大学生食品安全模块与美国农业部成人食品安全模块的比较。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Addy Musich, Amy Wolcott, Bailey A Munger, Brooke M Green, Jessica Warrick, Cade Kartchner, Kanae Lee, Jack Varnon, Rickelle Richards, Stephanie Grutzmacher, Nathan Stokes, Jinan Banna, Kendra OoNorasak, Matthew P Rabbitt, Jennifer A Jackson
{"title":"大学生食品安全模块与美国农业部成人食品安全模块的比较。","authors":"Addy Musich, Amy Wolcott, Bailey A Munger, Brooke M Green, Jessica Warrick, Cade Kartchner, Kanae Lee, Jack Varnon, Rickelle Richards, Stephanie Grutzmacher, Nathan Stokes, Jinan Banna, Kendra OoNorasak, Matthew P Rabbitt, Jennifer A Jackson","doi":"10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.04.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The United States Department of Agriculture's 10-item adult food security survey module (AFSSM) has not been validated in college students, raising concern about measuring food insecurity (FI) in this population. The objective of this study was to adapt and validate the 10-item AFSSM for use among college students. Researchers conducted a mixed methods study including individual- (n = 20) and group- (n = 13) cognitive interviews among students at 3 United States universities. Researchers independently evaluated interview data and met to discuss whether AFSSM adaptations were warranted. A Rasch model was used to evaluate the psychometric validity of the official compared with adapted AFSSM among a sample (n = 2897) of students at 4 United States universities. In individual cognitive interviews, students were confused about the terms \"household\" and \"balanced meal\" and in differentiating between frugality and FI. Nine items were revised, and 1 item was removed. In group cognitive interviews, students discussed nonfinancial factors impacting FI and suggested wording changes. Seven items were changed. In the survey study, 35.4% were food insecure using the official AFSSM compared with 28.4% using the adapted AFSSM (P < 0.05). The adapted AFSSM captured greater severity of FI for several questions and changed the relative ordering of questions. Regardless of which wording was used, the questions on food not lasting and balanced meals captured different FI prevalence than the general population. The official and adapted AFSSM provides psychometrically valid measures of FI among college students, but adjustments may be required before making direct comparisons with FI measures for the general population.</p>","PeriodicalId":16620,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nutrition","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of an Adapted Food Security Module for College Students with the United States Department of Agriculture Adult Food Security Module.\",\"authors\":\"Addy Musich, Amy Wolcott, Bailey A Munger, Brooke M Green, Jessica Warrick, Cade Kartchner, Kanae Lee, Jack Varnon, Rickelle Richards, Stephanie Grutzmacher, Nathan Stokes, Jinan Banna, Kendra OoNorasak, Matthew P Rabbitt, Jennifer A Jackson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.04.021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The United States Department of Agriculture's 10-item adult food security survey module (AFSSM) has not been validated in college students, raising concern about measuring food insecurity (FI) in this population. The objective of this study was to adapt and validate the 10-item AFSSM for use among college students. Researchers conducted a mixed methods study including individual- (n = 20) and group- (n = 13) cognitive interviews among students at 3 United States universities. Researchers independently evaluated interview data and met to discuss whether AFSSM adaptations were warranted. A Rasch model was used to evaluate the psychometric validity of the official compared with adapted AFSSM among a sample (n = 2897) of students at 4 United States universities. In individual cognitive interviews, students were confused about the terms \\\"household\\\" and \\\"balanced meal\\\" and in differentiating between frugality and FI. Nine items were revised, and 1 item was removed. In group cognitive interviews, students discussed nonfinancial factors impacting FI and suggested wording changes. Seven items were changed. In the survey study, 35.4% were food insecure using the official AFSSM compared with 28.4% using the adapted AFSSM (P < 0.05). The adapted AFSSM captured greater severity of FI for several questions and changed the relative ordering of questions. Regardless of which wording was used, the questions on food not lasting and balanced meals captured different FI prevalence than the general population. The official and adapted AFSSM provides psychometrically valid measures of FI among college students, but adjustments may be required before making direct comparisons with FI measures for the general population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Nutrition\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Nutrition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.04.021\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.04.021","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国农业部(USDA)的10项成人食品安全调查模块(AFSSM)尚未在大学生中得到验证,这引起了人们对衡量这一人群食品不安全的关注。本研究的目的是调整和验证10项AFSSM在大学生中的应用。研究人员对美国三所大学的学生进行了一项混合方法的研究,包括个人(n=20)和群体(n=13)认知访谈。研究人员独立评估了访谈数据,并讨论了AFSSM的适应性是否合理。采用Rasch模型在美国四所大学的样本(n=2,897)中评估官方与改编的AFSSM的心理测量效度。在个人认知访谈中,学生们对“家庭”和“均衡膳食”这两个词感到困惑,在区分节俭和粮食不安全之间感到困惑。修改了9项,删除了1项。在小组认知访谈中,学生们讨论了影响粮食不安全的非财务因素,并建议修改措辞。更改了7个项目。在调查研究中,35.4%的人使用官方AFSSM,而28.4%的人使用调整后的AFSSM
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of an Adapted Food Security Module for College Students with the United States Department of Agriculture Adult Food Security Module.

The United States Department of Agriculture's 10-item adult food security survey module (AFSSM) has not been validated in college students, raising concern about measuring food insecurity (FI) in this population. The objective of this study was to adapt and validate the 10-item AFSSM for use among college students. Researchers conducted a mixed methods study including individual- (n = 20) and group- (n = 13) cognitive interviews among students at 3 United States universities. Researchers independently evaluated interview data and met to discuss whether AFSSM adaptations were warranted. A Rasch model was used to evaluate the psychometric validity of the official compared with adapted AFSSM among a sample (n = 2897) of students at 4 United States universities. In individual cognitive interviews, students were confused about the terms "household" and "balanced meal" and in differentiating between frugality and FI. Nine items were revised, and 1 item was removed. In group cognitive interviews, students discussed nonfinancial factors impacting FI and suggested wording changes. Seven items were changed. In the survey study, 35.4% were food insecure using the official AFSSM compared with 28.4% using the adapted AFSSM (P < 0.05). The adapted AFSSM captured greater severity of FI for several questions and changed the relative ordering of questions. Regardless of which wording was used, the questions on food not lasting and balanced meals captured different FI prevalence than the general population. The official and adapted AFSSM provides psychometrically valid measures of FI among college students, but adjustments may be required before making direct comparisons with FI measures for the general population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Nutrition
Journal of Nutrition 医学-营养学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
260
审稿时长
39 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Nutrition (JN/J Nutr) publishes peer-reviewed original research papers covering all aspects of experimental nutrition in humans and other animal species; special articles such as reviews and biographies of prominent nutrition scientists; and issues, opinions, and commentaries on controversial issues in nutrition. Supplements are frequently published to provide extended discussion of topics of special interest.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信