Adaptation and validation of a questionnaire for assessing practices toward salt and sodium in Brazilian adolescents and young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective This study aimed to adapt and validate an online instrument assessing Brazilian adolescents' and young adults’ practices regarding salt and sodium. Methods Based on a developed questionnaire for adults, nine experts evaluated new items, generating item and scale-level content validity indexes, with acceptable cut-off point of 0.8. Face validity (n=20) and reliability analysis (kappa) (n=30) were assessed. Items were excluded if kappa <0.5. Exploratory factor analysis was used to determine the construct validity. Items with factor loadings <|0.3| were considered non-significant and excluded. Cronbach’s α was calculated to assess internal structure, using data collected from a convenience sample (n=345). Coefficient values ≥0.7 were considered satisfactory. Generated solutions were analyzed from theoretical and statistical significance perspectives to achieve the best model. Results Item-level content validity index (0.78-1), scale-level content validity index (0.96-0.99) and kappa values (97% of items with kappa >0.5) demonstrated that items are adequate for application. The final model in the exploratory factor analysis sufficiently explained data variance with good internal structure (Cronbach’s α=0.79; 95% CI 0.75-0.82). The valid questionnaire has two dimensions - one related to behavioral practices (8 items), and another to dietary markers (13 items). Conclusion This instrument is ready to be applied and easily reproduced, contributing to assessing practices toward salt and sodium in Brazilian youngsters.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".