Nutrient Intake Of

Working Mothers:Relationships With TheFamily Environment

The relationships of family environment to frequency of food use and nutrientintakes were investigated among a purposive sample of working mothers in Min-neapolis, Minnesota. The family environment scale which measured cohesion,expressiveness, conflict, intellectual-cultural orientation, morals and religiousemphasis, organization, and control in the family was used to measure the socialenvironment of the mothers. A 24-hour recall was used to estimate intake ofcalories, protein, calcium, iron, vitamins A and C of the working mothers. Dataon frequency of food use were also collected and converted into food-use fre-quency scores. Nutrient adequacy was determined by percent RDA and anoverall index of adequacy: mean nutrient adequacy ratio or MAR. Pearson corre-lation coefficients were used to estimate the relationships among family environ-ment, nutrient intakes, and food-use frequency scores. The family environmentscores indicated that mothers were from highly cohesive families and had astrong intellectual-cultural orientation. Analysis of the data on nutrient intakeindicated that 69 percent and 41 percent of the respondents consumed 66.9 per-cent or less of the RDA for iron and calcium, respectively. Overall nutrient ade-quacy (MAR) correlated negatively with moral and religious orientation of thefamily. Significant negative relationships were found among vitamin C intake andcohesion and expressiveness, while positive relationships occurred among vi-tamin A intake and intellectual-cultural orientation and organization in thefamily. The magnitude of the correlation coefficients was, however, small in allcases, indicating weak relationships. In addition, other investigated relationshipswere not significant.

Charlotte Pratt, Margaret Doyle

Authors’ Addresses: C. Pratt, Department ofHuman Nutrition and Foods, Virginia PolytechnicInstitute and State University, Blacksburg, VA24061; M. Doyle, Department of Food Science andNutrition, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN55108

Nutritionists, social psychologists, andanthropologists are becoming increasinglyaware of how the family influences foodhabits and nutrient intake. How does the

f~rnily unit influence food habits so that somef~rnilies change their food habits and othersdo not (Hert~ler ~ Owen, 1984)? Among thefactors which affect food practices, the familyhas the strongest influence on meal planning(Cosper & ~lakefield, 1975; Leonard, D’Au-gelli, & 5micikl~s~Wri~ht, 1984; Weiss, 1985).Personal preferences of family members maymotivate the mother to select certain foodswhen deciding on what to buy or to prepare

248

(Schafer, 1978). It has been pointed out thatnutrition education programs have failed

partly because the professional staffs havenot understood the complexity and impor-tance of family traditions (Fiertzler &

Vaughan, 1979). Hertzler, Yamanaka, Nen-ninger, and Abernathy (1976) found negativecorrelations between family structure scoresand iron intake, and between family structurescores and hematocrit. Their study indicatesthat the family structure plays a role in nu-trient intake as well as in nutritional status.

Organized families appear to have con-gruence in assimilating food and nutrition in-formation into food habits, in contrast to dis-organized families (Hertzler, 1983).The purpose of this study was to investigate

the family environment of working mothersand to determine whether any relationshipsexisted among nutrient intakes of the

working mothers and selected family envi-ronment variables.

METHODS

SampleTen day-care centers in Minneapolis, Min-

nesota were surveyed in order to locate

working mothers with young children. Five ofthese centers were chosen because of theirlocation in the metropolitan area and be-cause each had a reasonable number of chil-dren (a total of 360 children). Workingmothers were targeted to obtain a better un-derstanding of their family environment. Thedifficulties inherent in constructing a sam-pling frame of working mothers and eco-nomic constraints made selection of a simplerandom sample unmanageable. Hence, thedirector of each day-care center was con-tacted and sent a letter which explained thepurpose of the study. Mothers were invitedto participate. Upon agreeing to participate,each respondent signed a consent formwhich guaranteed confidentiality of collectedinformation.A self-administered questionnaire de-

signed to provide information on demo-graphic variables, a 24-hour food recall, and a

questionnaire on family environment werepretested on 20 graduate students in nutri-tion at the University of Minnesota for clarityof questions and time requirement. The de-mographic variables were age, marital status,family size, education, and hours worked perweek. The questionnaire was distributed to169 mothers. Eighty usable questionnaireswere returned.

The Family Environment ScaleTo characterize the family environment of

the women in this study, the family environ-ment scale (FES) developed and tested byMoos and Moos (1976) was utilized. The FESwas used to measure and describe the inter-

personal relationships among familymembers, the direction of personal growth,and the organizational structure of the family.It consists of 90 true-false statements aboutthe family environment. There are ten familyenvironment subscales: cohesion, expres-siveness, conflict, independence, achieve-ment orientation, intellectual-cultural orien-tation, morals and religious orientation, ac-tive-recreational orientation, organization,and control.The subscales have been previously tested

for reliability, yielding coefficients of internalconsistency ranging from 0.64-0.79 and atest-retest reliability ranging from 0.68-0.86(Moos & Moos, 1976). The average inter-cor-relation coefficient was 0.20, indicating thatthe subscales measured distinct, thoughsomewhat related, aspects of family environ-ment (Moos & Moos, 1976). The scale hasbeen shown by other investigators (An-derson, Miller, Auslander, & Santiago, 1981)to be relevant in assessing family environ-ment.

Only seven of these subscales were used(Table 1). Active recreational orientation, in-

dependence, and achievement orientationwere omitted in order to shorten the time re-

quired to complete the questionnaire. A pre-liminary survey indicated that most of themothers had preschool children; therefore,factors such as achievement orientationwithin the family were considered minimalamong siblings. Each family environment

249

subscale had a maximum score of nine. Astencil provided by Moos (1974) was careful liyplaced on the individual answer sheets andthe number of responses characteristic ofeach subscale was counted. This was the rawscore. The raw scores were converted intostandard scores using a table provided byMoos (1974).

Dietary IntakeTo estimate the quality of the dietary intake

of women in this study, a 24-hour food recallwas utilized Several food models were pro-vided to aid in estimating the quantity of foodeaten. Frequency of food use was also deter-mined to assess existing food consumptionpatterns.

Measurement and Statistical Treatment

Frequency of food use was converted into ascore by the method of Reaburn, 1Cr®ndl, andLau (1979). Briefly, a 5-point fixed alternativescale ranging from 1 (&dquo;never&dquo;) to 5 (&dquo;daily&dquo;)was used. Scores were calculated for dif-ferent food groupings.

These groupings were:-Milk and milk products;-Meat and meat alternates;-Cereal and grain products;-Fresh fruits and vegetable;-Fats and oils;-Convenient foods, e.g., T.V. dinners,

frozen fruits and vegetables.The following equation by Reaburn et al.

(1979) was used.

All responses to the 24-hour recall werecoded using the item numbers in the USDAAgricultural Handbook No. 456, NutritiveValue of American Foods in Common Units

250

Volumetric quantities were converted into

grams. Food recalls were analyzed for cal-ories, protein, calcium, iron, and vitamins Aand C and converted to percentage recom-mended dietary allowance (RDA) using thecomputerized program, Nutally. The Nutallymainframe program has an extensive nutrientdata base (USDA handbook No. 4.56).’ Thenutrient adequacy ratio (NAR), which is theratio of a subject’s nutrient intake to the RDA,was calculated for each respondent by themethod of Madden (1976). The mean ade-quacy ratio (MAR) was calculated from NAR.MAR is the mean of all the NARs except thateach NAR was truncated at a maximum scoreof 100 (an intake of 100 percent of the allow-ance). In this way, an equal weight was giveneach nutrient and an excess intake of one nu-trient could not compensate for the inade-quacy of another.

Pearson correlation coefficients were usedto determine the relationships among thestandard scores on family environment (as as-sessed by the mother), food-use frequencyscores, and diet quality as assessed by per-cent RDA and MAR.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The ages of respondents ranged from18-36 years, with a mean of 26.5. A majority(56%) of the respondents were married and65 percent had some college or were college

graduates. There were three persons in 67percent of the households. All the womenwere employed outside the home. Theaverage number of hours worked per weekwas 35, with a range of 20-60 hours perweek.

Table 2 presents the nutrient intake data forthe working mothers. The only nutrient forwhich the daily intake was below two-thirdsof the RDA was iron. Sixty-nine percent and41 percent of the women had intakes of 66.9percent or less of the RDA for iron and cal-cium, respectively. These findings confirmedthose of the nationwide food consumptionsurvey which found diets of women to be lowin these nutrients (Continuing Survey of FoodIntakes, USDA, 1986). Examination of theranges of intakes revealed wide variations inthe average daily nutrient intake among themothers. Thus, consideration of the averagedaily intakes alone may mask the fact that aproportion of the study population had lownutrient intakes. The mean adequacy ratio(MAR) was thus used as a criterion of dietaryadequacy to handle such wide variations.MAR was 59 for iron, 71 for calcium and 76 forenergy. This indicated low intake of these nu-trients and calories by the working mothers.

Table 3 presents the means of the food-usefrequency scores. Foods were categorizedinto high-use, medium-use, and low-use bythe method of Reaburn et al., 1979. In a re-view titled &dquo;Working Mothers,&dquo; Harris (1970)observed that the pressures resulting fromother responsibilities at home limit the timemothers can devote to cooking. Mothers withlimited time may be more prone to consume

1 The Nutally program is available from Dr. Elaine Asp,Department of Food Science and Nutrition, 1334 EcklesAvenue, St. Paul, MN 55108

251

convenience foods more often, thuschanging the pattern of food intake. Themothers in this study, however, rarely con-sumed convenient, ready-to-eat foods.Table 4 presents the mean standard scores

on family environment. The data indicatedthat the mothers were from highly cohesivefamilies. There was little conflictual interac-tions and a strong emphasis on intellectual-cultural orientation in the family.Table 5 presents the correlation coeffi-

cients among family environment subscalesand overall index of dietary adequacy (MAR)of the mother. Moral and religious emphasis(MRE) correlated significantly but negativelywith overall dietary adequacy. The magnitudeof the correlation coefficient (0.19) was small,indicating a weak relationship. It is plausiblefrom this study that families who are religiousmight consider other things more importantthan food or perhaps they might tend towarda form of &dquo;ascetic&dquo; food practices such as

vegetarianism. However, a significant nega-tive correlation was found between MRE and

frequency of use of dairy products, and apositive correlation between MRE and vege-table intake and between MRE and frequencyof use of fish, beans, meat, and meatproducts (Table 7). Because the responses onthe use of vegetable and animal protein weregrouped, we were not able to categorize re-spondents into vegetarians and nonvege-tarians. In addition, few mothers stated reli-

gion as a reason for eating or not eating a par-ticular food. Further research is needed todetermine whether families with- strong em-phasis on morals and religion have a greatertendency to follow dietary practices such asvegetarianism.

Significant correlations were not observedbetween overall dietary quality and any of the

252

other family environment subscales (Table 5).These results are in contrast to past researchfindings that cohesive and expressive familiestend to have family members with adequatenutrient intakes while disagreement andalienation among family members (conflicts)may lead to inadequate dietary intake(Dickens, 1965).Table 6 presents the correlation coeffi-

cients of family environment with percentRDA. Significant negative correlations werefound among vitamin C intake and cohesionand expressiveness while vitamin A intakecorrelated positively with intellectual-culturalorientation and organization in the family.Further, protein intake correlated signifi-cantly and positively with conflict and nega-tively with intellectual-cultural orientation inthe family. The magnitude of the correlationcoefficients was again small, indicating weakrelationships. A study by Johnson (1979)found a significant positive correlation be-tween intellectual-cultural orientation andmeat and riboflavin intake. The disparity be-tween this study and Johnson’s may be partlyrelated to the different methodologies em-ployed in the two studies. While 24-hourfood recalls were used to assess dietary in-take in the present study, the study byJohnson (1979) used modified food frequencyand dietary history.When the scores on family environment

were correlated with food-use frequencyscores the data were inconsistent with those

from the correlation coefficients of family en-vironment and percent RDA. For example,cohesion and expressiveness did not corre-late with frequency of consumption of fruitsand vegetables, which are major sources ofvitamin C, but correlated negatively with fre-quency of consumption of breads and grains.However, moral and religious emphasis inthe family correlated negatively with fre-

quency of consumption of milk and milkproducts. Again, the magnitude of the corre-lation coefficients was small, indicating weakrelationships.One limitation of this study is the use of

the 24-hour recall to assess dietary intake. Al-though the family environment variables as-sess the family environment with regard towhat is usually done in the family, the 24-hour recall does not give dietary assessmentof what is usually eaten. A seven-day foodrecord would perhaps be more appropriate.The lack of strong correlation coefficientsamong nutrient intakes and family environ-ment was probably due to the homogeneityof the respondents and the small sample sizeused. If in further research the social environ-ment of all family members was determined,and two groups of families identified (onegroup with less cohesiveness and more con-flict than the other) and nutrient intakes com-pared, perhaps stronger relationships wouldbe observed. The present study, however, in-dicated weak relationships among nutrientintakes and family environment.

253

SUMMARY

The objective of this study was to examinethe relationships among family environmentand nutrient intakes of working mothers. Thedata indicated that 69 percent and 41 percentof the mothers had inadequate intake of ironand calcium, respectively. Most of themothers were from highly cohesive, expres-sive, and intellectual-cultural oriented fami-lies. Few significant correlation coefficientsoccurred among the variables of family envi-ronment and nutrient intakes. Women fromfamilies who had high emphasis on moralsand religion tended to have inadequate di-etary intake. Vitamin C intake correlated neg-atively with cohesion and expressiveness in

the family. Vitamin A intake correlated posi-tively with intellectual-cultural orientationand organization in the family. Protein intakecorrelated positively with conflict and nega-tively with intellectual-cultural orientation inthe family. The correlation coefficients weresignificant at p < 0.05 level. The magnitude ofthese correlations was, however, small, indi-cating weak relationships. Further research isneeded to assess the social environment of

family members and the relationships of suchenvironment to nutrient intakes of familymembers.

REFERENCES

Anderson, B. J., Miller, P., Auslander, W. F., &Santiago, J. V. (1981). Family characteristics ofdiabetic adolescents: Relationship to metaboliccontrol. Diabetes Care, 4, 586-594.

Continuing survey of food intakes by individuals.(1986). Nationwide food consumption survey.United States Department of Agriculture. ReportNo. 86-1.

Cosper, B. A., & Wakefield, L. M. (1975). Foodchoices of women. Personal, attitudinal and mo-tivational factors. Journal of the American Di-etetic Association, 66, 152-155.

Dickens, D. (1965). Factors related to food prefer-ences. Journal of Home Economics, 57, 427-429.

Harris, J. (1970). Working mothers. Royal Societyof Health Journal, 90, 264-284.

Hertzler, A. A. (1983). Children’s food patterns-areview: II. Family and group behavior. Journal ofthe American Dietetic Association, 83, 555-560.

Hertzler, A. A., & Owen, C. (1984). Culture, fami-lies and the change process-a systems ap-proach. Journal of the American Dietetic Associ-ation, 84, 535-545.

Hertzler, A. A., Yamanaka, W., Nenninger, C., &Abernathy, A. (1976). Iron status and familystructure of teenage girls in a low-income area.Home Economics Research Journal, 5, 92-98.

Hertzler, A., & Vaughan, E. C. (1979). The relationof family structure and interaction to nutrition.Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 74,23-27.

Johnson, N. (1979). Significance of the family envi-ronment to nutrient adequacy. Unpublished

254

master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin, Mad-ison.

Leonard, C. P., D’Augelli, D. R., & Smiciklas-

Wright, H. (1984). Effects of a weight-controlpromotion on parents’ responses to familyeating situations. Journal of the American Di-etetic Association, 84, 424-427.

Madden, P. (1976). Validity of the twenty-four hourrecall. Journal of the American Dietetic Associa-tion, 68, 143-147.

Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1976). A typolology offamily social environment. Family Process, 15,357-371.

Moos, R. H. (1974). Preliminary manual for family

environment scale, work environment scale,group environment scale. Palo Alto, CA, Con-sulting Psychologists Press Inc.

Reaburn, J., Krondl, M., & Lau, D. (1979). Socialdeterminants in food selection. Journal of theAmerican Dietetic Association, 74, 637-641.

Schafer, R. (1978). Factors affecting food behaviorand quality of husband’s and wife’s diet. Journalof the American Dietetic Association, 72, 138-44.

Weiss, R. S. (1985). Men and family. Family Pro-cess, 24, 49-57.

Received March 27, 1987; accepted January 4, 1988