MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208771504 · doi:10.1017/s1368980021004389

Assessing food and nutrition literacy in children and adolescents: a systematic review of existing tools

2021· review· en· W3208771504 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Carroll, Maude Perreault, David W.L., Jess Haines

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Nutrition · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistPsychologyEthnic groupLiteracyReliability (semiconductor)Protocol (science)Developmental psychologyApplied psychologyClinical psychologyMedical educationGerontologyMedicineAlternative medicinePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Food literacy (FL) and nutrition literacy (NL) are concepts that can help individuals to navigate the current food environment. Building these skills and knowledge at a young age is important for skill retention, confidence in food practices and supporting lifelong healthy eating habits. The objectives of this systematic review were to: (i) identify existing tools that measure FL and NL among children and/or adolescents and (ii) describe the psychometric properties. DESIGN: A 4-phase protocol was used to systematically retrieve articles. The search was performed in May 2021. Study characteristics and psychometric properties were extracted, and a narrative synthesis was used to summarise findings. Risk of bias was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. SETTING: Six databases were searched to identify current tools. PARTICIPANTS: Children (2-12 years) and adolescents (13-18 years) participated in this study. RESULTS: Twelve tools were identified. Three tools measured FL, 1 tool measured NL, 4 tools measured both FL and NL, and 4 tools measured subareas of NL-more specifically, critical NL, food label and menu board literacy. Most tools were self-reported, developed based on a theoretical framework and assessed some components of validity and/or reliability for a specific age and ethnic group. The majority of tools targeted older children and adolescents (9-18 years of age), and one tool targeted preschoolers (3-6 years of age). CONCLUSIONS: Most widely used definitions of FL and NL do not acknowledge life-stage specific criterion. Continued efforts are needed to develop a comprehensive definition and framework of FL and NL appropriate for children, which will help inform future assessment tools.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health NutritionSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207