Construct Validation of Three Nutrition Questions Using Health and Diet Ratings in Older Canadian Males Living in the Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brief nutrition screening tools are desired for research and practice. Seniors in the Community: Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition (SCREEN-II, 14 items) and the abbreviated version SCREEN-II-AB (8 items) are valid and reliable nutrition screening tools for older adults. This exploratory study used a retrospective cross-sectional design to determine the construct validity of a subset of 3 items (weight loss, appetite, and swallowing difficulty) currently on the SCREEN-II and SCREEN-II-AB tools. Secondary data on community-dwelling senior males (n = 522, mean ± SD age = 86.7 ± 3.0 years) in the Manitoba Follow-up Study (MFUS) study were available for analysis. Participants completed the mailed MFUS Nutrition Survey that included SCREEN-II items and questions pertaining to self-rated health, diet healthiness, and rating of the importance of nutrition towards successful aging as the constructs for comparison. Self-perceived health status (F = 14.7, P < 0.001), diet healthiness (ρ = 0.17, P = 0.002) and the rating of nutrition's importance to aging (ρ = 0.10, P = 0.03) were correlated with the 3-item score. Inferences were consistent with associations between these construct variables and the full SCREEN-II. Three items from SCREEN-II and SCREEN-II-AB demonstrate initial construct validity with self-perceived health status and diet healthiness ratings by older males; further exploration for criterion and predictive validity in more diverse samples is needed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".