Jump to Main Content
Validity and Reliability of a Food Skills Questionnaire
- Kennedy, Lauren G., Kichler, Emily J., Seabrook, Jamie A., Matthews, June I., Dworatzek, Paula D.N.
- Journal of nutrition education and behavior 2019 v.51 no.7 pp. 857-864
- chefs, dietitians, food choices, food preparation, food safety, home economists, planning, questionnaires, students, validity, young adults, Ontario
- Develop, validate, and assess reliability of a food skills questionnaire.Phase 1: Questionnaire development categorized questions into domains (Food Selection and Planning, Food Preparation, and Food Safety and Storage). Phase 2: Content validity included expert panel quantitative and qualitative feedback. Phase 3: Face validity involved pilot testing. Phase 4: Reliability assessed test-retest and inter-item reliability.Phase 1: The authors developed a draft questionnaire in London, Ontario, Canada.Phase 2: Dietitians, home economists, academics, and chefs completed content validity (n = 17; 57% response rate). Phase 3: A convenience sample of students completed face validity (n = 20; 17% response rate). Phase 4: Randomly selected students completed test-retest reliability (time 1: n = 189, time 2: n = 165; 9% response rate).Lawshe content validity ratio, Lawshe content validity index, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Cronbach α.Test-retest reliability was evaluated using ICC, and inter-item reliability by Cronbach α coefficient.In phase 2, Lawshe content validity index was 0.80 (90% expert panel consensus). In phase 3, 85% of respondents identified the main construct. In phase 4, Cronbach α coefficients were .67–.88 for domains and .90 for the questionnaire overall, and ICC scores ranged from 0.67–0.92 for questions, 0.86–0.93 for domains, and 0.92 for the questionnaire overall.This questionnaire demonstrated strong content validity, face validity, test-retest reliability, and good inter-item reliability. It is appropriate for evaluating food skills in a population with basic to intermediate skills (eg, young adults).