Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 75

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Web-based Food Behaviour Questionnaire: Validation with Grades Six to Eight Students

Hanning, Rhona M., Royall, Dawna, Toews, Jenn E., Blashill, Lindsay, Wegener, Jessica, Driezen, Pete·2009·Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research
DOI 10.3148/70.4.2009.172
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: The web-based Food Behaviour Questionnaire (FBQ) includes a 24-hour diet recall, a food frequency questionnaire, and questions addressing knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and food-related behaviours. The survey has been revised since it was developed and initially validated. The current study was designed to obtain qualitative feedback and to validate the FBQ diet recall. Methods: “Think aloud” techniques were used in cognitive interviews with dietitian experts (n=11) and grade six students (n=21).Multi-ethnic students (n=201) in grades six to eight at urban southern Ontario schools completed the FBQ and, subsequently, one-on-one diet recall interviews with trained dietitians. Food group and nutrient intakes were compared. Results: Users provided positive feedback on the FBQ. Suggestions included adding more foods, more photos for portion estimation, and online student feedback. Energy and nutrient intakes were positively correlated between FBQ and dietitian interviews, overall and by gender and grade (all p<0.001). Intraclass correlation coefficients were ≥0.5 for energy and macronutrients, although the web-based survey underestimated energy (-10.5%) and carbohydrate (-15.6%) intakes (p<0.05). Under-estimation of rice and pasta portions on the web accounted for 50% of this discrepancy. Conclusions: The FBQ is valid, relative to 24-hour recall interviews, for dietary assessment in diverse populations of Ontario children in grades six to eight.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3148/70.4.2009.172

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Ball GD, 2003, Can J Appl Physiol., 28, 117, 10.1139/h03-010 · DOI
  2. Tremblay MS, 2002, Int J Obes., 26, 538, 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801923 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Tremblay MS, 2000, CMAJ., 163, 1429
  4. Slimani N, 2000, Eur J Clin Nutr., 54, 900, 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601107 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Probst YC, 2005, J Nutr Educ Behav., 37, 20, 10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60255-8 · DOI
  6. Schleyer TK, 2000, J Am Med Inform Assoc., 7, 416, 10.1136/jamia.2000.0070416 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Hallfors D, 2000, Eval Program Plann., 23, 149, 10.1016/S0149-7189(00)00011-2 · DOI
  8. Jones R, 1999, Occup Med., 49, 556, 10.1093/occmed/49.8.556 · DOI
  9. DiSogra L, 2000, J Am Diet Assoc., 100, 349, 10.1016/S0002-8223(00)00106-1 · DOI
  10. Minaker LM, 2006, Can J Public Health., 97, 357, 10.1007/BF03405342 · DOI
  11. Hanning RM, 2007, Can J Public Health., 98, 12, 10.1007/BF03405377 · DOI
  12. Woodruff SJ, 2008, Body Image., 5, 404, 10.1016/j.bodyim.2008.04.006 · DOI
  13. Carbone ET, 2002, J Am Diet Assoc., 102, 690, 10.1016/S0002-8223(02)90156-2 · DOI
  14. Miller K, 2003, Am J Health Behav., 27, S264, 10.5993/AJHB.27.1.s3.10 · DOI
  15. Subar AF, 1995, J Am Diet Assoc., 95, 781, 10.1016/S0002-8223(95)00217-0 · DOI
  16. McBride J, 2001, Agriculture Res., 49, 4
  17. Rockett HR, 1997, Prev Med., 26, 808, 10.1006/pmed.1997.0200 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Livingstone MBE, 2004, Br J Nutr., 92, S213, 10.1079/BJN20041169 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Potischman N, 2006, J Nutr., 136, 686, 10.1093/jn/136.3.686 · DOI
  20. Livingstone BE, 2003, J Nutr., 133, 895S, 10.1093/jn/133.3.895S · DOI · Paper page
  21. McPherson RS, 2000, Prev Med., 31, S11, 10.1006/pmed.2000.0631 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Rockett HR, 2003, Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care., 6, 557, 10.1097/00075197-200309000-00009 · DOI
  23. Baranowski T, 2002, J Am Diet Assoc., 102, 380, 10.1016/S0002-8223(02)90088-X · DOI
  24. Cullen K, 1998, J Nutr Educ., 30, 305
  25. Veugelers PJ, 2005, Am J Public Health., 95, 432, 10.2105/AJPH.2004.045898 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Veugelers PJ, 2005, Can J Public Health., 96, 212, 10.1007/BF03403693 · DOI
  27. Berkey C, 2000, Pediatrics., 105, 1, 10.1542/peds.105.4.e56 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Rockett HR, 1995, J Am Diet Assoc., 95, 336, 10.1016/S0002-8223(95)00086-0 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Cullen KW, 2004, J Am Diet Assoc., 104, 1415, 10.1016/j.jada.2004.06.022 · DOI
  30. Shatenstein B, 2005, Can J Diet Prac Res., 66, 67, 10.3148/66.2.2005.67 · DOI
  31. Jain MG, 2003, Public Health Nutr., 6, 79, 10.1079/PHN2002362 · DOI
  32. Goris AHC, 2000, Am J Clin Nutr., 71, 130, 10.1093/ajcn/71.1.130 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Pomerleau J, 1999, Eur J Epidemiol., 15, 553, 10.1023/A:1007512420937 · DOI
  34. Herbert JR, 1995, Int J Epidemiol., 24, 389, 10.1093/ije/24.2.389 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Fricker J, 1992, Appetite., 19, 273, 10.1016/0195-6663(92)90167-5 · DOI
  36. Klesges LM, 2004, Prev Med., 38, S78, 10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.07.003 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Vance VA, 2009, Public Health Nutr., 12, 222, 10.1017/S1368980008003108 · DOI
  38. Barr SI, 2006, Appl Physiol Nutr Metab., 31, 66, 10.1139/h05-020 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Hanning, R. M., Royall, D., Toews, J. E., Blashill, L., Wegener, J., & Driezen, P.
Affiliations
  • Department of Health Studies and Gerontology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON
  • Nutrition Research Consulting, Fergus, ON
  • Population Health Research Group, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON
Venue
Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research
Publisher
Dietitians of Canada
Published
2009-12
Volume
70
Issue
4
Pages
172-178
ISSN
  • 1486-3847
  • 2292-9592
DOI
10.3148/70.4.2009.172
Cited by
75
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.