ArticleBMC nutrition2023
Validation and reliability for the updated REAP-S dietary screener, (Rapid Eating Assessment of Participants, Short Version, v.2).
Article in BMC nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in Peak Aerobic Capacity During an 8-Month Period in First-Year Medical Students: A Prospective Pilot Cohort Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Exploring cardiometabolic markers in adverse pregnancy outcomes: insights from the GROWell study.Research square · 2026Article
- REFRESH-daily: a short 10-item questionnaire for evaluating behavior change towards healthier and more environmentally sustainable diets.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026Article
- Observational
- Looking Beyond Nutrients, How to Assess Diet Quality in an Inflammatory Bowel Disease Population-A Narrative Review.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Article
- Associations between dietary habits, socio-demographics and gut microbial composition in adolescents.The British journal of nutrition · 2024Article
- The 5 A's Approach to Promoting Nutrition Counseling in Primary Care.Journal of primary care & community healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe American Heart Association (AHA) chose the REAP-S dietary screener in 2020 as one of three US dietary screeners recommended for integrating dietary assessment into clinical care. The REAP-S v.2 is an updated version that is aligned with the 2020-2025 US Dietary Guidelines and is easily incorporated into electronic medical records and taught to medical students.
methodsThe University of New England, Institutional Review Board, approved the study protocol. We evaluated the reliability and validity of the REAP-S v.2 scale by having first-year medical students (n = 167) complete both the REAP-S v.2 and a three-day food record and then analyzing their data with the following statistical techniques: Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was assessed with exploratory factor analysis. Criterion validity was evaluated using analysis of variance (ANOVA) that explored the associations between REAP-S v.2 scale item responses and selected nutrient estimates from the food record analyses. The hierarchical cluster analysis classified healthy and unhealthy diet grouping under each subscale. Further using these groupings, cut points for "good" and "bad" diets for each of the three main REAP-S v.2 subscales (Food Sufficiency/Food Insufficiency; Healthy Eating Pattern and Low Nutrient Density Foods) were calculated using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. Students analyzed their three-day food intake records using an online USDA application called SuperTracker.
resultsThe Cronbach's alpha measuring internal consistency was acceptable for the overall scale at 0.71. The exploratory factor analysis extracted three factors that roughly paralleled the three main subscales, suggesting construct validity. Most selected food record-derived nutrient values were significantly associated with scale items confirming criterion validity. The score cut points suggest that dietary counseling might be needed at ≤ 8, ≤ 10, and ≤ 16 for the above subscales.
conclusionThe REAP-S v.2 is intended for clinicians to use as a brief dietary screener with their patients. Tested in a population of first-year medical students, the REAP-S v.2 brief dietary screener showed acceptable internal consistency, criterion, and construct validity. It is easily scored and incorporated into the electronic medical record.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.