Qualitative Analysis of Cognitive Interviews With School Children: A Web-Based Food Intake Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of computers to administer dietary assessment questionnaires has shown potential, particularly due to the variety of interactive features that can attract and sustain children's attention. Cognitive interviews can help researchers to gain insights into how children understand and elaborate their response processes in this type of questionnaire. OBJECTIVE: To present the cognitive interview results of children who answered the WebCAAFE, a Web-based questionnaire, to obtain an in-depth understanding of children's response processes. METHODS: Cognitive interviews were conducted with children (using a pretested interview script). Analyses were carried out using thematic analysis within a grounded theory framework of inductive coding. RESULTS: A total of 40 children participated in the study, and 4 themes were identified: (1) the meaning of words, (2) understanding instructions, (3) ways to resolve possible problems, and (4) suggestions for improving the questionnaire. Most children understood questions that assessed nutritional intake over the past 24 hours, although the structure of the questionnaire designed to facilitate recall of dietary intake was not always fully understood. Younger children (7 and 8 years old) had more difficulty relating the food images to mixed dishes and foods eaten with bread (eg, jam, cheese). Children were able to provide suggestions for improving future versions of the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: More attention should be paid to children aged 8 years or below, as they had the greatest difficulty completing the WebCAAFE.
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 | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".