Premium
A Systematic Review of Tools Measuring Nutrition Knowledge of Pre‐Adolescents and Adolescents in a School‐Based Setting
Author(s) -
Newton Genevieve,
Racey Megan,
Marquez Olivia,
McKenney Andrew,
Preyde Michèle,
Wosnick David
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of school health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.851
H-Index - 86
eISSN - 1746-1561
pISSN - 0022-4391
DOI - 10.1111/josh.12752
Subject(s) - psychological intervention , inclusion (mineral) , intervention (counseling) , descriptive statistics , medical education , reliability (semiconductor) , clinical psychology , medicine , psychology , systematic review , descriptive research , applied psychology , medline , family medicine , psychiatry , social psychology , power (physics) , statistics , physics , mathematics , quantum mechanics , political science , law
BACKGROUND Measurement of nutrition knowledge is common in interventions targeting dietary modifications in a school‐based setting. Previous research has noted a general lack of disclosure regarding the details and psychometric properties of nutrition knowledge tools, which makes uptake of previously used instruments extremely difficult. METHODS Our systematic literature review sought to identify interventions measuring nutrition knowledge in school settings to students aged 9 to 18. Studies were categorized according to content subject and relevant descriptive characteristics and psychometric properties were extracted. RESULTS Following the initial screening of 16,868 articles, 308 papers were evaluated for eligibility. Sixty‐seven studies consistent with the inclusion criteria were included in the review. A minority of studies reported analysis of validity (31.3%) and/or reliability (40.3%), and 73.1% of studies had at least one unknown relevant descriptive characteristic. The majority (68.7%) of studies were custom developed, of which only 13 reproduced the tool in the publication. CONCLUSION Overall, there was an alarming lack of reporting across studies, both in terms of the description of knowledge tools as well as their psychometric properties. These omissions make the selection of appropriate instruments for use in novel contexts difficult, and highlight the need for greater disclosure and pre‐intervention testing.