Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32383425›Full record

ArticlePublic health nutrition2021

Validation of a revised General Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire for Australia.

Courtney Thompson, Helen Anna Vidgen, Danielle Gallegos, Mary Hannan-Jones

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Impact and evaluation of an online culinary nutrition course for health, education and industry professionals to promote vegetable knowledge and consumption.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Cook-EdNutrients · 2020
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Courtney ThompsonQueensland University of Technology (QUT), Faculty of Health, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Kelvin Grove, Qld4059, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9515-5985
Helen Anna VidgenQueensland University of Technology (QUT), Faculty of Health, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Kelvin Grove, Qld4059, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8332-2512
Danielle GallegosQueensland University of Technology (QUT), Faculty of Health, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Kelvin Grove, Qld4059, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5901-1909
Mary Hannan-JonesQueensland University of Technology (QUT), Faculty of Health, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Kelvin Grove, Qld4059, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4309-8752
Queensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to validate a nutrition knowledge questionnaire appropriate for use in Australia.

designNutrition knowledge is essential in establishing and maintaining strategies that reduce the burden of disease and promote wellbeing. The General Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire (GNKQ) was developed in the United Kingdom in 1999 and validated for Australia in 2008. Changes in national nutrition recommendations and food availability prompted the redevelopment and revalidation of the UK questionnaire in 2016. However, the Australian questionnaire had not been subsequently updated.

settingAustralia.

participantsContent validity was determined using a sample of academic dietitians in Australia (n 8). Face validity was undertaken with retail employees (n 11) whose highest level of education was secondary school. Ninety-three undergraduate nutrition and engineering students at Queensland University of Technology completed the questionnaire for construct validity, and nineteen students were contacted a week later for test-retest reliability.

resultsIn the 117-scored questionnaire, nutrition students scored consistently higher in each of the four sections and overall (87 %, M 102, IQR 95, 107) compared with engineering students (77 %, M 82, IQR 76, 87·25, P < 0·01). Internal reliability of the questionnaire was high (α = 0·92) as was test-retest reliability (rs = 0·96, ICC2,1 = 0·99). AUS-R NKQ determined significant differences between individuals with known higher levels of nutrition knowledge and obtained high validity, reliability and consistency within an Australian sample.

conclusionsAUS-R NKQ refined through this research is valid and would be an appropriate questionnaire for assessing the effectiveness of nutrition knowledge-based interventions for public health programmes, clinicians and researchers.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeStudentsAustraliaHumansReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesKnowledgeNutritionQuestionnaireSurveyValidation

Identifiers

PMID32383425
PMCPMC10200366
OpenAlexW2995211775

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.