1998
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-277x.1998.00077.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reliability and validity of a nutrition screening tool to be used with clients with learning difficulties

Abstract: Background: People with learning difficulties are nutritionally vulnerable for many reasons. There is a need for a nutrition screening tool (NST) to enable carers to identify those at nutritional risk. However, a validated NST for clients with learning difficulties does not exist. Aim: To assess the reliability and validity of a NST being used in a long-stay hospital in North Staffordshire for people with learning difficulties. The NST investigates three areas of risk: nutritional adequacy (food groups), weigh… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0
1

Year Published

2000
2000
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
17
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Five studies (Bryan et al, 1998;Hunt et al, 1985;Henderson et al, 1992;Kovacevich et al, 1997;Clark et al, 1998) defined nutritional risk according to whether certain answers were given or criteria met, but Clark et al (1998) did not publish these. Five studies (Bryan et al, 1998;Hunt et al, 1985;Henderson et al, 1992;Kovacevich et al, 1997;Clark et al, 1998) defined nutritional risk according to whether certain answers were given or criteria met, but Clark et al (1998) did not publish these.…”
Section: Derivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Five studies (Bryan et al, 1998;Hunt et al, 1985;Henderson et al, 1992;Kovacevich et al, 1997;Clark et al, 1998) defined nutritional risk according to whether certain answers were given or criteria met, but Clark et al (1998) did not publish these. Five studies (Bryan et al, 1998;Hunt et al, 1985;Henderson et al, 1992;Kovacevich et al, 1997;Clark et al, 1998) defined nutritional risk according to whether certain answers were given or criteria met, but Clark et al (1998) did not publish these.…”
Section: Derivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kovacevich et al (1997) calculated the number of subjects, Bryan et al (1998) considered both the number of subjects and raters, and Lowery et al (1998), having determined the number of subjects by time restraints, computed the number of raters. Kovacevich et al (1997) calculated the number of subjects, Bryan et al (1998) considered both the number of subjects and raters, and Lowery et al (1998), having determined the number of subjects by time restraints, computed the number of raters.…”
Section: Reliabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Predictive validity differentiates between the performance of individuals on some future criterion, yet concurrent validity assesses the degree of correlation of two measures measured at the same time (LoBiondo-Wood and Haber, 1998). In studies that have attempted to assess the concurrent validity of instruments, scores obtained on the scale under investigation are compared to the clinical judgement of health professionals (Prendergast et al, 1989;Nikolaus et al, 1995;Reilly et al, 1995;Guigoz et al, 1996;Bryan et al, 1998;Frank et al, 1999). This can then be statistically analyzed for comparison to the scores obtained on the instrument (Salvadalena et al, 1992).…”
Section: Concurrent Validitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A análise do estado nutricional pode ser realizada com a utilização de vários parâmetros, de forma isolada ou associada. Dessa forma, fica claro, que o propósito dessa triagem é identificar sujeitos em risco, enquanto a avaliação do estado nutricional permite, além do diagnós-tico classificar o grau de desnutrição, servindo como fonte de informações para correções e intervenções de saúde (NAJAS; NEBULONI, 2005;BRYAN;JONES;RUSSEL, 1998).…”
Section: Introductionunclassified