Differences in Measured and Self-Categorized Food Security Status and Related Coping Strategies among College Students

• Published in: Nutrients Vol. 14; no. 17; p. 3569
• Main Authors: Engel, Megan D, Shelnutt, Karla P, House, Lisa A, El Zein, Aseel, Mathews, Anne E
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 30.08.2022; MDPI
• Subjects: Adaptation, Psychological; Adult; Analysis; College campuses; College students; Colleges & universities; Coping (Psychology); coping strategies; Coronaviruses; COVID-19; Cross-Sectional Studies; Eating behavior; Female; Food and nutrition; food insecurity; Food programs; Food Security; Food Supply; Health aspects; Humans; Male; nutrition insecurity; obesity; Perceptions; Psychological aspects; Questions; Review boards; Safety and security measures; Social aspects; Socioeconomic Factors; Student loans; Students; Surveys; Universities; young adults; United States; United States > US; USDA AFSSM; coping strategies; college students; young adults; nutrition insecurity; food insecurity; obesity
• ISSN: 2072-6643; 2072-6643
• DOI: 10.3390/nu14173569

Qualitative studies suggest that college students with food insecurity (FI) experience stigma and misinterpret some of the USDA Adult Food Security Survey Module (AFSSM) questions, leading to misclassification of food security (FS) status. We aimed to evaluate differences in AFSSM-measured FS status and self-categorized FS status (based on USDA descriptions of the four FS levels) among college students, and to identify differences in the coping strategies and BMI of these students. Data were collected cross-sectionally from a convenience sample via web-based, self-reported surveys. Measured FS, self-categorized FS, coping strategies, and self-reported BMI were key variables of interest. Participants were 1003 undergraduate and graduate students (22.2 ± 4.6 years; 65.7% female). Of the participants measured as food insecure (40.0%), 57.8% self-categorized as food secure (MFI-SFS) and 42.2% self-categorized as food insecure (MFI-SFI). Significantly more MFI-SFI participants were AFSSM-categorized as having very low FS when compared to MFI-SFS participants (71.6% vs. 46.6%, p < 0.05). MFI-SFI participants reported significantly higher BMI (M = 24.7, SD ± 6.0 kg/m2) and coping strategies scores (M = 49.8, SD ± 7.5) when compared to MFI-SFS participants (M = 23.1, SD ± 3.6 kg/m2; M = 46.9, SD ± 7.5, respectively, p ≤ 0.01). Assessment of and interventions to address FI among college students should consider the potential influence of self-perception and students’ interpretation of survey questions.