MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412151592 · doi:10.3148/cjdpr-2015-030

Development and Initial Reliability Testing of NAK-50+: A Nutrition Attitude and Knowledge Questionnaire for Adults 50+ Years of Age

2015· article· en· W2412151592 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kate Ducak, Heather Keller

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsResearch Institute for AgingUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)MedicineConstruct validityFace validityTest (biology)GerontologyPsychological interventionContent validityCognitionPopulationKappaInterviewPsychologyFamily medicineClinical psychologyPsychometricsEnvironmental healthNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Few questionnaires to test nutrition knowledge and attitudes of older adults living independently in the community have been developed and tested to assess self-management tools such as Nutri-eSCREEN and other education programs. This study is a first step in the development of a questionnaire designed to evaluate the nutrition knowledge and attitudes of independent older adults (NAK-50+). METHODS: The steps involved in this study were: (i) drafting initial questions based on the content of the Nutri-eSCREEN education material, (ii) using cognitive interviewing to determine if these questions were understandable and relevant (n = 9 adults ≥50 years of age), and (iii) completing test-retest reliability in a convenient community sample (n = 60 adults ≥50 years of age). Intra-class coefficients (ICC) and kappa were used to determine reliability. RESULTS: A 33-item questionnaire resulted from this development and analysis. ICC for the total score was 0.68 indicating good agreement and thus initial reliability. CONCLUSIONS: NAK-50+ is a face valid and reliable questionnaire that assesses nutrition knowledge and attitudes in independent adults aged ≥50 years. Further work to determine construct validity and to refine the questionnaire is warranted. Availability of the questionnaire for this age group will support rigorous evaluation of education and self-management interventions for this segment of the population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.229
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207