Development of a Questionnaire to Assess Knowledge and Perceptions about Edible Insects.

Raquel P F Guiné, Sofia G Florença, Cristina A Costa, Paula M R Correia, Manuela Ferreira, João Duarte, Ana P Cardoso, Sofia Campos, Ofélia Anjos
Author Information
  1. Raquel P F Guiné: CERNAS-Research Centre for Natural Resources, Environment and Society, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal. ORCID
  2. Sofia G Florença: Faculty of Food and Nutrition Sciences, University of Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal. ORCID
  3. Cristina A Costa: CERNAS-Research Centre for Natural Resources, Environment and Society, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal.
  4. Paula M R Correia: CERNAS-Research Centre for Natural Resources, Environment and Society, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal. ORCID
  5. Manuela Ferreira: Health Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal.
  6. João Duarte: Health Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal.
  7. Ana P Cardoso: CIDEI-Centre for Studies in Education and Innovation, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal. ORCID
  8. Sofia Campos: CIDEI-Centre for Studies in Education and Innovation, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal.
  9. Ofélia Anjos: School of Agriculture, Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, 6001-909 Castelo Branco, Portugal. ORCID

Abstract

Edible insects (EI) have been consumed as traditional foods in many parts of the globe, but in other regions, they are not readily accepted, particularly in Western countries. However, because EI are suggested to constitute a more sustainable protein food as compared with other sources of animal protein, they can be considered a future food that could help mitigate hunger and malnutrition. Additionally, new gastronomic trends are already targeting this area for exploring new potentialities. The objective of this work was to develop and validate a questionnaire to assess consumers' perceptions and knowledge about EI in seven different domains: D1. Culture and Tradition, D2. Gastronomic Innovation and Gourmet Kitchen, D3. Environment and Sustainability, D4. Economic and Social Aspects, D5. Commercialization and Marketing, D6. Nutritional Aspects and D7. Health Effects. The 64 items were subjected to item analysis and reliability analysis for validation, and factor analysis was also conducted to identify a grouping structure. The results validated all the items of the seven subscales with high values of Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.732 for D1, α = 0.795 for D2, α = 0.882 for D3, α = 0.742 for D4, α = 0.675 for D5, α = 0.799 for D6 and α = 0.788 for D7). However, by eliminating 17 items, the final values of the alpha increased in all subscales. Factor analysis with extraction by principal component analysis with varimax rotation extracted 14 factors that explained, in total, 65% of the variance, although the first two factors were the most important (35.7% variance explained). In conclusion, the confirmed usefulness of the questionnaire has been hereby validated for assessing consumer perceptions of and knowledge about EI.

Keywords

References

  1. Meat Sci. 2021 Dec;182:108635 [PMID: 34303133]
  2. Br J Cancer. 2000 Feb;82(4):800-5 [PMID: 10732749]
  3. Food Res Int. 2016 Nov;89(Pt 1):129-151 [PMID: 28460898]
  4. Food Chem. 2016 Feb 15;193:39-46 [PMID: 26433285]
  5. J Nutr. 2005 Apr;135(4):843-9 [PMID: 15795445]
  6. Food Chem. 2020 May 1;311:126022 [PMID: 31869637]
  7. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2013 May;57(5):802-23 [PMID: 23471778]
  8. Sci Total Environ. 2022 Feb 1;806(Pt 3):150718 [PMID: 34606855]
  9. PLoS One. 2019 Jul 8;14(7):e0219303 [PMID: 31283777]
  10. Soc Sci Med. 2015 Mar;129:106-12 [PMID: 24973999]
  11. Environ Res. 2020 Apr;183:109220 [PMID: 32078826]
  12. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2021 Dec;48:64-71 [PMID: 34649017]
  13. J Urol. 2013 Aug;190(2):627-34 [PMID: 23376705]
  14. Food Res Int. 2020 Nov;137:109750 [PMID: 33233312]
  15. Foods. 2021 Mar 26;10(4): [PMID: 33810486]
  16. Appetite. 1992 Oct;19(2):105-20 [PMID: 1489209]
  17. Foods. 2021 Feb 03;10(2): [PMID: 33546323]
  18. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2015 Feb;21(2):142-6 [PMID: 25523963]
  19. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2018 Sep 14;14(1):59 [PMID: 30217159]
  20. Food Chem. 2020 Mar 30;309:125742 [PMID: 31704068]
  21. Clin Nutr. 2019 Apr;38(2):721-729 [PMID: 29643004]
  22. Food Res Int. 2019 Nov;125:108573 [PMID: 31554134]

Grants

  1. UIDB/00681/2020 and UIDB/05507/2020 and UIDB/007421/2020 and UIDB/00239/2020/Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0α=0analysisEIquestionnaireitemsEdibleinsectsHoweverproteinfoodnewperceptionsknowledgesevenD1D2D3D4AspectsD5D6D7validationvalidatedsubscalesvaluesalphafactorsexplainedvarianceconsumedtraditionalfoodsmanypartsgloberegionsreadilyacceptedparticularlyWesterncountriessuggestedconstitutesustainablecomparedsourcesanimalcanconsideredfuturehelpmitigatehungermalnutritionAdditionallygastronomictrendsalreadytargetingareaexploringpotentialitiesobjectiveworkdevelopvalidateassessconsumers'differentdomains:CultureTraditionGastronomicInnovationGourmetKitchenEnvironmentSustainabilityEconomicSocialCommercializationMarketingNutritionalHealthEffects64subjecteditemreliabilityfactoralsoconductedidentifygroupingstructureresultshighCronbach's732795882742675799788eliminating17finalincreasedFactorextractionprincipalcomponentvarimaxrotationextracted14total65%althoughfirsttwoimportant357%conclusionconfirmedusefulnessherebyassessingconsumerDevelopmentQuestionnaireAssessKnowledgePerceptionsInsectsedibleconsumptioninstrumentsurveyscale

Similar Articles

Cited By