Development and Validation of the Food Liking Questionnaire in a French-Canadian Population
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire assessing food liking in a French-Canadian population. A questionnaire was developed, in which participants were asked to rate their degree of liking of 50 food items. An expert panel evaluated the content validity. For the validation study, 150 men and women completed the questionnaire twice. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed to assess the number of subscales of the questionnaire. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the subscales were evaluated. Concurrent validity was assessed through correlations between liking scores and self-reported frequencies of consumption. Comments from the experts led to changes in the list of foods included in the questionnaire. The EFA revealed a two-factor structure for the questionnaire (i.e., savory and sweet foods) and led to the removal of nine items, resulting in a 32-item questionnaire. The two subscales revealed good internal consistency (Cronbach alphas: 0.85 and 0.89) and test-retest reliability (p = 0.84 and 0.86). The questionnaire demonstrated adequate concurrent validity, with moderate correlations between food liking and self-reported frequency of consumption (r = 0.19–0.39, ps < 0.05). This new Food Liking Questionnaire assessing liking of a variety of savory and sweet foods demonstrated good psychometric properties in every validation step. This questionnaire will be useful to explore the role of food liking and its interactions with other factors in predicting eating behaviors and energy intake.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it