Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28025953›Full record

ArticlePublic health nutrition2017

Development and validation of a nutrition knowledge questionnaire for a Canadian population.

Maude Bradette-Laplante, Élise Carbonneau, Véronique Provencher, Catherine Bégin, Julie Robitaille, Sophie Desroches, Marie-Claude Vohl, Louise Corneau, Simone Lemieux

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Public health nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Maude Bradette-Laplante1Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods,Laval University,2440 boulevard Hochelaga,Québec,QC,Canada,G1V 0A6.
Élise Carbonneau1Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods,Laval University,2440 boulevard Hochelaga,Québec,QC,Canada,G1V 0A6.
Véronique Provencher1Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods,Laval University,2440 boulevard Hochelaga,Québec,QC,Canada,G1V 0A6.
Catherine Bégin1Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods,Laval University,2440 boulevard Hochelaga,Québec,QC,Canada,G1V 0A6.
Julie Robitaille1Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods,Laval University,2440 boulevard Hochelaga,Québec,QC,Canada,G1V 0A6.
Sophie Desroches1Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods,Laval University,2440 boulevard Hochelaga,Québec,QC,Canada,G1V 0A6.
Marie-Claude Vohl1Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods,Laval University,2440 boulevard Hochelaga,Québec,QC,Canada,G1V 0A6.
Louise Corneau1Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods,Laval University,2440 boulevard Hochelaga,Québec,QC,Canada,G1V 0A6.
Simone Lemieux1Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods,Laval University,2440 boulevard Hochelaga,Québec,QC,Canada,G1V 0A6.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe present study aimed to develop and validate a nutrition knowledge questionnaire in a sample of French Canadians from the province of Quebec, taking into account dietary guidelines.

designA thirty-eight-item questionnaire was developed by the research team and evaluated for content validity by an expert panel, and then administered to respondents. Face validity and construct validity were measured in a pre-test. Exploratory factor analysis and covariance structure analysis were performed to verify the structure of the questionnaire and identify problematic items. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were evaluated through a validation study.

settingOnline survey. SUBJECTS: Six nutrition and psychology experts, fifteen registered dietitians (RD) and 180 lay people participated.

resultsContent validity evaluation resulted in the removal of two items and reformulation of one item. Following face validity, one item was reformulated. Construct validity was found to be adequate, with higher scores for RD v. non-RD (21·5 (sd 2·1) v. 15·7 (sd 3·0) out of 24, P<0·001). Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the questionnaire contained only one factor. Covariance structure analysis led to removal of sixteen items. Internal consistency for the overall questionnaire was adequate (Cronbach's α=0·73). Assessment of test-retest reliability resulted in significant associations for the total knowledge score (r=0·59, P<0·001).

conclusionsThis nutrition knowledge questionnaire was found to be a suitable instrument which can be used to measure levels of nutrition knowledge in a Canadian population. It could also serve as a model for the development of similar instruments in other populations.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultAgedBody Mass IndexFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNutritionistsNutrition PolicyQuebecReproducibility of ResultsSocioeconomic FactorsYoung AdultCanada’s Food GuideDietary recommendationsHealthy eatingNutrition knowledgeQuestionnaire validation

Identifiers

PMID28025953
PMCPMC10261344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.