Background Nutritional knowledge assessment is an important component in nutrition research, and a prerequisite for the implementation of many policies and programs aimed at improving eating behavior. In order to generate objective results, validated tools for a given population must be employed. The aim of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of a nutrition knowledge questionnaire for Romanian adults. Methods Kleimann's version of a General Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire, was translated and adapted to Romanian language, culture, and cuisine. The final format was developed in several steps and used four components: internal and external reliability were assessed in a general population sample (n1 = 412), respectively in a subgroup (n2 = 46) from Component 1; Component 3 assessed construct validity (n3 = 96) using the "known-groups" method; Component 4 (convergent validity, n4 = 508) tested the association between socio-demographic characteristics and nutrition knowledge. Results The overall internal reliability was 0.878 and the external reliability was >0.880 in all sections, and overall. Specialists had higher scores than nonspecialists, with a very large effect size. In the general population, females scored higher than males, and middle-aged and older adults scored higher than young adults. Higher scores were associated with higher levels of education. The characteristics of individuals prone to giving wrong answers were: males (beta = 0.170), high school or less (beta = 0.167), and no training in nutrition (beta = 0.154). Conclusions The Romanian version of the General Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool for measuring nutrition knowledge in adults.

Mindful eating may play an important role in long-term weight maintenance. In interventions aiming at weight reduction, increasing the levels of mindful eating was associated with higher levels of success and lower levels of weight rebound in the long run. This study aimed to determine the validity and reliability of a mindful eating questionnaire for Romanian adults using Framson’s Mindful Eating Questionnaire (MEQ). To calculate the internal (n = 495) and external (n = 45) reliability, a general population sample was taken. Construct validity was assessed using the “known groups” method: dietitians (n = 70), sports professionals (n = 52), and individuals with overweight and obesity (n = 200). Convergent validity tested the association between the MEQ score and demographic characteristics of the total sample (n = 617). The internal (0.72) and external (0.83) reliability were adequate. Dietitians and sports professionals had overall lower scores, meaning more mindful eating compared to the group of individuals with overweight and obesity. The lower mindful eating practice was associated with the presence of excess weight, suboptimal health status perception, higher levels of stress and younger age. The Romanian version of the MEQ is a reliable and valid tool for measuring mindfulness of eating in adults.

This study assessed potential differences in estimating short-term dietary intake of energy and nutrients and food consumption, between 4-week food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) and 7-day food records in Romanian adults. Patients and Methods: A total of 116 participants (age range 18-74 years, 31% males and 28.4% of participants being overweight and obese) were recruited. Estimates for energy and macro-and micronutrient intakes, and food group intakes were compared between the two methods using Wilcoxon-sign-rank test, correlation coefficients, Cohen's Kappa, Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement, and quartile classifications. Results: Cohen's Kappa values for energy and macronutrient intakes indicated moderate agreement, ranging from 0.402 (protein) to 0.470 (fat), fair agreement for most micronutrients (0.2-0.4) and poor agreement for most food groups (<0.2). When data were crossclassified into quartiles for energy and macronutrients, about 58% of participants were cross-classified in the same quartile using both methods, while 33% of participants were cross-classified in adjacent quartiles of one method versus the other. Micronutrients (such Na, Mg, Ca, K, Fe, vitamins) had the highest degree of misclassification, on average 40% being cross-classified in the same quartile and another 40% in adjacent quartiles. Bland-Altman plots suggested that both methods were comparable for energy and all macronutrients. When the consumption of food groups was compared, correlation coefficients between methods ranged from 0.09 (legumes) to 0.26 (whole grain), indicating poor correlation. Conclusion:These results showed that the relative match of a standard FFQ, as compared to the 7-day food records, was moderate in estimating macronutrient and energy, fair for most micronutrient intakes and poor for others and as for food groups.