Developing and Assessing the Validity and Reliability of an Iranian Food Security Questionnaire.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Food insecurity has a considerable impact on the social, physical, and psychological well-being of people and there is no food security assessment tool specific for Iranians. This study aimed to develop and assess the validity and reliability of an Iranian-specific food security questionnaire. METHODS: The food security questionnaire was developed by five food security specialists by evaluating all available questionnaires (not specific to Iranians) in terms of applicability to Iranians. Furthermore, questions were developed from interviews conducted with ten families who were below the poverty threshold to understand how they described their food status. This questionnaire was administered to 200 households from different parts of Isfahan, Iran. Households were selected by multi-stage cluster randomized sampling. Households were categorized into 4 groups based on their score on the questionnaire; food secure (total score 0), mildly (total score 1-2), moderately (total score 3-7) and severely food insecure (total score 8-18). In the second stage of the study, 25 households were selected from each food security status group to evaluate the reliability and validity of the questionnaire by assessing sociodemographic, anthropometric, nutritional and biochemical parameters. RESULTS: The prevalence of food security and mildly, moderately and severely food insecure were 24%, 33%, 27% and 16%, respectively. Content and face validity of the questionnaire was evaluated by experts, and latent class analysis confirmed construct validity. The developed questionnaire had good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.91) and showed significant differences in hypothesized directions in food security status for sociodemographic factors. The prevalence of mothers, but not fathers or children, who had hemoglobin, mean corpuscular volume (MCV) and hematocrit less than the normal ranges increased (P = 0.04, P = 0.02, P = 0.02; respectively) with food insecurity. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicated that the developed questionnaire was a valid and reliable instrument to measure household food insecurity of Iranian families.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".