Weighing in on the Body Knowledge Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this research was to develop and pilot test the Body Knowledge Questionnaire (BKQ), an instrument that measures weight management integration, and to determine its reliability and validity. METHODS: The 27 items of the BKQ were developed through review of the literature on integration and weight management/obesity. The resulting BKQ was pilot tested with 4 groups of individuals with and without type 2 diabetes. Exploratory factor analysis was used to assess the construct validity of the BKQ, and discriminant function analysis and logistic regression were used to establish criterion-related validity. Scale reliability analysis was used to determine the internal consistency of the BKQ and its subscales. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis yielded a 2-factor solution, with factor loadings that were fair to excellent (.45-.81). Discriminant function analysis determined that the BKQ subscales could accurately predict the classification of participants into normal- and obese-weight groups. Results of the logistic regression showed that the BKQ could reliably distinguish between normal- and obese-weight participants. Internal consistency of the overall BKQ was .87, .89, and .73 for the subscales, Food Centricity and Psychosomatic Awareness. CONCLUSIONS: This research provided preliminary evidence of the validity (content, construct, and criterion) and reliability (internal consistency) of the BKQ. With additional psychometric testing, the BKQ instrument has great potential for use in weight management practice areas, such as diabetes education, dietetics, nursing, and psychology, for use in individual or group weight management programs and program evaluation; or in the development of novel weight management interventions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.007 |
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".