Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31604466›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

College students' interpretations of food security questions: results from cognitive interviews.

Cassandra J Nikolaus, Brenna Ellison, Sharon M Nickols-Richardson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cassandra J NikolausInstitute for Research and Education to Advance Community Health, Washington State University, 1100 Olive Way, Suite 1200, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA. cassandra.nikolaus@wsu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2039-6295
Brenna EllisonDepartment of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1301 W. Gregory Dr, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Sharon M Nickols-RichardsonUniversity of Illinois Extension & Outreach, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1301 W. Gregory Dr, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USWashington State Department of Health · US

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ILLU-470-334
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFood insecurity (FI) - the lack of sufficient access to food to maintain a healthy lifestyle - among college (i.e. post-secondary or higher education institution) students has become a prominent issue in the U.S. However, it is not clear if high rates of FI among students are due to the modern experience in higher education institutions or due to underlying issues in common surveying methods. To understand if there were underlying content validity issues, the present study had two primary research questions: 1) How do students interpret the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Security Survey Module (FSSM) questionnaire items, and 2) How do responses of students experiencing FI compare with the theorized experiences and coping responses?

methodsThirty-three undergraduate students, aged 18- to 24-years old and fluent in English were recruited from a single 4-year university. During a 60-min session, participants completed the 10-item Adult FSSM and then were cognitively interviewed about their responses using the think-aloud method. Interview transcripts were analysed by two researchers using a collaborative process and basic interpretative approach.

resultsStudents were on average 19.5 years old (± 1.2 years), the majority were in their freshman or sophomore (i.e., first or second) year, and 67% (n = 22) experienced FI. Results indicated that students' interpretations of key terms - such as "money for more," "balanced meals," and "real hunger" - diverge from expectations. Furthermore, students categorized as food insecure reported experiences and responses to FI that varied from theoretical dimensions of the process.

conclusionsThough limited by sample size and representativeness, the present results indicate that the content validity of the FSSM may be compromised in this population and the managed process of FI may present differently among college students. Further psychometric research on modifications to the FSSM or with new FI assessment tools should be conducted with college students.

Indexed as

Food SupplyAdolescentFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative ResearchStudentsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesUniversitiesYoung AdultCognitive interviewsFood insecurityQualitative researchUniversity students

Identifiers

PMID31604466
PMCPMC6788030
OpenAlexW2979636713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.