Development and Validation of a Brief Instrument to Measure Knowledge About the Energy Content of Meals

Mötteli, Sonja; Barbey, Jana; Keller, Carmen; Bucher, Tamara; Siegrist, Michael

doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2016.12.002

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the lay participant sample was not representative of the general Australian population and potentially, due to self-selection bias, people who participated in the study had a greater interest in nutrition. Despite this, there was a significant difference in applied nutrition knowledge between the expert and lay participants and the mean values were comparable to mean values obtained from a representative sample in previous studies [ 33 , 34 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…They were also instructed that they could use the “forward” and “back” buttons in the survey to change their ratings until they had completed their evaluation of all the food portions. After the snack rating, participants’ practical nutrition knowledge about balanced eating (PKB-7) [ 33 ] and the energy content of meals (PKEM-11) [ 34 ] as well as information about their professional education were assessed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Is Nutritious Snack Food? A Comparison of Expert and Layperson Assessments

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term “nutritious” is being increasingly used by product manufacturers but the term is not currently regulated as a nutrition claim. It is unclear how lay consumers and experts define and interpret the term or how they evaluate the “nutritiousness” of various foods. To address this evidence gap, a mixed methods design was applied and both nutrition experts (n = 206) and lay participants (n = 269) provided definitions of the term “nutritious” and evaluated the “nutritiousness” of 20 different snack foods in a cross-sectional survey. Definitions were analysed using Leximancer and snack evaluations were compared both between groups and with nutrient profile scores (UK Ofcom and Australian Health Star Rating). Expert and lay definitions differed considerably, with experts using terms such as nutrient-density, macro- and micronutrients, kilojoules/Calories, while lay consumers used descriptions such as fuel, fresh, natural, body needs, and functioning. Snack evaluations were highly correlated between groups (Rs > 0.89, p < 0.001) and between nutrient profile scores (Rs > 0.75, p < 0.001). However, mean perceptions significantly differed for 18 out of 20 foods with the largest difference for yoghurts (p < 0.05). There are discrepancies between expert and lay perceptions of snack foods and the definition of the term “nutritious”. The results highlight the need for an agreed definition and the potential regulation of the term “nutritious” in food marketing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Is Nutritious Snack Food? A Comparison of Expert and Layperson Assessments

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rasch analysis has been used to validate a scale on clinical nutrition literacy (76) . Likewise, Motteli et al (20) used Rasch analysis to develop scales on practical knowledge of balanced meals (20) and the energy content of meals (18) . The authors noted that in their studies, the ability of Rasch scaling to separately estimate item difficulty and person ability, and to develop brief tools, offered a major advantage over CTT.…”

Section: Internal Reliability In Classical Test Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing and validating a nutrition knowledge questionnaire: key methods and considerations

Trakman¹,

Forsyth²,

Hoye³

et al. 2017

Public Health Nutr.

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Rasch model presumes individuals with higher levels of knowledge are more likely to obtain a high NK score and that easy items are more likely to be answered correctly by all respondents [ 20 ]. This is advantageous because it means the focus of validation is on the questionnaire as a whole, rather than on individual items [ 21 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of a brief general and sports nutrition knowledge questionnaire and assessment of athletes’ nutrition knowledge

Trakman

Forsyth

Hoye

et al. 2018

Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Nutrition for Sport Knowledge Questionnaire (NSKQ) is an 89-item, valid and reliable measure of sports nutrition knowledge (SNK). It takes 25 min to complete and has been subject to low completion and response rates. The aim of this study was to develop an abridged version of the NSKQ (A-NSKQ) and compare response rates, completion rates and NK scores of the NSKQ and A-NSKQ.MethodsRasch analysis was used for the questionnaire validation. The sample (n = 181) was the same sample that was used in the validation of the full-length NSKQ. Construct validity was assessed using the known-group comparisons method. Temporal stability was assessed using the test-retest reliability method. NK assessment was cross-sectional; responses were collected electronically from members of one non-elite Australian football (AF) and netball club, using Qualtrics Software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT).ResultsValidation - The A-NSKQ has 37 items that assess general (n = 17) and sports (n = 20) nutrition knowledge (NK). Both sections are unidimensional (Perc5% = 2.84% [general] and 3.41% [sport]). Both sections fit the Rasch Model (overall-interaction statistic mean (SD) = − 0.15 ± 0.96 [general] and 0.22 ± 1.11 [sport]; overall-person interaction statistic mean (SD) = − 0.11 ± 0.61 [general] and 0.08 ± 0.73 [sport]; Chi-Square probability = 0.308 [general] and 0.283 [sport]). Test-retest reliability was confirmed (r = 0.8, P < 0.001 [general] and r = 0.7, P < 0.001 [sport]). Construct validity was demonstrated (nutrition students = 77% versus non-nutrition students = 60%, P < 0.001 [general] and nutrition students = 60% versus non-nutrition students = 40%, P < 0.001 [sport]. Assessment of NK - 177 usable survey responses from were returned. Response rates were low (7%) but completion rates were high (85%). NK scores on the A-NSKQ (46%) are comparable to results obtained in similar cohorts on the NSKQ (49%). The A-NSKQ took on average 12 min to complete, which is around half the time taken to complete the NSKQ (25 min).ConclusionsThe A-NSKQ is a valid and reliable, brief questionnaire designed to assess general NK (GNK) and SNK.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12970-018-0223-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Development and Validation of a Brief Instrument to Measure Knowledge About the Energy Content of Meals

Abstract: Results showed that the scale is efficient, valid, and reliable for use in the general population in Switzerland.

Cited by 8 publications

References 27 publications

What Is Nutritious Snack Food? A Comparison of Expert and Layperson Assessments

What Is Nutritious Snack Food? A Comparison of Expert and Layperson Assessments

Developing and validating a nutrition knowledge questionnaire: key methods and considerations

Development and validation of a brief general and sports nutrition knowledge questionnaire and assessment of athletes’ nutrition knowledge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About