Objective Mindfulness is theorized to affect the eating behavior and weight of pregnant women, yet no measure has been validated during pregnancy. Methods This study qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated the reliability and validity of the Mindful Eating Questionnaire (MEQ) in overweight and obese pregnant women. Participants completed focus groups and cognitive interviews. The MEQ was administered twice to measure test-retest reliability. The Eating Inventory (EI) and Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) were administered to assess convergent validity, and the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS) assessed discriminant validity. Results Participants were 20±8 weeks gestation (mean±SD), 30±2 years old, and 55% were obese. The MEQ total score had good test-retest reliability (r=.85). The total score internal consistency reliability was poor (Cronbach’s α=.56). The external cues subscale (ECS) was not internally consistent (α=.31). Other subscales ranged from a=.59–.68. When the ECS was excluded, the MEQ total score internal consistency was acceptable (α=.62). Convergent validity was supported by the MEQ total score (with and without ECS) correlating significantly with the MAAS and the EI disinhibition and hunger subscales. Discriminant validity of the MEQ was supported by the MEQ and NEWS total scores and subscales not being significantly correlated. The quantitative results were supported by the qualitative context and content analysis. Conclusion With the exception of the ECS, the MEQ’s reliability and validity was supported in pregnant women, and most of the subscales were more robust in pregnant women than in the original sample of healthy adults. The MEQ’s use with overweight and obese pregnant women is supported.

Using interviews with 43 college-age individuals, the present study aims to create a more nuanced and complex understanding of the relationship between alcohol and gender in instances of sexual victimization. The existing scholarship suggests that either alcohol or gendered processes are the primary factors in facilitating a sexual assault, one always dominating the other. However, participants express a more complex understanding that suggests that not only do each of these factors contribute individually to sexual victimization, but they also interact to create a context in which sexual victimization is not only possible but also likely. In these in-depth interviews, participants reveal the ways in which the physiological effects of alcohol, beliefs about alcohol, gender norms, sex scripts, and rape myths all work together to normalize male dominance and violence against women. Given that sexual assaults among college-age women have not declined in the past 50 years and alcohol consumption is present in upward of 50% of all assaults, it is critical that scholars continue to disentangle this relationship and reformulate the way we conceptualize sexual violence.

Participants rated the Pennington Pedal Desk™ workstation positively and indicated potential for extended daily use.

BackgroundThis study tested the validity of revolutions per minute (RPM) measurements from the Pennington Pedal Desk™. Forty-four participants (73 % female; 39 ± 11.4 years-old; BMI 25.8 ± 5.5 kg/m2 [mean ± SD]) completed a standardized trial consisting of guided computer tasks while using a pedal desk for approximately 20 min. Measures of RPM were concurrently collected by the pedal desk and the Garmin Vector power meter. After establishing the validity of RPM measurements with the Garmin Vector, we performed equivalence tests, quantified mean absolute percent error (MAPE), and constructed Bland–Altman plots to assess agreement between RPM measures from the pedal desk and the Garmin Vector (criterion) at the minute-by-minute and trial level (i.e., over the approximate 20 min trial period).ResultsThe average (mean ± SD) duration of the pedal desk trial was 20.5 ± 2.5 min. Measures of RPM (mean ± SE) at the minute-by-minute (Garmin Vector: 54.8 ± 0.4 RPM; pedal desk: 55.8 ± 0.4 RPM) and trial level (Garmin Vector: 55.0 ± 1.7 RPM; pedal desk: 56.0 ± 1.7 RPM) were deemed equivalent. MAPE values for RPM measured by the pedal desk were small (minute-by-minute: 2.1 ± 0.1 %; trial: 1.8 ± 0.1 %) and no systematic relationships in error variance were evident by Bland–Altman plots.ConclusionThe Pennington Pedal Desk™ provides a valid count of RPM, providing an accurate metric to promote usage.