Bolland J E, Yuhas J A, Bolland T W
Hocking County Health Department, Logan, Ohio.
J Am Diet Assoc. 1988 Jul;88(7):817-21.
This study compared the effectiveness of two types of training on the ability to estimate food portion sizes. Training consisted of a 10-minute group session in which subjects practiced measuring various solid and liquid foods with household measures. A second group of subjects viewed food models of solids and liquids. Immediately following training, subjects individually quantified portion sizes of foods displayed as a breakfast, lunch, and dinner. A third group, whose members received no training, also estimated the same food portion sizes. Results indicated no statistically significant difference (p greater than .05) between the two types of training using both parametric and non-parametric tests. When the trained groups were combined and compared with the untrained group, MANOVA analysis indicated training made a significant difference (p less than .05) in improving estimation for some food items. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test also supported the hypothesis that training improved estimation for some, but not all, food items. Although a significant difference was not found for all food items, the data lend some support to the practice of using food models or household measures to enhance the ability to estimate food portion sizes more accurately, even when training is undertaken in short group sessions.
本研究比较了两种类型的训练对估计食物份量能力的有效性。训练包括一个10分钟的小组课程，在此课程中，受试者练习使用家庭量具测量各种固体和液体食物。第二组受试者观看了固体和液体食物模型。训练结束后，受试者立即分别对作为早餐、午餐和晚餐展示的食物份量进行量化。第三组受试者未接受任何训练，他们也对相同的食物份量进行了估计。结果表明，使用参数检验和非参数检验，两种类型的训练之间均未发现统计学上的显著差异（p大于0.05）。当将受过训练的组合并并与未受过训练的组进行比较时，多变量方差分析表明训练在改善某些食物的估计方面有显著差异（p小于0.05）。柯尔莫哥洛夫-斯米尔诺夫检验也支持了这样的假设，即训练改善了对某些但不是所有食物的估计。尽管并非所有食物都发现有显著差异，但这些数据为使用食物模型或家庭量具来提高更准确估计食物份量的能力的做法提供了一些支持，即使是在短时间的小组课程中进行训练时也是如此。
