Children’s Food Intake: A Comparison of Children’s and Parents’ Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In longitudinal studies, parents are the most accurate source of information on young children's dietary intake; for older children, questioning children themselves may be more appropriate. However, if parental reports for young children and self-reports of older children are to be used in the same analyses, the measures must be comparable. METHODS: During school hours, fourth and sixth graders in 14 Flemish (Belgium) primary schools completed an online 15-item food frequency questionnaire with a retest questionnaire one to two weeks later; parents completed a paper-and-pencil or online questionnaire. Test-retest data were available for 286 children; children's tests could be matched to parents' reports for 275 children. RESULTS: On average, test-retest correlations were 0.68 (grade 4: 0.63; grade 6: 0.71) and correlations between children's and parents' reports were 0.44 (grade 4: 0.39; grade 6: 0.49). No systematic differences were found between the test and retest. Comparison of children's and parents' reports resulted in significant differences for six of the 15 items. CONCLUSIONS: Low consensus between parents' and children's reports for several items may impede comparisons at a group level. Additionally, the results indicate more optimal dietary assessment in sixth graders.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".