MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566323982 · doi:10.1017/s1368980016003372

Development and validation of a nutrition knowledge questionnaire for a Canadian population

2016· article· en· W2566323982 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Nutrition · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCronbach's alphaExploratory factor analysisConstruct validityFace validityContent validityPsychologyReliability (semiconductor)PopulationTest (biology)Item analysisMedicineClinical psychologyPsychometricsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to develop and validate a nutrition knowledge questionnaire in a sample of French Canadians from the province of Quebec, taking into account dietary guidelines. DESIGN: A thirty-eight-item questionnaire was developed by the research team and evaluated for content validity by an expert panel, and then administered to respondents. Face validity and construct validity were measured in a pre-test. Exploratory factor analysis and covariance structure analysis were performed to verify the structure of the questionnaire and identify problematic items. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were evaluated through a validation study. SETTING: Online survey. SUBJECTS: Six nutrition and psychology experts, fifteen registered dietitians (RD) and 180 lay people participated. RESULTS: Content validity evaluation resulted in the removal of two items and reformulation of one item. Following face validity, one item was reformulated. Construct validity was found to be adequate, with higher scores for RD v. non-RD (21·5 (sd 2·1) v. 15·7 (sd 3·0) out of 24, P<0·001). Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the questionnaire contained only one factor. Covariance structure analysis led to removal of sixteen items. Internal consistency for the overall questionnaire was adequate (Cronbach's α=0·73). Assessment of test-retest reliability resulted in significant associations for the total knowledge score (r=0·59, P<0·001). CONCLUSIONS: This nutrition knowledge questionnaire was found to be a suitable instrument which can be used to measure levels of nutrition knowledge in a Canadian population. It could also serve as a model for the development of similar instruments in other populations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.302 · 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