Reliability and validity of Web‐SPAN, a web‐based method for assessing weight status, diet and physical activity in youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Web-based surveys are becoming increasing popular. The present study aimed to assess the reliability and validity of the Web-Survey of Physical Activity and Nutrition (Web-SPAN) for self-report of height and weight, diet and physical activity by youth. METHODS: School children aged 11-15years (grades 7-9; n=459) participated in the school-based research (boys, n=225; girls, n=233; mean age, 12.8years). Students completed Web-SPAN (self-administered) twice and participated in on-site school assessments [height, weight, 3-day food/pedometer record, Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children (PAQ-C), shuttle run]. Intraclass (ICC) and Pearson's correlation coefficients and paired samples t-tests were used to assess the test-retest reliability of Web-SPAN and to compare Web-SPAN with the on-site assessments. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability for height (ICC=0.90), weight (ICC=0.98) and the PAQ-C (ICC=0.79) were highly correlated, whereas correlations for nutrients were not as strong (ICC=0.37-0.64). There were no differences between Web-SPAN times 1 and 2 for height and weight, although there were differences for the PAQ-C and most nutrients. Web-SPAN was strongly correlated with the on-site assessments, including height (ICC=0.88), weight (ICC=0.93) and the PAQ-C (ICC=0.70). Mean differences for height and the PAQ-C were not significant, whereas mean differences for weight were significant resulting in an underestimation of being overweight/obesity prevalence (84% agreement). Correlations for nutrients were in the range 0.24-0.40; mean differences were small but generally significantly different. Correlations were weak between the web-based PAQ-C and 3-day pedometer record (r=0.28) and 20-m shuttle run (r=0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Web-SPAN is a time- and cost-effective method that can be used to assess the diet and physical activity status of youth in large cross-sectional studies and to assess group trends (weight status).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".