Research Article| Volume 47, ISSUE 1, P19-27, January 2015

Download started.


Outcome Effectiveness of the Widely Adopted EFNEP Curriculum Eating Smart ∙ Being Active

Published:September 26, 2014DOI:



      To determine the effectiveness of the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) curriculum Eating Smart ∙ Being Active (ESBA).

      Design and Setting

      A quantitative, multi-state, nonequivalent comparison group pretest-posttest design was used to compare nutrition-related behavior changes in participants. ESBA was compared to previously used curricula for 3 different time periods in 5 states using the EFNEP evaluation tool.


      Adults enrolled in EFNEP who completed their entry and exit paperwork during any of the 3 time points.


      An 8-lesson adult curriculum based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and MyPlate.


      Analysis of variance and covariance (with pretests scores and demographic variables as covariates) were used to analyze data with significance at P ≤ .05.


      ESBA elicited a mean positive behavior change for food resource management (P < .01), food safety (P ≤ .001), nutrition (P < .001), and physical activity level in participating states (P ≤ .01). Compared with previous curricula, ESBA produced better mean outcomes in food resource management, nutrition, physical activity, and intakes of fruit and vegetables.

      Conclusion and Implications

      ESBA is effective at eliciting positive nutrition-related behavior change. The results of this multi-state, practice-based approach suggest that ESBA is effective in multiple settings and has external validity for use in EFNEP and other community nutrition programs.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access

      SNEB Member Login

      SNEB Members, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Login via the SNEB Website to access all journal content and features.


      Subscribe to Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


      1. US Department of Agriculture. National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP). Accessed June 19, 2014.

      2. US Department of Agriculture and US Dept of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010. Accessed June 19, 2014.

      3. US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) program policies and procedures. Accessed June 19, 2014.

        • Brink M.S.
        Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program: A Precedent-Setting Program.
        Easy Writer Publications, Cortland, NY2000
        • Montgomery S.
        • Willis W.
        Fiscal Year 2005 Impact and Review of the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program.
        US Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 2005: 1-10 ( Accessed August 14, 2014.)
        • Norris J.A.
        From Telling to Teaching.
        Learning by Dialogue, North Myrtle Beach, SC2003
      4. US Department of Agriculture. FY2012 NIFA National Data: the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program. Accessed June 29, 2014.

        • Arnold C.G.
        • Sobal J.
        Food practices and nutrition knowledge after graduation from the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP).
        J Nutr Educ. 2000; 32: 130-138
        • Hersey J.
        • Anliker J.
        • Miller C.
        • et al.
        Food shopping practices are associated with dietary quality in low-income households.
        J Nutr Educ. 2001; 33: S16-S26
        • Dollahite J.
        • Kenkel D.
        • Thompson C.S.
        An economic evaluation of the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program.
        J Nutr Educ Behav. 2008; 40: 134-143
        • Rajgopal R.
        • Cox R.H.
        • Lambur M.
        • Lewis E.C.
        Cost-benefit analysis indicates the positive economic benefits of the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program related to chronic disease prevention.
        J Nutr Educ Behav. 2002; 34: 26-37
        • Koszewski W.
        • Sehi N.
        • Behrends D.
        The impact of SNAP-Ed and EFNEP on program graduates 6 months after graduation.
        J Extension. 2011; 49: 5RIB6
        • Wardlaw M.
        • Baker S.
        Long-term evaluation of EFNEP and SNAP-Ed.
        Forum for Family and Consumer Issues. 2012; 17
        • Baker S.
        • Sutherland B.
        • Mitchell R.
        • Rogers K.
        • Diker A.
        Eating Smart ∙ Being Active.
        Colorado State University Creative Services, Fort Collins, CO2007
      5. US Department of Agriculture and US Dept of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005. Accessed June 19, 2014.

        • Rossman M.H.
        An alternative adult basic education curriculum.
        Adult Leadership. 1973; 22: 23-26
        • Bandura A.
        Social Learning Theory.
        Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ1976
        • Perry C.L.
        • Baranowski T.
        • Parcel G.S.
        How individuals, environments, and health behavior interact: Social Learning Theory.
        in: Glanz K. Lewis F.M. Rimer B.K. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA1990
      6. Natker E, Baker S, Auld G, McGirr K, Sutherland B, Cason K. Formative evaluation of EFNEP curriculum: ensuring the Eating Smart Being Active curriculum is theory-based. J Extension. In press.

        • Hoover J.R.
        • Martin P.A.
        • Litchfield R.E.
        Evaluation of a new nutrition education curriculum and factors influencing its implementation.
        J Extension. 2009; 47: 1FEA4
      7. US Department of Agriculture. National Institute of Food and Agriculture. EFNEP survey. Accessed June 19, 2014.

      8. Anliker J, Willis W, Montgomery S. The Development and Testing of the Behavior Checklist Questions for the EFNEP Evaluation/Reporting System. Accessed June 19, 2014.

      9. US Department of Agriculture. National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Nutrition Education Evaluation and Reporting System (NEERS5). Accessed June 19, 2014.

      10. Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W. Applied Linear Statistical Models. 4th ed. Chicago, IL: Irwin; 1996.

        • Devine C.M.
        • Farrell T.J.
        • Hartman R.
        Sisters in health: experiential program emphasizing social interaction increases fruit and vegetable intake among low-income adults.
        J Nutr Educ Behav. 2005; 37: 265-270
        • Block G.
        • Wakimoto P.
        • Metz D.
        • et al.
        A randomized trial of the Little by Little CD-ROM: demonstrated effectiveness in increasing fruit and vegetable intake in a low-income population.
        Prev Chronic Dis. 2004; 1: A08
        • Steptoe A.
        • Perkins-Porras L.
        • McKay C.
        • Rink E.
        • Hilton S.
        • Cappuccio F.P.
        Behavioural counselling to increase consumption of fruit and vegetables in low-income adults: randomized trial.
        Br Med J. 2003; 326: 855-858
        • Swindle S.
        • Baker S.S.
        • Auld G.W.
        Operation Frontline: assessment of longer term curriculum effectiveness, evaluation strategies, and follow-up methods.
        J Nutr Educ Behav. 2007; 39: 205-213
        • Nolte S.
        • Elsworth G.R.
        • Sinclair A.J.
        • Osborne R.H.
        The inclusion of “then-test” questions in post-rest questionnaires alters post-test responses: a randomized study of bias in health program evaluation.
        Qual Life Res. 2012; 21: 487-494
      11. US Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Services. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education Guidance. Accessed June 19, 2014.