Healthy Eating Opinion Survey for individuals at risk for cardiovascular disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate the validity and reliability of a questionnaire to measure intentions and beliefs about healthy eating in individuals at risk for coronary heart disease. METHOD: The Healthy Eating Opinion Survey was developed using the theory of planned behavior. An open-ended elicitation questionnaire was administered to 21 participants, and a 46-item questionnaire was developed for further testing. Test-retest reliability of each question on the survey was assessed by calculating the correlation coefficients between the responses over a 2- week period in 17 participants. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, and factor analysis was used to assess the construct validity of the questionnaire in a sample of 388 participants. RESULTS: The responses to the elicitation questions were used to develop behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs questions for the final questionnaire. Test-retest reliability ranged from 0.22-0.90, with the majority (89%) of correlations being moderate to strong. Internal consistency was good, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.74-0.92. All intentions questions loaded onto a single factor; attitude questions loaded onto two factors; subjective norm questions loaded onto two factors; perceived behavioral control questions loaded onto one factor; behavioral beliefs questions loaded onto one factor; normative beliefs questions loaded onto one factor; and control beliefs questions loaded onto one factor. CONCLUSION: The questionnaire was found to be a reliable, valid questionnaire to assess beliefs and intentions toward eating a healthy diet in individuals at risk for coronary heart disease.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".