Development, Validity, and Cross-Context Equivalence of the Child Food Insecurity Experiences Scale for Assessing Food Insecurity of School-Age Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children ages 6 to 17 years can accurately assess their own food insecurity, whereas parents are inaccurate reporters of their children's experiences of food insecurity. No globally applicable scale to assess the food insecurity of children has been developed and validated. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop a globally applicable, experience-based measure of child and adolescent food insecurity and establish the validity and cross-contextual equivalence of the measure. METHODS: The 10-item Child Food Insecurity Experiences Scale (CFIES) was based on items previously validated from questionnaires from the United States, Venezuela, and Lebanon. Cognitive interviews were conducted to check understanding of the items. The questionnaire then was administered in 15 surveys in 13 countries. Other items in each survey that assessed the household socioeconomic status, household food security, or child psychological functioning were selected as criterion variables to compare to the scores from the CFIES. To investigate accuracy (i.e., criterion validity), linear regression estimated the associations of the CFIES scores with the criterion variables. To investigate the cross-contextual equivalence (i.e., measurement invariance), the alignment method was used based on classical measurement theory. RESULTS: Across the 15 surveys, the mean scale scores for the CFIES ranged from 1.65 to 5.86 (possible range of 0 to 20) and the Cronbach alpha ranged from 0.88 to 0.94. The variance explained by a 1-factor model ranged from 0.92 to 0.99. Accuracy was demonstrated by expected associations with criterion variables. The percentages of equivalent thresholds and loadings across the 15 surveys were 28.0 and 5.33, respectively, for a total percentage of nonequivalent thresholds and loadings of 16.7, well below the guideline of <25%. That is, 83.3% of thresholds and loadings were equivalent across these surveys. CONCLUSIONS: The CFIES provides a globally applicable, valid, and cross-contextually equivalent measure of the experiences of food insecurity of school-aged children and adolescents, as reported by them.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".