Litcius/Paper detail

The Assessment of Supportive Accountability in Adults Seeking Obesity Treatment: Psychometric Validation Study

Karishma Chhabria, Kathryn M. Ross, Shane J. Sacco, Tricia M. Leahey

2020Journal of Medical Internet Research25 citationsDOIOpen Access PDF

Abstract

Background Technology-mediated obesity treatments are commonly affected by poor long-term adherence. Supportive Accountability Theory suggests that the provision of social support and oversight toward goals may help to maintain adherence in technology-mediated treatments. However, no tool exists to measure the construct of supportive accountability. Objective This study aimed to develop and psychometrically validate a supportive accountability measure (SAM) by examining its performance in technology-mediated obesity treatment. Methods Secondary data analyses were conducted in 2 obesity treatment studies to validate the SAM (20 items). Study 1 examined reliability, criterion validity, and construct validity using an exploratory factor analysis in individuals seeking obesity treatment. Study 2 examined the construct validity of SAM in technology-mediated interventions involving different self-monitoring tools and varying amounts of phone-based interventionist support. Participants received traditional self-monitoring tools (standard, in-home self-monitoring scale [SC group]), newer, technology-based self-monitoring tools (TECH group), or these newer technology tools plus additional phone-based support (TECH+PHONE group). Given that the TECH+PHONE group involves more interventionist support, we hypothesized that this group would have greater supportive accountability than the other 2 arms. Results In Study 1 (n=353), the SAM showed strong reliability (Cronbach α=.92). A factor analysis revealed a 3-factor solution (representing Support for Healthy Eating Habits, Support for Exercise Habits, and Perceptions of Accountability) that explained 69% of the variance. Convergent validity was established using items from the motivation for weight loss scale, specifically the social regulation subscale (r=0.33; P<.001) and social pressure for weight loss subscale (r=0.23; P<.001). In Study 2 (n=80), the TECH+PHONE group reported significantly higher SAM scores at 6 months compared with the SC and TECH groups (r2=0.45; P<.001). Higher SAM scores were associated with higher adherence to weight management behaviors, including higher scores on subscales representing healthy dietary choices, the use of self-monitoring strategies, and positive psychological coping with weight management challenges. The association between total SAM scores and percent weight change was in the expected direction but not statistically significant (r=−0.26; P=.06). Conclusions The SAM has strong reliability and validity across the 2 studies. Future studies may consider using the SAM in technology-mediated weight loss treatment to better understand whether support and accountability are adequately represented and how supportive accountability impacts treatment adherence and outcomes. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01999244; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01999244

Topics & Concepts

Cronbach's alphaConstruct validityAccountabilityPsychologyExploratory factor analysisConstruct (python library)PhoneConvergent validityScale (ratio)Clinical psychologySocial supportReliability (semiconductor)Predictive validityPsychological interventionPsychometricsSocial psychologyPsychiatryPower (physics)PhilosophyInternal consistencyLawProgramming languageQuantum mechanicsPhysicsComputer sciencePolitical scienceLinguisticsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsPhysical Activity and Health