Development and Testing of Program Evaluation Instruments for the iCook 4-H Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop and test the validity of program outcome evaluation instruments for cooking, eating, and playing together for obesity prevention during iCook 4-H. DESIGN: Instrument development for both youth and adults through pre-post testing of items newly constructed and compiled to address key curriculum constructs. Testing occurred throughout program intervention and dissemination to determine dimensionality, internal consistency and test-retest reliability, and validity. SETTING: A 5-state out-of-school program in cooperative extension and other community sites. PARTICIPANTS: Youths aged 9-10 years; adults were main food preparers; the first phase involved 214 dyads and the second phase, 74 dyads. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Youth measures were cooking skills, culinary self-efficacy, physical activity, and openness to new foods. Adult measures were cooking together, physical activity, and eating together. ANALYSIS: Exploratory factor analysis to determine initial scale structure and confirmatory factor analysis to confirm factor structures. Longitudinal invariance tests to see whether the factor structure held over time. Test-retest reliability was determined by Pearson r and internal consistency was determined by coefficient Ω and Cronbach α. Validity testing was determined by Pearson r correlations. RESULTS: Youth cooking skills, openness to new foods, and adult eating together and cooking together showed strong evidence for dimensionality, reliability, and validity. Youth physical activity and adult physical activity measures showed strong evidence for dimensionality and validity but not reliability. The youth culinary self-efficacy measure showed strong evidence for reliability and validity but weaker evidence for dimensionality. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Program outcome evaluation instruments for youths and adults were developed and tested to accompany the iCook 4-H curriculum. Program leaders, stakeholders, and administrators may monitor outcomes within and across programs and generate consistent reporting.
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 | 0.055 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".