<i>Web-based Food Behaviour Questionnaire:</i> Validation with Grades Six to Eight Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The web-based Food Behaviour Questionnaire (FBQ) includes a 24-hour diet recall, a food frequency questionnaire, and questions addressing knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and food-related behaviours. The survey has been revised since it was developed and initially validated. The current study was designed to obtain qualitative feedback and to validate the FBQ diet recall. METHODS: "Think aloud" techniques were used in cognitive interviews with dietitian experts (n=11) and grade six students (n=21). Multi-ethnic students (n=201) in grades six to eight at urban southern Ontario schools completed the FBQ and, subsequently, one-on-one diet recall interviews with trained dietitians. Food group and nutrient intakes were compared. RESULTS: Users provided positive feedback on the FBQ. Suggestions included adding more foods, more photos for portion estimation, and online student feedback. Energy and nutrient intakes were positively correlated between FBQ and dietitian interviews, overall and by gender and grade (all p<0.001). Intraclass correlation coefficients were ≥0.5 for energy and macro-nutrients, although the web-based survey underestimated energy (10.5%) and carbohydrate (-15.6%) intakes (p<0.05). Under-estimation of rice and pasta portions on the web accounted for 50% of this discrepancy. CONCLUSIONS: The FBQ is valid, relative to 24-hour recall interviews, for dietary assessment in diverse populations of Ontario children in grades six to eight.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".