Table 7.

Item-level discriminant validity testing for FHC-NU (Sg).

FHC-NU (Sg)
Label	Item Description (In our family…)	Mean	SD	Factor 1 (Val)	Factor 2 (Com)	Factor 3 (Coh)	Factor 4 (Con)
Factor 1 = Val (Value)
Val1	...a healthy diet is important to us (e.g., type and amount of food, meal timings)	2.29	0.66	–	2	2	2
Val2	...we pay attention to eating healthily	2.20	0.65	–	2	2	2
Val3	...we eat healthily on a regular basis	2.08	0.68	–	2	2	2
Val4	...it is normal for us to choose healthy foods	2.11	0.67	–	1	2	2
Factor 2 = Com (Communication)
Com1	...we are interested in articles (print or online) on healthy nutrition	1.79	0.80	1	–	2	2
Com2	...we remind each other to pay attention to a healthy diet	2.17	0.68	1	–	2	2
Com3	...we talk about which foods are healthy	2.10	0.73	2	–	2	2
Com4	...we encourage and support each other to refrain from eating/drinking unhealthy things	2.17	0.70	1	–	2	2
Com5	...we talk about how to eat healthily	2.12	0.69	2	–	2	2
Factor 3 = Coh (Cohesion)
Coh1	...we value spending time together during meals	2.34	0.69	2	2	–	2
Coh2	...everybody enjoys having meals together	2.35	0.67	2	2	–	2
Coh3	...eating together is a part of our daily family life	2.24	0.74	2	2	–	2
Coh4	...we enjoy meals most when we sit at the same table	2.31	0.71	2	2	–	2
Coh5	...we try to eat together as often as possible	2.34	0.67	2	2	–	2
Factor 4 = Con (Consensus)
Con1	...we agree on diet and nutrition.	2.06	0.66	2	2	2	–
Con2	...we usually agree on meals and food choices.	2.15	0.61	2	2	2	–

Cutoff point for significance is 2 standard errors (1 SE = 0.05, 2 SE = 0.1). Levels of scaling success: 2: Item-factor correlation is significantly higher for hypothesized scale than for competing scale. 1: Item-factor correlation is higher for hypothesized scale than competing scale, but not significantly. −1: Item-factor correlation is lower for hypothesized scale than competing scale, but not significantly. −2: Item-factor correlation is significantly lower for hypothesized scale than for competing scale.