Development, validation and item reduction of a food literacy questionnaire (IFLQ-19) with Australian adults.

IF 5.5
Courtney Thompson, Rebecca Byrne, Jean Adams, Helen Anna Vidgen
{"title":"Development, validation and item reduction of a food literacy questionnaire (IFLQ-19) with Australian adults.","authors":"Courtney Thompson,&nbsp;Rebecca Byrne,&nbsp;Jean Adams,&nbsp;Helen Anna Vidgen","doi":"10.1186/s12966-022-01351-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Food literacy is theorised to improve diet quality, nutrition behaviours, social connectedness and food security. The definition and conceptualisation by Vidgen & Gallegos, consisting of 11 theoretical components within the four domains of planning and managing, selecting, preparing and eating, is currently the most highly cited framework. However, a valid and reliable questionnaire is needed to comprehensively measure this conceptualisation. Therefore, this study draws on existing item pools to develop a comprehensive food literacy questionnaire using item response theory.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five hundred Australian adults were recruited in Study 1 to refine a food literacy item pool using principal component analysis (PCA) and item response theory (IRT) which involved detailed item analysis on targeting, responsiveness, validity and reliability. Another 500 participants were recruited in Study 2 to replicate item analysis on validity and reliability on the refined item pool, and 250 of these participants re-completed the food literacy questionnaire to determine its test-retest reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PCA saw the 171-item pool reduced to 100-items across 19 statistical components of food literacy. After the thresholds of 26 items were combined, responses to the food literacy questionnaire had ordered thresholds (targeting), acceptable item locations (< -0.01 to + 1.53) and appropriateness of the measurement model (n = 92% expected responses) (responsiveness), met outfit mean-squares MSQ (0.48-1.42) (validity) and had high person, item separation (> 0.99) and test-retest (ICC 2,1 0.55-0.88) scores (reliability).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We developed a 100-item food literacy questionnaire, the IFLQ-19 to comprehensively address the Vidgen & Gallegos theoretical domains and components with good targeting, responsiveness, reliability and validity in a diverse sample of Australian adults.</p>","PeriodicalId":520799,"journal":{"name":"The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity","volume":" ","pages":"113"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9438317/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-022-01351-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Food literacy is theorised to improve diet quality, nutrition behaviours, social connectedness and food security. The definition and conceptualisation by Vidgen & Gallegos, consisting of 11 theoretical components within the four domains of planning and managing, selecting, preparing and eating, is currently the most highly cited framework. However, a valid and reliable questionnaire is needed to comprehensively measure this conceptualisation. Therefore, this study draws on existing item pools to develop a comprehensive food literacy questionnaire using item response theory.

Methods: Five hundred Australian adults were recruited in Study 1 to refine a food literacy item pool using principal component analysis (PCA) and item response theory (IRT) which involved detailed item analysis on targeting, responsiveness, validity and reliability. Another 500 participants were recruited in Study 2 to replicate item analysis on validity and reliability on the refined item pool, and 250 of these participants re-completed the food literacy questionnaire to determine its test-retest reliability.

Results: The PCA saw the 171-item pool reduced to 100-items across 19 statistical components of food literacy. After the thresholds of 26 items were combined, responses to the food literacy questionnaire had ordered thresholds (targeting), acceptable item locations (< -0.01 to + 1.53) and appropriateness of the measurement model (n = 92% expected responses) (responsiveness), met outfit mean-squares MSQ (0.48-1.42) (validity) and had high person, item separation (> 0.99) and test-retest (ICC 2,1 0.55-0.88) scores (reliability).

Conclusions: We developed a 100-item food literacy questionnaire, the IFLQ-19 to comprehensively address the Vidgen & Gallegos theoretical domains and components with good targeting, responsiveness, reliability and validity in a diverse sample of Australian adults.

Abstract Image

澳大利亚成年人食品素养问卷(IFLQ-19)的开发、验证和项目减少。
背景:从理论上讲,食物素养是为了改善饮食质量、营养行为、社会联系和粮食安全。Vidgen和Gallegos的定义和概念化,包括计划和管理,选择,准备和饮食四个领域的11个理论组成部分,是目前引用最多的框架。然而,需要一个有效和可靠的问卷来全面衡量这种概念化。因此,本研究利用已有的题库,运用项目反应理论,编制了一份综合性的食品素养问卷。方法:在研究1中招募500名澳大利亚成年人,采用主成分分析(PCA)和项目反应理论(IRT)对食品素养项目池进行细化,对目标性、反应性、效度和信度进行详细的项目分析。研究2再招募500名被试对改进后的题库进行效度和信度重复分析,其中250名被试重新填写食品素养问卷以确定其重测信度。结果:PCA看到171个项目池减少到100个项目跨越19个统计成分的食品素养。将26个项目的阈值组合后,食品素养问卷的回答具有有序阈值(目标)、可接受的项目位置(0.99)和重测分数(ICC 2,1 0.55-0.88)(信度)。结论:我们开发了一份100项的食品素养问卷,IFLQ-19,以全面解决Vidgen和Gallegos的理论领域和成分,在澳大利亚成年人的不同样本中具有良好的针对性,响应性,可靠性和效度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信