Development of the 10-question household foodwork interactional assessment questionnaire (FIA-Q10)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public health nutrition recommendations and clinical dietary interventions emphasize eating healthy food at home, implicitly requiring household foodwork. Household foodwork is defined as the physical and mental tasks a household does for eating meals and snacks. Because no tools exist to measure it, how much time people spend doing household foodwork and the foodwork barriers they experience remain unknown. The objective of the present research was to develop the first stand-alone household foodwork assessment tool. METHODS: Through informal interviews with partners with lived experience, clinicians, and researchers, a literature review, a stakeholder meeting of advisors, and a two-round electronic Delphi process including face/content validation by expert panelists (n = 21), we developed the 10-question household foodwork interactional assessment questionnaire (FIA-Q10). An optional accompanying module was developed to collect self-identified demographic data to provide context for understanding how social-structural positionality factors may interact to influence foodwork. RESULTS: The FIA-Q10 assesses the domains of household composition, frequency of eating at home, special diets within a household, foodwork stress intensity, foodwork barriers, desired supports related to foodwork, and time use for foodwork. The FIA-Q10 measures time use for four subdomains of foodwork among individuals and their households: (1) planning, (2) getting, (3) preparing/cooking, and (4) cleaning up food. In the second Delphi round, the FIA-Q10 scored 95% for language appropriateness, 67% for visual appropriateness, 95% for relevance, 95% for representativeness, and 95% for distribution. Suggested improvements were implemented. All Delphi panelists (100%) reported they would consider using the FIA-Q10. CONCLUSIONS: The FIA-Q10's development is the first step towards a standardized assessment of foodwork, enabling examination of challenges in foodwork that may impact nutrition and nutrition equity. Future research will focus on FIA-Q10 validation in multiple populations.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".