No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Turkish adaptation of the Eating-Related Eco-Concern questionnaire: validity and reliability study
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 August 2025
Abstract
The study aimed to translate the Eating-Related Eco-Concern (EREC) questionnaire into Turkish, adapt it cross-culturally, and evaluate its psychometric properties. EREC is a ten-item scale measuring how adults consider ecological impact in food choices due to climate change concerns. The study was conducted in Mersin between November 2023 and February 2024 with 442 adults (18–65 years) through face-to-face interviews. The Turkish version was adapted using the Translation–Back Translation method, and language validity was ensured. Face validity was evaluated through a pilot study with forty participants. Construct validity was initially assessed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with data from 200 participants, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) conducted on an independent sample of 242 participants to verify the factor structure. The reliability of the scale was assessed by test-retest analysis with 106 participants from the main sample (n 442), and consistency was measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The factor structure and model fit were evaluated using indices such as Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). 68·3 % of the participants were female, whereas 31·7 % were male. The group’s median BMI value was 24·3 (21·6–27·1), with 52·9 % classified as ‘normal’ according to the BMI classification. Factor 2 had a low score, but it was found to be adequate for other factors and the total scale score. The Turkish adaptation of the EREC questionnaire has been found to be a valid and reliable scale, as confirmed by comprehensive evaluations.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society
References
Ripple, W, Wolf, JC, Newsome, TM, et al. (2020) World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency. Biosci 70, 8–12.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2023) Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC. p. 184. –https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647
Google Scholar
Schiavo, M, Le Mouël, C, Poux, X, et al. (2021) An agroecological Europe by 2050: What impact on land use, trade and global food security? (Study No. 08/21). IDDRI. Retrieved August 2025, from https://www.iddri.org/sites/default/files/PDF/Publications/Catalogue%20Iddri/Etude/202107-ST0821_TYFA%20World_1.pdf
Google Scholar
Willett, W, Rockström, J, Loken, B, et al. (2019) Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492.Google Scholar
Searchinger, T, Waite, R, Hanson, C, et al. (2019) Creating a Sustainable Food Future: A Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Springmann, M, Clark, M, Mason D’Croz, D, et al. (2018) Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525.Google Scholar
Watts, N, Amann, M, Arnell, N, et al. (2019) The 2019 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: ensuring that the health of a child born today is not defined by a changing climate. Lancet 394, 1836–1878.Google Scholar
Garza, R (2023) Examining ecological harshness cues and anticipated food scarcity on food preferences. Food Qual Prefer 104, 104736.Google Scholar
Sanchez-Sabate, R & Sabate, J (2019) Consumer attitudes towards environmental concerns of meat consumption: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16, 1220.Google Scholar
Wang, DD, Li, Y, Afshin, A, et al. (2019) Global improvement in dietary quality could lead to substantial reduction in premature death. J Nutr 149, 1065–1074.Google Scholar
Kim, BF, Santo, RE, Scatterday, AP, et al. (2020) Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Glob Environ Change 62, 101926.Google Scholar
Rose, D, Heller, MC, Willits-Smith, AM, et al. (2019) Carbon footprint of self-selected US diets: nutritional, demographic, and behavioral correlates. Am J Clin Nutr 109, 526–534.Google Scholar
Green, RF, Joy, EJM, Harris, F, et al. (2018) Greenhouse gas emissions and water footprints of typical dietary patterns in India. Sci Total Environ 643, 1411–1418.Google Scholar
Ojala, M, Cunsolo, A, Ogunbode, CA, et al. (2021) Anxiety, worry, and grief in a time of environmental and climate crisis: a narrative review. Annu Rev Environ Resour 46, 35–58.Google Scholar
Pihkala, P (2020) Anxiety and the ecological crisis: an analysis of eco-anxiety and climate anxiety. Sustainability 12, 7836.Google Scholar
Stewart, AE (2013) Psychometric properties of the Climate Change Worry Scale. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18, 494.Google Scholar
Qi, B, Presseller, EK, Cooper, GE, et al. (2022) Development and validation of an Eating-Related Eco-Concern Questionnaire. Nutrients 14, 4517.Google Scholar
El Zouki, CJ, Obeid, S, Malaeb, D, et al. (2024) Validation of the Arabic-language version of the eating-related eco concern (EREC) scale. PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3987459/v1
Google Scholar
Tecuta, L, Casu, G & Tomba, E (2024) Validation of the Italian version of the Eating-Related Eco-Concern Questionnaire: insights into its relationship with orthorexia nervosa. Front Psychol 15, 1441561.Google Scholar
Runfola, CD & Safer, DL (2024) The role of eco-anxiety in the presentation of bulimia nervosa: a case report. J Eat Disord 12, 164.Google Scholar
Özbay, S & Alcı, B (2021) İklim Değişikliği Kaygı Ölçeği: Türkçeye Uyarlama, Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması [Climate Change Anxiety Scale: Turkish Adaptation, Validity, and Reliability Study]. R&S Res Stud Anatolia J 4, 183–193.Google Scholar
Cebeci, F, Karaman, M, Öztürk, AF, et al. (2022) İklim Değişikliği Anksiyetesi Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Uyarlaması: geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması [ The Turkish Adaptation of the Climate Change Anxiety Scale: Validity and Reliability Study]. Ufkun Ötesi Bilim Dergisi 22, 20–42.Google Scholar
Uzun, K, Öztürk, AF, Karaman, M, et al. (2022) Adaptation of the eco-anxiety scale to Turkish: a validity and reliability study. Arch Health Sci Res 9, 110–115.Google Scholar
Clayton, S & Karazsia, BT (2020) Development and validation of a measure of climate change anxiety. J Environ Psychol 69, 101434.Google Scholar
Rocchi, G, Pileri, J, Luciani, F, et al. (2023) Insights into eco-anxiety in Italy: preliminary psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Hogg eco-anxiety scale, age and gender distribution. J Environ Psychol 92, 102180.Google Scholar
Chung, SJ, Jang, SJ & Lee, H (2023) Eco-anxiety and environmental sustainability interest: a secondary data analysis. Int J Ment Health Nurs 32, 1462–1472.Google Scholar
Heeren, A, Mouguiama-Daouda, C & McNally, RJ (2023) A network approach to climate change anxiety and its key related features. J Anxiety Disord 93, 102625.Google Scholar
Reser, JP & Bradley, GL (2020) The nature, significance, and influence of perceived personal experience of climate change. WIREs Clim Change 11, e668.Google Scholar
Boateng, GO, Neilands, TB, Frongillo, EA, et al. (2018) Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health 6, 149.Google Scholar
Floyd, FJ & Widaman, KF (1995) Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess 7, 286–299.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2001) Age Standardization Rates. GPE Discussion Paper Series 31 (Internet). Geneva: WHO. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/gho-documents/global-health-estimates/gpe_discussion_paper_series_paper31_2001_age_standardization_rates.pdf (accessed 21 March 2025).Google Scholar
Fiat, F, Merghes, PE, Scurtu, AD, et al. (2022) The main changes in pregnancy—therapeutic approach to musculoskeletal pain. Medicina 58, 1115.Google Scholar
Samra, A & Dryer, R (2024) Problematic social media use and psychological distress in pregnancy: the mediating role of social comparisons and body dissatisfaction. Journal of Affective Disorders 361, 702–711.Google Scholar
Chauhan, A & Potdar, J (2022) Maternal mental health during pregnancy: a critical review. Cureus 14, e30656.Google Scholar
Saleem, T, Saleem, S, Shoib, S, et al. (2022) A rare phenomenon of pregorexia in Pakistani women: need to understand the related behaviors. J Eat Disord 10, 1–11.Google Scholar
Weir, CB & Jan, A (2024) BMI Classification Percentile and Cut off Points. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls.Google Scholar
Çapık, C, Gözüm, S & Aksayan, S (2018) Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlama aşamaları, dil ve kültür uygulaması: Güncellenmiş rehber [Cross-cultural scaling adaptation stages, language and culture application: Updated guide]. Florence Nightingale J Nurs 26, 199–210.Google Scholar
Davis, LL (1992) Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res 5, 194–197.Google Scholar
Ayre, C & Scally, AJ (2014) Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Meas Eval Couns Dev 47, 79–86.Google Scholar
Lawshe, CH (1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol 28, 563–575.Google Scholar
Wilson, FR, Pan, W & Schumsky, DA (2012) Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Meas Eval Couns Dev 45, 197–210.Google Scholar
Tavşancıl, E (2002) Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi [Measuring Attitudes and Data Analysis with SPSS], 1st ed. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.Google Scholar
Koo, TK & Li, MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15, 155–163.Google Scholar
Field, A (2013) Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics, 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Kline, RB (2016) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Schermelleh-Engel, K, Moosbrugger, H & Müller, H (2003) Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol Res Online 8, 23–74.Google Scholar
Hu, LT & Bentler, PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6, 1–55.Google Scholar
Bentler, PM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 107, 238–246.Google Scholar
Tucker, LR & Lewis, C (1973) A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 38, 1–10.Google Scholar
Bentler, PM & Bonett, DG (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 88, 588–606.Google Scholar
Browne, MW & Cudeck, R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing Structural Equation Models, pp. 136–162 [Bollen, KA, Long, JS, editors]. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hair, JF, Black, WC, Babin, BJ, et al. (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Cheah, I, Shimul, AS, Liang, J, et al. (2020) Drivers and barriers toward reducing meat consumption. Appetite 149, 104636.Google Scholar
Lai, AE, Tirotto, FA, Pagliaro, S, et al. (2020) Two sides of the same coin: environmental and health concern pathways toward meat consumption. Front Psychol 11, 578582.Google Scholar
Turnes, A, Pereira, P, Cid, H, et al. (2023) Meat consumption and availability for its reduction by health and environmental concerns: a pilot study. Nutrients 15, 3080.Google Scholar
López, L, Martínez, E & Fernández, A (2020) Gender differences in environmental attitudes and sustainable consumption behavior. Environ Psychol 38, 100–113.Google Scholar
White, MA, Habib, R & Jafry, T (2021) Gendered responses to environmental change: a study of eco-anxiety in young adults. J Environ Behav 56, 205–223.Google Scholar
Patrick, R, Snell, T, Gunasiri, H, et al. (2023) Prevalence and determinants of mental health related to climate change in Australia. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 57, 710–724.Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, L, Player, L, Jiongco, A, et al. (2022) Climate anxiety: what predicts it and how is it related to climate action? J Environ Psychol 83, 101866.Google Scholar
Weerasekara, PC, Withanachchi, CR, Ginigaddara, G, et al. (2020) Food and nutrition-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices among reproductive-age women in marginalized areas in Sri Lanka. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17, 3985.Google Scholar
Clayton, SD, Pihkala, P, Wray, B, et al. (2023) Psychological and emotional responses to climate change among young people worldwide: differences associated with gender, age, and country. Sustainability 15, 3540.Google Scholar
Ergun, SJ, Karadeniz, ZD & Rivas, MF (2024) Climate change risk perception in Europe: country-level factors and gender differences. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11, 1573.Google Scholar
Bush, SS & Clayton, A (2023) Facing change: gender and climate change attitudes worldwide. Am Polit Sci Rev 117, 591–608.Google Scholar
Leonhardt, M, Granrud, M, Bonsaksen, T, et al. (2022) Associations between mental health, lifestyle factors and worries about climate change in Norwegian adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19, 12826.Google Scholar
Oral, FN & Durmuş, H (2023) Üniversite öğrencilerinde eko-anksiyete düzeyi ve beslenme alışkanlıklarıyla ilişkisi: Erciyes Üniversitesi örneği [The level of eco-anxiety among university students and its relationship with eating habits: The case of Erciyes University]. Sosyal Sağlık Derg 3, 15–25.Google Scholar
Gundala, RR, Nawaz, N, Boobalan, K, et al. (2022) Does gender moderate the purchase intention of organic foods? Theory of reasoned action. Heliyon 8, e10456.Google Scholar
Ripabelli, G, Mastronardi, L, Tamburro, M, et al. (2017) Food consumption and eating habits: a segmentation of university students from Central-South Italy. New Medit 16, 56.Google Scholar
Wollmar, M, Post, A & Sjöberg, A (2024) Food choice, activity level, and carbon footprint: exploring potential for sustainable food consumption practices in young adults. Front Nutr 11, 1449054.Google Scholar
World Meteorological Organization & Copernicus Climate Change Service (2025) European State of the Climate: Extreme Events in Warmest Year on Record (Internet). Geneva & Bonn: WMO & C3S; 2025 Apr 15. https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/european-state-of-climate-extreme-events-warmest-year-record (accessed 19 June 2025).Google Scholar