Guided Goal Setting: A Behavior Change Strategy Adapted to the Needs of Low-Income Parents of Young Children Participating in Cooperative Extension Programs
Guided Goal Setting: A Behavior Change Strategy Adapted to the Needs of Low-Income Parents of Young Children Participating in Cooperative Extension Programs
Mical K. Shilts
Department of Family and Consumer Sciences
California State University, Sacramento
Stephanie L. Sitnick
Department of Psychology
University of Pittsburgh
Department of Human Ecology
University of California, Davis
Marilyn S. Townsend
Department of Nutrition
University of California, Davis
Given the alarming obesity rates among preschoolers, families need parental education to facilitate family environmental and behavioral changes. Our purpose was to adapt guided goal setting (GGS) for use with low-income, low-literate parents of young children participating in Cooperative Extension nutrition education programs. Parents identified three goal motivators during parent interviews (n=10): child health, parenting skills, and parent health. Parent preferences for goal phrasing focused on meal planning and child involvement in food selection. Parents indicated the preference for more choices in the goal selection process. GGS materials were rated grade 3.8 for readability. Formative evaluation guided the tailoring of the GGS companion curriculum.
goal setting, obesity prevention, low-income parents, literacy
To impact the increases in obesity rates among preschoolers, parental education is needed to facilitate family behavioral and environmental changes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2009; Ogden, Carroll, and Flegal 2008). Guided goal setting (GGS) has been shown to be an effective behavior change strategy for promoting healthful dietary and physical activity behaviors among low-income, ethnically diverse middle-school students in Cooperative Extension programs (Shilts, Horowitz, and Townsend 2009). The strategy was developed as an alternative to self-set, prescribed, and collaborative goal setting types (Shilts, Townsend, and Horowitz 2004a). Research results do not provide clear evidence to suggest that one goal type is more effective (Locke and Latham 2002) although it is logical that many factors (setting, age, readiness to change, type of behavior being targeted, respect for the educator) can influence appropriateness of goal type in health behavior interventions. In a Cooperative Extension setting where group classes are the norm, one educator usually does not have the luxury of time to collaboratively set a goal with each individual in the class. Self-set goals require participants to be able to understand and apply goal setting techniques (proximity, specificity, attainability) and assigned goal setting may limit autonomy and decrease goal commitment. GGS gives choices from a collection of practitioner-developed major and minor goals with attributes necessary for optimal goal effectiveness: specificity, proximity, difficulty, and attainability (Locke and Latham 2002; Shilts, Townsend, and Horowitz 2004a). Each broad major goal is coupled with a collection of minor goals that are specific in terms of what, when, where, and how often. An example of a major goal is “Buy fewer sugared drinks” and a minor goal, “Choose water, unsweetened tea, diet soda, or milk two times when eating out this week.” The participant makes an independent decision in selecting the major and minor goals based on a personal assessment, a key element in this strategy. This strategy is also suited well for group classes, which are common in Cooperative Extension.
Results of the National Adult Literacy Survey indicate that 47 percent of adults in the United States demonstrate low levels of literacy (National Center for Educational Statistics 2002). Low-income communities see a disproportionate percentage of participants with limited literacy skills (National Center for Educational Statistics 2002). Therefore educational materials for Cooperative Extension programs such as Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education (SNAP-Ed) should be designed to meet the needs of this low-literate adult audience. These materials should strive for a readability score of grade 3 to 5 (National Cancer Institute 2003).
This article illustrates the process used to adapt the GGS strategy for another Cooperative Extension audience: low-income, low-literate parents of young children. Parent input guided the adaptation of the GGS strategy into a companion curriculum that the authors believe could be used with an existing EFNEP or SNAP-Ed intervention.
Description of the adaptation process
Previous work with GGS for an adolescent audience employed strategies targeting their unique preferences and behaviors. For example, the motivators “improved appearance” and “increased energy” were identified (Shilts 2003). A self-assessment method was designed for a classroom setting (Horowitz, Shilts, and Townsend 2005; EatFit 2011) providing tailored goal options related to student dietary habits (e.g., choosing a more healthful pizza option [Shilts, Townsend, and Horowitz 2004a]). To adapt this strategy for use with low-income parents of young children, formative research was conducted where parent preferences and behaviors were considered for five curriculum components: assessment tools, participant motivators, goal content, goal selection process, and corresponding education materials.
Assessment tools. Twelve determinants of pediatric overweight and 23 corresponding specific modifiable behaviors practiced by families of preschool children were identified via a series of evidence-based analyses with focus on studies of low-income populations (Ontai et al. 2009a; Townsend et al. 2009a). The University of California Cooperative Extension Healthy Kids (HK) and My Child at Mealtime (MCMT) assessment tools were developed to measure the 23 identified behaviors and were selected for use in the adapted GGS companion curriculum (Ontai et al. 2009b; Townsend et al. 2009b). The HK/MCMT tools were designed for self-administration by low-income, low-literate, ethnically diverse caregivers of young children (Ontai et al. 2011; Townsend et al. 2011). The Flesh Kincaid Readability Index for HK was grade 1.3 and for MCMT, 2.1 (Klare 1984). The HK/MCMT tools were used in two components of the adapted GGS companion curriculum. First, participant responses from the tools were used to individually tailor the companion curriculum workbooks. Second, behavioral nutrition (n=4) and developmental (n=2) experts collaborated to identify specific behaviors included in the HK/MCMT tools that could be easily translated into participant goal options: eating fruit, vegetables, and other low-fat foods; drinking more milk and fewer sugar-sweetened beverages; planning meals; modeling healthy behaviors by parents; reducing screen time; increasing physical activity; and increasing parental responsiveness and decreasing parental demandingness during mealtime (Townsend et al. 2009a).
Participant motivators, goal content, and goal selection process. Ethnically diverse, English speaking, low-income parents/caregivers (n=10) of children aged 3-5 enrolled at Head Start were recruited for individual interviews. The interviews (approximately 30 minutes) were conducted by the authors at three Head Start centers. Interviews were conducted until no new information was provided. Institutional Review Board approval was granted by the University of California, Davis (#200816354-1) and California State University, Sacramento (#93). Interview questions included:
- What would motivate you to work toward a goal to make healthier food choices for you or your family?
- If an educator helped you set a goal related to healthy eating, would you want a new goal each week? Or would you want the same goal for several weeks until you achieve it?
- Which of these goals would you be willing to work toward (list of goals provided based on the HK/MCMT content)?
Of participants interviewed, 40 percent identified “children,” 40 percent identified “health,” and 20 percent identified both “children and health” as personal motivators for goal attainment. Most (70 percent) preferred a new weekly goal, while 30 percent preferred the same goal until accomplished. When given lists of possible goal options based on the 23 modifiable behaviors assessed by HK/MCMT and asked preferences, all participants indicated they were willing to work on goal content that involved the child and focused on meal planning or shopping.
Participant goal options and the goal selection method for the companion curriculum were developed from interview findings and focused on parent health, child health, meal planning, and child involvement in food selection (Table 1). The participant could select a goal from a preformatted list based on the assessment tools or create her own goal. Additionally, participants could opt to select a new goal each subsequent education session or work on the same goal until accomplished.
Education materials. GGS strategies brought forward from the adolescent GGS intervention (Bandura 1991; Horowitz, Shilts, and Townsend 2004; Locke and Latham 2002) were adapted for the new audience and informed by the parent interviews (n=10). The resulting companion curriculum included (1) a magazine-style goal workbook for parents and (2) an educator manual with supporting handouts, activities, and posters. The workbook was designed in a magazine style because this format was successful with other low-income audiences (Horowitz, Shilts, and Townsend 2004) as it is visually appealing and not reminiscent of academics. The workbook was evaluated for readability using the Flesh Kincaid Readability Grade Index (Klare 1984). The grade level for the goal setting booklet was 3.8, appropriate for low-literate audiences. The education materials included images that represented ethnically diverse, low-income families with young children and content targeting common issues parents encounter. The companion curriculum was driven by social cognitive and goal setting theories (Bandura 1991; Locke and Latham 2002). For example, a goal barriers activity was tailored for parents by focusing on their expertise and challenges. Cards (4 inches x6 inches) were provided that contained relevant goals, barriers, and barrier solutions (e.g., Goal – fix a fruit or vegetable snack with your child two times this week; Barrier – my child doesn’t like vegetables; Solution – have your child go to the grocery store with you and help pick vegetables for the snack). Parents discussed barriers impeding goal attainment; they brainstormed barrier solutions, recording them in their personal workbook.
Authors scored the GGS companion curriculum using a taxonomy of theory-linked behavior change techniques, more commonly known as strategies in the United States, developed by Michie and colleagues (Table 2). The purpose of this taxonomy was to establish a common language for dietary and physical activity curricula for users (designers, researchers, and practitioners) and thus to determine what curricula behavioral components work and why (Abraham and Michie 2008). Michie recommended that researchers and program developers use this standardized nomenclature to allow for comparison with other interventions and for clearer identification of effective behavior change strategies (Michie and Abraham 2004; Michie et al. 2009). The GGS companion curriculum incorporated twelve behavior change strategies ranging from self-monitoring to relapse prevention, all driven by goal setting theory (Table 2). The GGS companion curriculum was designed to augment an existing Cooperative Extension behaviorally focused nutrition education curriculum. Two Cooperative Extension curricula, Eating Smart Being Active (ESBA) and Healthy, Happy Families, were selected to partner with our new GGS curriculum to promote parental goal attainment (Ontai and Families with Young Children Workgroup 2010; University of California Davis and Colorado State Univeristy 2007). In addition to these twelve strategies, other behavior change strategies will be addressed by the partnered curriculum. For Cooperative Extension professionals, it is important to become familiar with the taxonomy nomenclature and use it in Extension intervention work where behavior change is a goal.
Pilot study. The newly adapted GGS companion curriculum was pilot tested with two groups of ethnically diverse, English speaking parents/caregivers (n=21) recruited from preschools serving low-income families. Parents engaged in the GGS process integrated with ESBA (nutrition/physical activity) and Happy, Healthy Families (parenting), with 98 percent reporting effort toward their selected weekly goals. The intervention educators reported that approximately 25 percent of parents had difficulties with the goal selection process, where they selected multiple major and minor goals or did not understand how to fill out the goal contract. Subsequent modifications included development of a large poster for the educator to use when describing the GGS process to the participants plus clearer instructions and additional design elements in the participant workbook. An action planning activity was also added so parents would have the opportunity to plan and write down specific steps needed to achieve the selected goal. In addition, the educators reported that most parents needed additional help understanding cues as they relate to goal success. Hence the “cues” activity was revised to be more interactive and include additional concrete examples of positive and negative cues plus a clearer title and additional graphic elements were added to the workbook.
In the last two decades, a significant increase in breadth and depth of research into goal setting to promote health behavior change has occurred. Several reviews documented that goal setting is frequently used to facilitate adoption of healthful eating and physical activity behaviors to reduce chronic disease risk (Bodenheimer and Handley 2009; Cullen, Baranowski, and Smith 2001; Shilts, Horowitz, and Townsend 2004b; Strecher et al. 1995) . In addition, the results of a meta-analysis identified goal setting as one of two promising behavioral intervention components to help modify dietary fat, fruit, and vegetable intake (Ammerman et al. 2002).
The formative research resulted in an adapted guided goal setting companion curriculum where parents complete the HK/MCMT assessment tools to identify behaviors related to pediatric obesity (strengths and weaknesses). Based on results of the assessment, participants are praised for one nutrition or physical activity strength and presented with two areas for improvement. Parents are “guided” to select one of these areas for a major goal and then choose a minor goal from three predetermined choices. This process is repeated for the parental feeding-related behaviors based on the results from MCMT. As a consequence of parent interviews, parents are given three additional options at subsequent sessions: select a new goal, modify the existing goal, or continue to work on the initial goal.
A magazine-style workbook supports and reinforces the GGS companion curriculum. This workbook contains behavior-driven strategies: goal selection, action planning, contracting, tracking, self-monitoring, barriers counseling, cue management, and rewarding, and it was written at a level appropriate for low-literate audiences (Figure 1) (Shilts et al. 2010).
Implications for Cooperative Extension educators
We have found that behavior change strategies, such as goal setting, need ample formative evaluation and pilot testing to be relevant to and appropriate for a new target audience. Interested Cooperative Extension educators can use this behavior change strategy with similar audiences of low-income parents.
An efficacy trial of the adapted GGS strategy began in late 2011. The self-assessment and goal generating process will also be automated and made available to other Cooperative Extension Services via the internet by 2014. The companion curriculum with workbook (Shilts et al. 2010) is available to be partnered with the pediatric obesity prevention assessment tools, HK (Townsend et al. 2009b) and MCMT (Ontai et al. 2009b), and a traditional Cooperative Extension nutrition education and parenting curriculum.
We wish to thank Christine Davidson and Larissa Leavens for their valuable input in the adaption and pilot testing the GGS companion curriculum. Brenda Campos and Meghan Marshall with SETA Head Start were vital in recruitment of client families. This project was supported by National Research Initiative Grant 2009-55215-05019 from the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture.
Abraham, C., and S. Michie. 2008. “A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions.” Health Psychology 27(3): 379-387.
Ammerman, A., C. H. Lindquist, K. N. Lohr, and J. Hersey. 2002. “The efficacy of behavioral interventions to modify dietary fat and fruit and vegetable intake: a review of the evidence.” Preventive Medicine 35: 25-41.
Bandura, A. 1991. “Social cognitive theory of self-regulation.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 248-287.
Block, G., B. Sternfeld, C. H. Block, T. J. Block, J. Norris, D. Hopkins, C. P. Quesenberry, Jr., G. Husson, and H. A. Clancy. 2008. Development of Alive! (A Lifestyle Intervention Via Email), and its effect on health-related quality of life, presenteeism, and other behavioral outcomes: randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research 10(4): e43.
Bodenheimer, T., and M. A. Handley. 2009. Goal-setting for behavior change in primary care: an exploration and status report. Patient Education and Counseling 76(2): 174-80.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2009. “Obesity prevalence among low-income, preschool-aged children ‒ United States, 1998-2008.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: 769-773.
Contento, I. R., P. A. Koch, H. Lee, and A. Calabrese-Barton. 2010. “Adolescents demonstrate improvement in obesity risk behaviors after completion of choice, control & change, a curriculum addressing personal agency and autonomous motivation.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association 110(12): 1830-9.
Cullen, K. W., A. L. Smalling, D. Thompson, K. B. Watson, D. Reed, and K. Konzelmann. 2009. “Creating healthful home food environments: results of a study with participants in the expanded food and nutrition education program.” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 41(6): 380-8.
Cullen, K. W., T Baranowski, and S. P. Smith. 2001. “Using goal setting as a strategy for dietary behavior change.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association 101(5): 562-566.
EatFit. 2011. Accessed August 2, 2012. www.eatfit.net .
Horowitz, M, M. K. Shilts, and M. S. Townsend. 2004. “EatFit: a goal oriented intervention that challenges middle school adolescents to improve their eating and fitness choices.” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 36(1): 43-44.
Horowitz, M., M. K.Shilts, and M. S. Townsend. 2005. “Adapting a diet analysis program for an adolescent audience.” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 37:43-44.
Klare G. R. 1984. Handbook of Reading Research: Readability. New York: Longman.
Locke, E. A., and G. P. Latham. 2002. “Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year odyssey.” American Psychologist 57(9): 705-17.
Michie, S., C. Abraham, C. Whittington, J. McAteer, and S. Gupta. 2009. “Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: a meta-regression.” Health Psychology 28(6): 690-701.
Michie, S., and C. Abraham. 2004. “Interventions to change health behaviours: Evidence-based or evidence-inspired?” Psychology & Health 19(1): 29-49.
National Cancer Institute. 2012. Clear & Simple: Developing effective print materials for low-literate readers. National Institutes of Health 2003. Accessed August 2, 2012.http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/cancerlibrary/clear-and-simple/page1 .
National Center for Educational Statistics. 2002. Adult Literacy in America. Accessed August 2, 2012. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf .
Ogden, C. L., M. D. Carroll, and K. M. Flegal. 2008. “High body mass index for age among US children and adolescents.” Journal of the American Medical Association 299: 2401-5.
Ontai L., L. Ritchie, S. T. Williams, T. Young, and M. S. Townsend. 2009a. “Guiding family-based obesity prevention efforts in children, Part 1: What determinants do we target?” International Journal of Child and Adolescent Health 2(1): 19-30.
Ontai L., S. L. Sitnick, K. Slyva, L. Leavens, C. Davidson, M. S. Townsend, and Design: L.K. Chao. 2009b. My Child at Meal Time [a parenting tool to assess risky behaviors around child feeding]: University of California Cooperative Extension. Funded by USDA NIFA NRI. Obesity grant. Accessed April 30, 2009. http://townsendlab.ucdavis.edu.
Ontai L., S. L. Sitnick, M. S. Townsend, M. K. Shilts, L. Leavens, K. Sylva, and C. Davidson. 2011. Instruction Guide: My Child at Mealtime, Child Obesity Risk Assessment Tool. [Includes questionnaire items, photographic content, determinants of obesity, potential questions from clients and suggested response from staff.] Accompanies data collection tool My Child at Mealtime. University of California, Davis. Accessed Februrary 11, 2011.http://townsendlab.ucdavis.edu .
Ontai, L., and Families with Young Children Workgroup. 2010. Healthy, Happy Families: Mini-Lessons. University of California Cooperative Extension. Accessed Februrary 11, 2011. http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/Items/21646.aspx
Shilts, M. K. The Effectiveness of Guided Goal Setting on Dietary and Physical Activity Self-efficacy and Behaviors of Middle School Adolescents. PhD diss., Department of Nutrition, University of California, Davis. 2003.
Shilts, M. K., M. Horowitz, and M. S. Townsend. 2009. “Guided Goal Setting: Effectiveness in a dietary and physical activity intervention with low-income adolescents.” International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 20(1): 111-122.
Shilts M. K., C. Davidson, L. Leavens, S. L. Sitnick, and M. S. Townsend. 2010. “Goals for Healthy Kids.” In University of California Cooperative Extension,, ed. University of California, Davis.
Shilts, M. K., and M. S. Townsend. 2012. “A goal setting intervention positively impacts adolescents’ dietary behaviors and physical activity self-efficacy.”Journal of Youth Development, 92-108, #120704PA001.
Sternfeld, B., C. Block, C. P. Quesenberry, Jr., T. J. Block, G. Husson, J. C. Norris, M. Nelson, and G. Block. 2009. “Improving diet and physical activity with ALIVE: a worksite randomized trial.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 36(6): 475-83.
Strecher, V. J., G. H. Seijts, G. J. Kok, R.Glasgow, B. DeVillis, R. M. Meertens, and D. W. Bulger. 1995. “Goal setting as a strategy for health behavior change.” Health Education Quarterly 22(2): 190-200.
Townsend M. S., L. Ontai, M. K. Shilts, L. Leavens, K. Sylva, and C. Davidson. 2011. Instruction Guide: Healthy Kids, Child Obesity Risk Assessment Tool. [Includes questionnaire items, photographic content, determinants of obesity, potential questions from clients and suggested response from staff.] Accompanies data collection tool Healthy Kids. University of California Davis. Accessed Februrary 11, 2011. http://townsendlab.ucdavis.edu .
Townsend M. S., T. Young, L. Ontai, L. Ritchie, and S. T. Williams. 2009a. “Guiding family-based obesity prevention efforts in children, Part 2: What behaviors do we measure?” International Journal of Child and Adolescent Health 2(1): 31-48.
Townsend M. S., K. Slyva, C. Davidson, L. Leavens, S. L. Sitnick, and Design: L. K. Chao. 2009b. Healthy Kids: Pediatric Obesity Risk Assessment Tool. [45 items reflecting 23 behaviors and 12 determinants of obesity identified in our research.] University of California Cooperative Extension. Funded by USDA NIFA NRI. Obesity grant. Accessed April 30, 2009. http://townsendlab.ucdavis.edu.
University of California Davis, and Colorado State Univeristy. 2007. Eating Smart Being Active. Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program.
[Alt tag content for Figure 1:Selected pages of the parent workbook are displayed.]
Table 1. Sample minor goals for obesity prevention developed specifically for low-income parents of young children
[Table 1 Summary: A sample list of minor goals for obesity prevention developed specifically for low-income parents of young children]
|Focus Area||Sample Minor Goal|
|Child Involvement of Food Selection||
Table 2. Content of guided goal getting companion curriculum using behavior change techniques as defined by Michie et al.*
[Table 2 Summary: Michie behavior change techniques were used to organize and describe the behavioral strategies in the adapted GGS companion curriculum]
|Provide goal instruction||
|Prompt self-monitoring of behavior||
|Prompt specific goal setting||
|Agree on behavioral contract||
|Provide feedback on performance||
|Provide contingent rewards||
|Prompt review of behavioral goals||
|Prompt barrier identification||
|Teach to use prompts/cues||
|Provide opportunities for social comparison||
|Plan social support||
|Use relapse prevention||
*This assumes other techniques will be addressed with partnered curriculum. ESBA and Healthy, Happy Families added the following techniques: provide information about behavior-health link ∙ provide information on consequences ∙ provide instruction ∙ demonstrate the behavior.
Back to table of contents ->https://www.theforumjournal.org/2017/09/01/spring-2013-vol-18-no-1/