反应转移偏差:用自我报告方法评估营养训练中的一个问题

Frederick R. Rohs , Christine A. Langone , Rhonda K. Coleman
{"title":"反应转移偏差:用自我报告方法评估营养训练中的一个问题","authors":"Frederick R. Rohs ,&nbsp;Christine A. Langone ,&nbsp;Rhonda K. Coleman","doi":"10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60187-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The Cooperative Extension Service has been a key partner in the design, implementation, and evaluation of school nutrition training. To evaluate the effectiveness of their training and the effects of response shift bias on outcomes using a self-report measure, 162 foodservice staff from eight rural schools participated in this food-handling behavior study. Nutrition staff were assigned to one of two treatment groups or to the control group. Two different evaluation designs (pre-test/post-test and then/post) were used. The then/post design asks participants to first report their behavior or understanding as a result of the training (post) and then to retrospectively report this behavior before the training. The then/post evaluation design provided more significant change data than did the traditional pretest/post-test design, indicating that a response shift occurred. Such differences in evaluation findings suggest that the educational benefit of such trainings may be underestimated when using the traditional pre/post evaluation design.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":81679,"journal":{"name":"Journal of nutrition education","volume":"33 3","pages":"Pages 165-170"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60187-5","citationCount":"53","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response Shift Bias: A Problem in Evaluating Nutrition Training Using Self-Report Measures\",\"authors\":\"Frederick R. Rohs ,&nbsp;Christine A. Langone ,&nbsp;Rhonda K. Coleman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60187-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The Cooperative Extension Service has been a key partner in the design, implementation, and evaluation of school nutrition training. To evaluate the effectiveness of their training and the effects of response shift bias on outcomes using a self-report measure, 162 foodservice staff from eight rural schools participated in this food-handling behavior study. Nutrition staff were assigned to one of two treatment groups or to the control group. Two different evaluation designs (pre-test/post-test and then/post) were used. The then/post design asks participants to first report their behavior or understanding as a result of the training (post) and then to retrospectively report this behavior before the training. The then/post evaluation design provided more significant change data than did the traditional pretest/post-test design, indicating that a response shift occurred. Such differences in evaluation findings suggest that the educational benefit of such trainings may be underestimated when using the traditional pre/post evaluation design.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":81679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of nutrition education\",\"volume\":\"33 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 165-170\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60187-5\",\"citationCount\":\"53\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of nutrition education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1499404606601875\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of nutrition education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1499404606601875","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 53

摘要

合作推广服务处一直是设计、实施和评估学校营养培训的关键合作伙伴。为了评估其培训的有效性和反应转移偏差对结果的影响,采用自我报告的方法,来自8所农村学校的162名餐饮服务人员参加了这项食品处理行为研究。营养工作人员被分配到两个治疗组或对照组。采用了两种不同的评价设计(前测/后测和后测/后测)。之后/之后的设计要求参与者首先报告他们在培训后的行为或理解,然后在培训前回顾性地报告这些行为。与传统的测试前/测试后设计相比,测试前/测试后设计提供了更显著的变化数据,表明发生了反应转移。评价结果的这种差异表明,在使用传统的前后评价设计时,这种培训的教育效益可能被低估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Response Shift Bias: A Problem in Evaluating Nutrition Training Using Self-Report Measures

The Cooperative Extension Service has been a key partner in the design, implementation, and evaluation of school nutrition training. To evaluate the effectiveness of their training and the effects of response shift bias on outcomes using a self-report measure, 162 foodservice staff from eight rural schools participated in this food-handling behavior study. Nutrition staff were assigned to one of two treatment groups or to the control group. Two different evaluation designs (pre-test/post-test and then/post) were used. The then/post design asks participants to first report their behavior or understanding as a result of the training (post) and then to retrospectively report this behavior before the training. The then/post evaluation design provided more significant change data than did the traditional pretest/post-test design, indicating that a response shift occurred. Such differences in evaluation findings suggest that the educational benefit of such trainings may be underestimated when using the traditional pre/post evaluation design.

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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信