MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063760465 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2015-0048

Development, reliability, and validity testing of Toddler NutriSTEP: a nutrition risk screening questionnaire for children 18–35 months of age

2015· article· en· W2063760465 on OpenAlex
Janis Randall Simpson, Jillian Gumbley, Kylie Whyte, Jane Lac, Crystal Morra, Lee Rysdale, Mary Turfryer, Kim A. McGibbon, Joanne Beyers, Heather Keller

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Canadian institutionsResearch Institute for AgingHealth Sciences NorthUniversity of SudburyThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences CentreCanadian Rheumatology AssociationThunder Bay Regional Research InstituteDawson CollegeUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsToddlerKappaReceiver operating characteristicMedicineCohen's kappaWilcoxon signed-rank testReliability (semiconductor)ValidityFace validityPediatricsTest (biology)PsychologyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nutrition is vital for optimal growth and development of young children. Nutrition risk screening can facilitate early intervention when followed by nutritional assessment and treatment. NutriSTEP (Nutrition Screening Tool for Every Preschooler) is a valid and reliable nutrition risk screening questionnaire for preschoolers (aged 3-5 years). A need was identified for a similar questionnaire for toddlers (aged 18-35 months). The purpose was to develop a reliable and valid Toddler NutriSTEP. Toddler NutriSTEP was developed in 4 phases. Content and face validity were determined with a literature review, parent focus groups (n = 6; 48 participants), and experts (n = 13) (phase A). A draft questionnaire was refined with key intercept interviews of 107 parents/caregivers (phase B). Test-retest reliability (phase C), based on intra-class correlations (ICC), Kappa (κ) statistics, and Wilcoxon tests was assessed with 133 parents/caregivers. Criterion validity (phase D) was assessed using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves by comparing scores on the Toddler NutriSTEP to a comprehensive nutritional assessment of 200 toddlers with a registered dietitian (RD). The Toddler NutriSTEP was reliable between 2 administrations (ICC = 0.951, F = 20.53, p < 0.001); most questions had moderate (κ ≥ 0.6) or excellent (κ ≥ 0.8) agreement. Scores on the RD nutrition risk rating and the Toddler NutriSTEP were correlated (r = 0.67, p < 0.000). The area under the ROC curve for moderate and high RD risk ratings were 84.6% and 82.7%, respectively. Cut-points of ≥21 (sensitivity 86%; specificity 61%) (moderate risk) and ≥26 (sensitivity 95%; specificity 63%) (high risk) were determined. The Toddler NutriSTEP questionnaire is both reliable and valid for screening for nutritional risk in toddlers.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it