Department of Dietetics & Nutrition, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Dietetics, Providence Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2020 Feb;71(1):116-121. doi: 10.1080/09637486.2019.1606167. Epub 2019 Apr 29.
The Nutrition Literacy Assessment Instrument (NLit) measures nutrition literacy, including a subscale for ability to interpret nutrition fact panels (NFP). Recent redesign of the NFP in the US was issued to improve usability. This study aimed to determine reliability of the NLit subscale using two NFP versions. A 35-item survey was administered to 48 attendees with very low incomes. Surveys included previously validated NLit numeracy questions referencing the Current NFP (C-NFP), demographic and financial literacy questions, and the same NLit numeracy questions referencing the New NFP (N-NFP). NLit numeracy between the C-NFP and N-NFP were related ( = 0.842, < .001), and N-NFP showed excellent reliability (Cronbach- = 0.815). Mean NLit numeracy scores for the C-NFP and N-NFP were 53.5% and 55.5%, respectively ( = .437). Exchanging the N-NFP for the C-NFP in the NLit maintains strong reliability. Similar numeracy scores between C-NFP and N-NFP suggest the redesign may not be easier to read.
营养素养评估工具(NLit)用于测量营养素养,包括解读营养成分表(NFP)的能力子量表。最近美国对 NFP 进行了重新设计,以提高其可用性。本研究旨在使用两种 NFP 版本确定 NLit 子量表的可靠性。一项包含 35 个项目的调查被分发给 48 名收入非常低的与会者。调查包括先前经过验证的 NLit 数值问题,这些问题参考了当前的 NFP(C-NFP)、人口统计学和财务知识问题,以及相同的 NLit 数值问题,参考了新的 NFP(N-NFP)。C-NFP 和 N-NFP 之间的 NLit 数值呈正相关( = 0.842, < .001),并且 N-NFP 具有很好的可靠性(Cronbach- = 0.815)。C-NFP 和 N-NFP 的 NLit 数值平均得分分别为 53.5%和 55.5%( = 0.437)。在 NLit 中用 N-NFP 替换 C-NFP 可保持很强的可靠性。C-NFP 和 N-NFP 之间相似的数值得分表明重新设计可能并不更容易阅读。