you usually drink all of your milk? (Y)
2. Do you usually eat breakfast every day? (Y) Males Females All Children
3. Do you often eat candy? (N) Administration (n = 53) (n = 47) (n = 100)
4. Do you often watch TV or read while you eat a meal
CSD Scale
or snack? (N)
(See Table 1 for 46 items on CSD Scale.
5. Do you always wash your hands before every meal? (Y) Scores may range from 0 to 46.)
6. Do you usually eat all of your vegetables? (Y) 1 27.49 (7.43) 27.43 (8.79) 27.46 (8.06)
7. Do you usually drink regular soft drinks or sodas? (N) 2 27.92 (9.89) 26.47 (10.76) 27.24 (10.28)
8. Do you usually eat your meals or snacks in a hurry? (N)
C-SDF Scale
9. Are your table manners at home as good as when you eat at
(See Table 2 for 14 items on C-SDF Scale.
school or in a restaurant? (Y)
Scores may range from 0 to 14.)
10. Do you usually eat fast foods? (N)
1 8.85 (2.27) 7.96 (2.57) 8.43 (2.45)
11. Do you usually “pig out” or eat too much? (N)
2 8.77 (2.60) 7.94 (2.69) 8.38 (2.66)
12. Do you always brush your teeth after each meal? (Y)
13. Do you always eat everything on your plate even if you’re 14-Item Subset of CSD Scale
not hungry? (Y) (This subset consists of CSD scale items 11, 14, 16, 20, 22, 23, 26,
28, 32, 34, 37, 43, 44, and 46. Scores may range from 0 to 14.)
14. Do you usually eat chips? (N)
1 7.96 (3.46) 7.96 (4.25) 7.96 (3.83)
The Y or N in parentheses after each item indicates whether the yes 2 8.11 (4.08) 7.74 (4.54) 7.94 (4.28)
or no answer is the socially desirable response.
The sample size was 100 4th-graders with 10 white males, 5 white
females, 39 black males, 37 black females, 4 other males, and 5 other
females. For each scale, higher scores indicate a higher tendency
toward socially desirable responding.
tor was vastly larger than accounted for by the second and
subsequent factors. For the first administration, the first fac-
tor accounted for 31% of the common variance and the sec-
between .2 and .8, and most rates were well within these
ond accounted for only 9% (total common variance = 24.8);
limits. For these 14 items, the median endorsement rates of
for the second administration, the first and second factors
the more frequent response were .62 and .58 on the first and
accounted for 40% and 10%, respectively, of the common
second administrations, respectively; for the other 32 items,
variance (total common variance = 29.2).This pattern sug-
the comparable statistics were .73 and .71. Four of the 14
gested that the scale measures a dominant construct and that
items (29%) are keyed “yes” for social desirability; on the full
we might select a subset of items that would measure social
46-item scale, 28% of the items are keyed “yes.” Table 3
desirability in children efficiently yet adequately.
shows means and standard deviations of scores on the 14-
Items were selected for the shortened scale if they had
item subset of the CSD scale by administration and gender.
high loadings on the first extracted factor on both adminis-
Means of males and females did not differ significantly in
trations of the CSD and nonextreme endorsement rates
either the first or second administration (P = .99 and .67,
(which is required for an item to contribute to differentiat-
respectively), and the difference between the means for the
ing among respondents); in addition, the set was selected to
2 administrations was not significant (P = .93). For the 14-
mirror the full scale in the proportion of items keyed “yes”
item subset of the CSD scale, test–retest reliability was .83.
for social desirability.Table 1 shows first-factor loadings and
endorsement rates for each item in each administration.We
C-SDF Scale
identified 14 items from the 46-item CSD scale (items 11,
14, 16, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, 32, 34, 37, 43, 44, and 46; see Table For the C-SDF scale, for the first and second administrations,
1) according to these criteria.Ten of these items were among respectively, α’s were .57 and .63, and correlations between
the 15 highest-loading items on the first extracted factor on the C-SDF scale and the CSD scale were .49 and .59.
both administrations of the scale; 3 were among the 15 high- Test–retest reliability was .64.Table 3 shows means and stan-
est-loading items on 1 administration and among the 17 dard deviations of scores on the C-SDF scale by administra-
highest loading on the other; and 1 item loaded adequately tion and gender. Mean scores of males and females did not
on the first factor on both administrations, although it was differ significantly in either the first or second administration
not among the highest loading.The median loadings of these (P = .07 and .12, respectively), and overall means did not dif-
items on the first factor extracted from the data of the first fer between the 2 administrations (P = .29).
and second administrations were .55 (range .45 to .64) and Factor analysis of the data from each administration using
.62 (range .51 to .71), respectively. In addition, the endorse- the principal factors method with squared multiple correla-
ment rate for each of these items on each administration, was tions as prior communality estimates suggested an underly-
88 Baxter et al/CHILDREN’S SOCIAL DESIRABILITY AND DIETARY REPORTS

ing 2-factor structure. For the first and second administra- The children in the sample were from 3 schools in 1
tions, the first and second extracted factors together school district and were primarily of 1 race; these study char-
accounted for 84% and 96%, respectively, of the common acteristics may limit generalizability of the results. Another
variance (total common variance for the first and second limitation is that test–retest reliability of the 14-item subset
administrations was 3.28 and 3.81, respectively).After appli- of the CSD scale was not assessed by itself; responses to these
cation of a varimax rotation to the 2-factor solution from items were collected only in the context of the other 32
each administration, we identified 7 items (3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, items of the CSD scale. In addition, the C-SDF scale was
14) as loading strongly on 1 factor and 5 items (1, 5, 6, 12, always administered after the CSD scale.
13) as loading strongly on the other. (Two items, 2 and 9, The relatively poor performance of the C-SDF scale may
loaded strongly on neither factor.) Test–retest reliability for have been due to the use of the word “usually” in many of
each of these subsets was .71. One subset of items, which the questions; this term may not be sufficiently absolute to
includes questions about drinking milk, eating vegetables, identify socially desirable responding. In the CSD scale, all
finishing all food, washing hands, and brushing teeth, is but 1 of the questions keyed “yes” include the term “always,”
related to social desirability in the sense measured by the and all but 1 of the questions keyed “no” include either
CSD scale; the correlations between this subset of items and “sometimes” or “ever.” In contrast, 3 items on Worsley et
the CSD scale were .60 and .64 for the 2 administrations, al’s10 SDF scale for adults include “always” or “never,” and the
respectively. In contrast, the other subset of items, which remaining 9 items include a variety of less absolute terms,
includes questions about eating candy, chips, fast food, and such as “usually,”“rarely,”“often,” and “hardly ever.”
drinking soda; eating in a hurry; eating too much; and
watching television or reading while eating, was weakly
related to the CSD scale, with correlations of .22 and .24 on
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH
the first and second administrations, respectively.
AND PRACTICE
One item, concerning washing hands before every meal,
appeared on both the CSD and C-SDF scales; during the
There is a growing interest in measuring social desirability in
interviews, these items were generally separated by 3 to 4
studies of children’s dietary reports and in exploring rela-
minutes.Thus, these items provide an opportunity to exam-
tively stable personality characteristics as correlates of chil-
ine intra-administration reliability (for a single item) and
dren’s dietary reporting error. Many studies by us and others
provide a frame for expectations about scale reliability with
involve collecting dietary data from children by telephone22-27;
4th-grade children. On the first administration, 7 children
in this article, we estimated test–retest reliability for tele-
changed their responses, giving a repeated-item reliability of
phone administration of the CSD scale. (The test–retest reli-
.72; on the second administration, 4 children changed their
ability estimates of Crandall et al4 were from in-person
response (1 of these was among the 7 who had done so on
administration of tape-recorded items.) In addition, we iden-
the first administration), giving a repeated-item reliability
tified a subset of CSD items that should permit efficient, yet
of .87.
adequate, measurement of social desirability in children. A
46-item instrument is burdensome in research situations in
which a variety of data must be collected under time con-
DISCUSSION
straints. Short forms of the MCSD scale have been devel-
oped28-31; a short form of the CSD scale was needed as well.
For the sample of primarily black (76%) 4th-graders from
Validation studies that compare self-reports of diet with a
whom data were collected, test–retest reliability was ade-
method (such as direct observation) that does not rely on
quate for telephone administration of the CSD scale (.79). In
memory indicate that the accuracy of children’s dietary
addition, we identified a 14-item subset of the CSD scale
recalls is poor.19,22,32-35 In adults, dietary reporting error has
that appears to measure the same construct and that also has
been shown to be related systematically to social desirability,
adequate test–retest reliability (.83). These levels of reliabil-
a stable characteristic that differentiates individuals. It is plau-
ity with retest after at least 28 days indicate that children’s
sible that social desirability is a systematic correlate of error
social desirability, measured by telephone administration of
in children’s dietary reports as well. We recommend use of
the CSD, is a reasonably stable characteristic. Our C-SDF
the 14-item subset of the CSD scale to investigate this issue.
scale, which is an adaptation for children of the SDF scale of
Worsley et al,10 performed less well in terms of internal con-
sistency and test–retest reliability. However, exploration of its
latent structure revealed 2 factors, of which 1 was and 1 was ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
not related to the CSD scale. Whether 1 or both of these
subscales merits further study depends on their relevance to This research was supported by R01 grant HL 63189 from
investigators’ conceptualizations of sources of dietary report- the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the
ing error. Further testing, including validation, is needed National Institutes of Health with Suzanne Domel Baxter,
before the C-SDF scale is ready to use. PhD, RD, LD, FADA, as principal investigator. The authors
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 36 Number 2 March • April 2004 89

express appreciation to the children, faculty, and staff of 18. Smith AF, Thompson FE, Subar AF, et al. Social desirability, social
Glenn Hills, Southside, and Terrace Manor Elementary approval, and reports of food frequency [abstract]. Eur J Clin Nutr.
Schools and to the Richmond County Board of Education 1998;52(suppl):S35.
in Georgia for allowing data to be collected. 19. Baxter SD, Thompson WO, Smith AF, et al. Reverse versus forward
order reporting and the accuracy of fourth-graders’ recalls of school
breakfast and school lunch. Prev Med. 2003;36:601-614.
REFERENCES 20. Fisher JO, Johnson RK, Lindquist C, Birch LL, Goran MI. Influence of
body composition on the accuracy of reported energy intake in chil-
1. Paulhus DL. Measurement and control response bias. In: Robinson JP, dren. Obes Res. 2000;8:597-603.
Shaver PR,Wrightsman LS, eds. Measures of Personality and Social 21. Lindquist CH, Cummings T, Goran MI. Use of tape-recorded food
Psychological Attitudes. San Diego, Calif: Academic Press; 1991:17-59. records in assessing children’s dietary intake. Obes Res. 2000;8:2-11.
2. Crowne DP, Marlowe D.A new scale of social desirability independent 22. Baxter SD, Thompson WO, Litaker MS, et al. Accuracy of fourth-
of psychopathology. J Consult Psychol. 1960;24:349-354. graders’ dietary recalls of school breakfast and school lunch validated
3. Crino MD, Svoboda M, Rubenfeld S,White MC. Data on the Marlowe- with observations: in-person versus telephone interviews. J Nutr Educ
Crowne and Edwards social desirability scales. Psychol Rep. 1983;53: Behav. 2003;35:124-134.
963-968.
23. Van Horn LV, Stumbo P, Moag-Stahlberg A, et al. The Dietary Inter-
4. Crandall VC, Crandall VJ, Katkovsky W. A children’s social desirability
vention Study in Children (DISC): dietary assessment methods for 8-
questionnaire. J Consult Psychol. 1965;29:27-36.
to 10-year-olds. J Am Diet Assoc. 1993;93:1396-1403.
5. Strickland BR. Approval motivation. In: Blass T, ed. Personality Variables
24. Dixon LB, McKenzie J, Shannon BM, Mitchell DC, Smiciklas-Wright
in Social Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;
H, Tershakovec AM. The effect of changes in dietary fat on the food
1977:315-356.
group and nutrient intake of 4- to 10-year-old children. Pediatrics.
6. Klein EB, Gould LJ, Corey M. Social desirability in children: an exten-
1997;100:863-872.
sion and replication. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1969;33:128.
7. Crandall VC. Personality characteristics and social and achievement 25. Mullenbach V, Kushi LH, Jacobson C, et al. Comparison of 3-day food
behaviors associated with children’s social desirability response ten- record and 24-hour recall by telephone for dietary evaluation in ado-
dencies. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1966;4:477-486. lescents. J Am Diet Assoc. 1992;92:743-745.
8. Baranowski T, Domel S, Gould R, et al. Increasing fruit and vegetable 26. Randecker GA, Smiciklas-Wright H, McKenzie JM, et al.The dietary
consumption among 4th and 5th grade students: results from focus intake of children with IDDM. Diabetes Care. 1996;19:1370-1374.
groups using reciprocal determinism. J Nutr Educ. 1993;25:114-120. 27. Wyon DP, Abrahamsson L, Jartelius M, Fletcher RJ. An experimental
9. Kirby SD, Baranowski T, Reynolds KD,Taylor G, Binkley D. Children’s study of the effects of energy intake at breakfast on the test perfor-
fruit and vegetable intake: socioeconomic, adult-child, regional, and mance of 10-year-old children in school. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 1997;48:
urban-rural influences. J Nutr Educ. 1995;27:261-271. 5-12.
10. Worsley A, Baghurst KI, Leitch DR. Social desirability response bias 28. Ballard R. Short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability
and dietary inventory responses. Hum Nutr Appl Nutr. 1984;38A:29-35. scale. Psychol Rep. 1992;71:1155-1160.
11. Vuckovic N, Ritenbaugh C,Taren DL,Tobar M. A qualitative study of 29. Fischer DG, Fick C. Measuring social desirability: short forms of the
participants’ experiences with dietary assessment. J Am Diet Assoc. Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Educ Psychol Measure.
2000;100:1023-1028. 1993;53:417-424.
12. Hankin JH. Dietary intake methodology. In: Monsen ER, ed. Research:
30. Fraboni M, Cooper D. Further validation of three short forms of the
Successful Approaches. Mexico: The American Dietetic Association;
Marlowe-Crowne scale of social desirability. Psychol Rep. 1989;65:
1992:173-194.
595-600.
13. Hebert JR, Clemow L, Pbert L, Ockene IS, Ockene JK. Social desir-
31. Strahan R, Gerbasi KC. Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-
ability bias in dietary self-report may compromise the validity of
Crowne social desirability scale. J Clin Psychol. 1972;28:191-193.
dietary intake measures. Int J Epidemiol. 1995;24:389-398.
32. McPherson RS, Hoelscher DM, Alexander M, Scanlon KS, Serdula
14. Hebert JR, Ma Y, Clemow L, et al. Gender differences in social desir-
MK. Dietary assessment methods among school-aged children: valid-
ability and social approval bias in dietary self-report. Am J Epidemiol.
ity and reliability. Prev Med. 2000;31(suppl):S11-S33.
1997;146:1046-1055.
15. Taren DL,Tobar M, Hill A, et al.The association of energy intake bias 33. Baranowski T, Islam N, Baranowski J, et al. The Food Intake Record-
with psychological scores of women. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1999;53:570- ing software system is valid among fourth-grade children. J Am Diet
578. Assoc. 2002;102:380-385.
16. Hebert JR, Peterson KE, Hurley TG, et al.The effect of social desirabil- 34. Baxter SD,Thompson WO, Davis HC, Johnson MH. Impact of gender,
ity trait on self-reported dietary intake measures among multi-ethnic ethnicity, meal component, and time interval between eating and
female health center employees. Ann Epidemiol. 2001;11:417-427. reporting on accuracy of fourth-graders’ self-reports of school lunch.
17. Hebert JR, Ebbeling CB, Matthews CE, et al. Systematic errors in J Am Diet Assoc. 1997;97:1293-1298.
middle-aged women’s estimates of energy intake: comparing three self- 35. Baxter SD, Thompson WO, Litaker MS, Frye FHA, Guinn CH. Low
report measures to total energy expenditure from doubly labeled water. accuracy and low consistency of fourth-graders’ school breakfast and
Ann Epidemiol. 2002;12:577-586. school lunch recalls. J Am Diet Assoc. 2002;102:386-395.