A tool for assessing the satisfaction of a diet: Development and preliminary validation of the Diet Satisfaction Score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Adherence to dietary change is crucial for long-term benefit and a key element of adherence is the satisfaction of a given diet. We aimed to develop a brief questionnaire, suitable for use in clinical practice that can assess satisfaction with a diet, and to conduct preliminary evaluation of its reliability and validity. METHODS: The questionnaire was developed and drafts were sent to two expert panels for content review. The final questionnaire was assessed for internal consistency, face and construct validity, and test-retest reliability. Expert feedback was provided by nine clinicians/researchers. The tool was assessed in three phases in different international populations who were recruited using social media. It included adults who were currently following a diet (total n = 1604), and those who had recently abandoned their diet (phase 3 only). RESULTS: The Diet Satisfaction Score consisted of 10 items measuring one dimension (Cronbach's alpha = 0.85), and participants had a mean total Diet Satisfaction Score of 3.7 (SD = 0.50) from a possible range of 1 to 5. Test-retest reliability was good as indicated by an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.64 and a mean difference (95% confidence interval, CI) between repeated test scores of 0.03 (-0.02, 0.09). Each 1-point increase in Diet Satisfaction Score was associated with longer diet duration by 1.7 weeks (95% CI = 1.5, 2.0, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The Diet Satisfaction Score showed good reliability and preliminary validity and may be a useful clinical tool for assessing diet satisfaction and has the potential to predict adherence.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".