Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28735598›Full record

ReviewPublic health nutrition2017

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

Gina Louise Trakman, Adrienne Forsyth, Russell Hoye, Regina Belski

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 70 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
36.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Understanding the Motivations, Perceptions and Nutritional Implications of Plant-Based Milk Consumption Compared to Dairy-Based Milk.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026
    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

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gina Louise Trakman1Department of Rehabilitation,Nutrition and Sport,School of Allied Health,College of Science,Health and Engineering,La Trobe University,Health Sciences 3 Building - Room 411,Cnr Plenty Road and Kingsbury Drive,Bundoora,VIC 3068,Australia.
Adrienne Forsyth1Department of Rehabilitation,Nutrition and Sport,School of Allied Health,College of Science,Health and Engineering,La Trobe University,Health Sciences 3 Building - Room 411,Cnr Plenty Road and Kingsbury Drive,Bundoora,VIC 3068,Australia.
Russell Hoye2Department of Management and Marketing,Centre for Sport and Social Impact,College of Arts,Social Sciences and Commerce Education,La Trobe University,Bundoora,Australia.
Regina Belski1Department of Rehabilitation,Nutrition and Sport,School of Allied Health,College of Science,Health and Engineering,La Trobe University,Health Sciences 3 Building - Room 411,Cnr Plenty Road and Kingsbury Drive,Bundoora,VIC 3068,Australia.
La Trobe University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo outline key statistical considerations and detailed methodologies for the development and evaluation of a valid and reliable nutrition knowledge questionnaire.

designLiterature on questionnaire development in a range of fields was reviewed and a set of evidence-based guidelines specific to the creation of a nutrition knowledge questionnaire have been developed. The recommendations describe key qualitative methods and statistical considerations, and include relevant examples from previous papers and existing nutrition knowledge questionnaires. Where details have been omitted for the sake of brevity, the reader has been directed to suitable references.

resultsWe recommend an eight-step methodology for nutrition knowledge questionnaire development as follows: (i) definition of the construct and development of a test plan; (ii) generation of the item pool; (iii) choice of the scoring system and response format; (iv) assessment of content validity; (v) assessment of face validity; (vi) purification of the scale using item analysis, including item characteristics, difficulty and discrimination; (vii) evaluation of the scale including its factor structure and internal reliability, or Rasch analysis, including assessment of dimensionality and internal reliability; and (viii) gathering of data to re-examine the questionnaire's properties, assess temporal stability and confirm construct validity. Several of these methods have previously been overlooked.

conclusionsThe measurement of nutrition knowledge is an important consideration for individuals working in the nutrition field. Improved methods in the development of nutrition knowledge questionnaires, such as the use of factor analysis or Rasch analysis, will enable more confidence in reported measures of nutrition knowledge.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeDietHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesFactor analysisNutrition knowledgeQuestionnaireRasch analysis

Identifiers

PMID28735598
PMCPMC10261290
OpenAlexW2737989050

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.