ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Development and validation of a nutrition assessment questionnaire based on the social and behavior change model for adolescents in Ethiopia.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A reliable assessment of behavior change requires the use of a validated tool based on an appropriate behavior change model. Research on tools for assessing nutrition behavior change is limited. Objective: This study aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire for assessing plant-protein food consumption behaviors based on Pender's behavior change model, specifically for adolescent girls in Ethiopia. Methods: A collection of items was generated by examining relevant behavior change theories and manuals, dietary guidelines, and literature focused on pulses' food function, processing, and preparation. The items were examined for content and face validity. Exploratory factor analysis was performed after verifying its assumptions, such as the factorability of the instrument using Bartlett's test of sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy. Eigenvalue and scree plot were used to determine the number of factors. Factor loadings and communalities were employed for item retention. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to assess the reliability at the scale and dimension levels. Results: Of the 53 items analyzed, 29 items and 6 factors were retained. The overall scale-level reliability was measured at 0.7210, while the factor-level reliabilities were as follows: 0.69 for factor 1 (i48, i49, i50, i52, i53, i31, and i32), 0.67 for factor 2 (i7, i8, i9, i10, i12, i13, and i14), 0.63 for factor 3 (i23, i24, i25, i26, fi27, and i28), 0.31 for factor 4 (i4, i5, i40), 0.59 for factor 5 (i35, i36, and i37), and 0.58 for factor 6 (i18, i19, and i20). Conclusion: The tool has an acceptable scale-level reliability. The factors are theoretically meaningful and align with the recommendations. The tool can serve as a foundation for developing tools in related fields. However, it requires further refinement before it can be used as a standard tool.
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.