Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the NutriSTEP Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Nutrition Screening Tool for Every Preschooler (NutriSTEP) questionnaire in Turkish, a measurement tool originating from Canada that is designed to assess the nutrition risk of preschool children.Materials and Methods: An online cross-cultural validation study was conducted with 196 parents of children aged 3-5 years in Istanbul, Türkiye. The NutriSTEP questionnaire is comprised of 17 items covering four categories and underwent translation into Turkish and subsequent evaluation for language, content, and face validity. Data collection occurred online, with statistical analyses being performed to gauge the reliability and validity of the tool.Results: A total of 196 parents participated in the study who yielded a mean NutriSTEP score of 27.30 ± 6.64, indicating a notable prevalence of medium to high nutrition risk among preschoolers. The content validity index was assessed at 0.99, underscoring the robustness of the tool’s content validity. The item-scale correlation analysis revealed a significant and consistent correlation between each item and the total score, affirming the coherence of the items within the NutriSTEP scale. Further scrutiny through item analysis unveiled predominantly positive correlations between most items and the total score, further bolstering the tool’s efficacy at gauging nutrition risk. A criterion-related validity analysis highlighted significant associations between NutriSTEP scores and various factors, illuminating the tool’s predictive capacity concerning nutrition risk. Moreover, the test-retest analysis demonstrated a robust correlation between the initial and repeated administrations of NutriSTEP (p < 0.01), reaffirming its reliability over time.Conclusion: In conclusion, the Turkish adaptation of NutriSTEP demonstrates strong validity and reliability for assessing nutrition risk among preschool children, making it a suitable tool for use in Türkiye. Its user-friendly nature that allows parents to complete the assessment swiftly in approximately 10 minutes provides valuable insights into various aspects of children’s nutritional status.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".