Rosenkranz et al. BMC Public Health 2010, 10:81 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/81 .665) from the Family Eating and Activity Question- naire-Revised [48]. 2) Fruit servings and vegetable ser- vings typically consumed by parent. Two items were identical to daughter’s questionnaire. 3) Habitual PA of parent was assessed using four items from the Beha- vioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, assessing fre- quency and duration (in 10-minute bouts or longer) of moderate and vigorous PA [45]. 4) Frequency of eating while watching TV was assessed with three items (mother, father, child, a = .681) from the Family Eating and Activity Habits Questionnaire [48]. Example item is: “How often does the mother (female caregiver) eat while watching TV, reading, working?” Responses were given on a five-point scale, ranging from “Never” to “Always.” 4) SSB consumption of parent was assessed with one item: “Over the past week, how often did you drink reg- ular soda or sugar-sweetened drinks?” Responses were given on an eight-point scale ranging from “Never” to “Every Day.” 5) Parent’s height and weight were self- reported in feet, inches, and pounds. 6) Parenting style (potential moderating variable) was measured with the Parental Authority Questionnaire-Revised, containing 30 items, with three subscales indicating authoritative (democratic), permissive, and authoritarian (autocratic) parenting [49]. 7) The FACES II instrument’s family cohesion subscale (16 items) was used to assess family cohesion (potential moderating variable) [50]. Statistical Analysis Intervention effects on individual outcome measures were analyzed consistent with other randomized con- trolled site-based interventions where the statistical design of the study is complicated by the lack of inde- pendence of data [38]. One girl’s data are associated with other girls’ data within troop sites (i.e., intra-class correlation). To adjust for the clustered data structure, a mixed-model design structure must be used, or the probability values will be incorrect. A full discussion of mixed-model analysis in group randomized trials with Girl Scout troops has been published elsewhere [22]. SAS 9.1 statistical software package (Cary, NC) was used for mixed-model analyses. SPSS 15.0 (Chicago, IL) was used to compute descriptive statistics and univariate analyses. To assess individual-level intervention effects, general linear model (PROC MIXED) analyses were run on difference scores (time 2 minus time 1), with girls nested within troop as random effect (to address cluster- ing of girls within troops) and weight status (overweight or not), authoritarian parenting level (median split), socio-economic status (free/reduced or not) and race/ ethnicity as fixed effects. To assess differences in objec- tively monitored physical activity by condition, general linear model (PROC MIXED) analyses were run on MVPA, with girls nested within troop as random effect, Page 7 of 13 and weight status, socio-economic status, and race/eth- nicity as fixed effects. To assess outcomes for troop meeting environments and percentages, descriptive sta- tistics and chi-square analyses were used. Results Descriptive Information Table 1 displays sample descriptive data by intervention and control conditions at time 1. There were no signifi- cant differences by condition for demographic variables. Process measures Leader Self Ratings of Intervention Implementation Three troop leader self-rating averages over the eight modules ranged from 1.52 to 1.86 (zero = no implemen- tation to 2.0 = full implementation). Troops differed (F2, 18 = 21.5, p < .001) in overall implementation with averages of 1.43, 1.86, and 1.84 (mean = 1.71). Troop Environmental Observations Based on 2,328 minutes of direct observation data from 28 meetings, control troops spent about two thirds of meet- ing time devoted to Girl Scouting activities (67.3%). The remainder of control troop meeting time was spent on management (16%), snack (9.8%), active games (2.1%) and other content (4.9%). Based on 1,952 minutes of direct observation data from 21 meetings, intervention troops spent approximately 42.4% of meeting time devoted to Girl Scouting activities. The remainder of control troop meeting time was spent on active games (20.7%) manage- ment (17%), snack (18.3%), and other content (1.5%). Table 3 displays data for time spent in active games (phy- sically active content) by study condition. Snack Table 4 displays raw frequencies and actual food expo- sures respectively by study condition. Food exposures were defined as the number of girls observed tasting/ eating individual food products, regardless of amount eaten. Intervention troops provided a snack at 100% of meetings- consistent with the intervention policy, and control troops offered a snack at 71% of meetings. Inter- vention troops had greater opportunities for consump- tion of FV and drinking water. Control troops offered candy, cakes and cookies, and SSBs more often than intervention troops offered these foods. Meeting Environment and Leader Behavior Table 5 illustrates the comparison between intervention troops and control troops in the meeting environment and leader behavior variables. Intervention meetings showed significantly more: Structured time (X2 = 5.44, p = .020), physical activity knowledge content (X2 = 6.38, p = .012), healthful eating knowledge content (X2 = 13.64, p < .001), physical activity promotion (X2 = 23.46, p < .001), and healthful eating promotion (X2 = 18.14, p < .001). Control troop meetings were more likely to have no promotion of