A valid two-item food security questionnaire for screening HIV-1 infected patients in a clinical setting

Young, Jessica; Jeganathan, Sarangapany; Houtzager, Louise; Guilmi, Aaron Di; Purnomo, Julianita

doi:10.1017/s1368980009005795

Cited by 30 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[33][34][35][36] Further, cultural context is likely an important factor that makes cultural adaptation and context specific validation studies necessary. Hence, there is a need for greater knowledge concerning the validity and reliability of short screening tools.…”

Section: The Study Results In Light Of Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The tool was tested among patients infected with HIV-1 in an HIV ambulatory care center in Australia against a 6-item short form of the HFSSM and found it to have a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 78% with a negative PV of 100%, 34 suggesting its suitability for food insecurity screening in that particular setting (Table 4). …”

Section: The Study Results In Light Of Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validity of a Single Item Food Security Questionnaire in Arctic Canada

Urke¹,

Cao²,

Egeland³

2014

PEDIATRICS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Food insecurity is best measured by comprehensive assessments. However, rapid assessments can be useful in certain circumstances, but their validity is not characterized. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS:Rapid assessment of food insecurity is feasible among Inuit adults and children. abstract OBJECTIVES: Assess sensitivity and specificity of each of the 18 US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Household Food Security Scale Module (HFSSM) questionnaire items to determine whether a rapid assessment of child and adult food insecurity is feasible in an Inuit population. METHODS:Food insecurity prevalence was assessed by the 18-item USDA HFSSM in a randomized sample of Inuit households participating in the Inuit Health Survey and the Nunavut Inuit Child Health Survey. Questions were evaluated for sensitivity, specificity, predictive value (+/2), and total percent accuracy for adult and child food insecurity (yes/no). Child food security items were evaluated for both surveys.RESULTS: For children, the question "In the last 12 months, were there times when it was not possible to feed the children a healthy meal because there was not enough money?" had the best performance in both samples with a sensitivity and specificity of 92.3% and 97.3%, respectively, for the Inuit Health Survey, and 88.5% and 95.4% for the Nunavut Inuit Child Health Survey. For adults, the question "In the last 12 months, were there times when the food for you and your family just did not last and there was no money to buy more?" demonstrated a sensitivity of 93.0% and a specificity of 93.4%.CONCLUSIONS: Rapid assessment of child and adult food insecurity is feasible and may be a useful tool for health care and social service providers. However, as prevalence and severity of food insecurity change over time, rapid assessment techniques should not replace periodic screening by using the full USDA HFSSM questionnaire. Pediatrics 2014;133:e1616-e1623 AUTHORS:

show abstract

Section: The Study Results In Light Of Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Study Results In Light Of Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of a Single Item Food Security Questionnaire in Arctic Canada

Urke¹,

Cao²,

Egeland³

2014

PEDIATRICS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They therefore frequently administer twoitem measures, the reliability of which is commonly assessed by computing a reliability coefficient. There is some disagreement, however, what the most appropriate indicator of scale reliability is when a measure is composed of two items.The most frequently reported reliability statistic for multiple-item scales is Cronbach's coefficient alpha and many researchers report this coefficient for their two-item measure 1,2,3,4 . Others however claim that coefficient alpha is inappropriate and meaningless for two-item scales.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most frequently reported reliability statistic for multiple-item scales is Cronbach's coefficient alpha and many researchers report this coefficient for their two-item measure 1,2,3,4 . Others however claim that coefficient alpha is inappropriate and meaningless for two-item scales.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?

Eisinga

Grotenhuis

Pelzer

2012

Int J Public Health

1,876

956

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To obtain reliable measures researchers prefer multiple-item questionnaires rather than single-item tests. Multiple-item questionnaires may be costly however and timeconsuming for participants to complete. They therefore frequently administer twoitem measures, the reliability of which is commonly assessed by computing a reliability coefficient. There is some disagreement, however, what the most appropriate indicator of scale reliability is when a measure is composed of two items.The most frequently reported reliability statistic for multiple-item scales is Cronbach's coefficient alpha and many researchers report this coefficient for their two-item measure 1,2,3,4 . Others however claim that coefficient alpha is inappropriate and meaningless for two-item scales. Instead, they recommend using the Pearson correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability 5,6,7,8 . Still others argue that the interitem correlation equals the split-half reliability estimate for the two-item measure and they advocate the use of the Spearman-Brown formula to estimate the reliability of the total scale 9 . As these recommendations are reported without elaborating, there is considerable confusion among end users as to the best reliability coefficient for twoitem measures. This note aims to clarify the issue.It is important to emphasize at the outset that it is not our intention in this paper to promote the use of two-item scales. Quite the contrary, having only two items to identify an underlying construct has been recognized as problematic for some time and we support the claim that using more items is better 10,11,12 . The use of multiple, heterogeneous indicators enhances construct validity in the sense that it

show abstract

“…Any answer other than "never" is considered a "yes" response. 32 Many individuals feel highly stigmatized by their inability to provide for their basic needs. In addition, parents of young children often fear that children will be removed from their homes for neglect if they admit to not being able to feed them.…”

Section: Screening For Food Insecuritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Management of Food-Insecure Individuals With Diabetes

López¹,

Seligman²

2012

Diabetes Spectrum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than 14% of the U.S. population is food-insecure or at risk of running out of money for food. Food-insecure adults are at high risk for diabetes, and food-insecure adults with diabetes are at high risk for both hyper-and hypoglycemia. The clinical management of food-insecure individuals with diabetes can be challenging, but referrals to food resources, nutrition counseling that recognizes the challenges of food insecurity, smoking cessation support, and appropriate treatment of hypoglycemia may help these individuals reduce both hyper-and hypoglycemia. It is appropriate to screen individuals with diabetes who are receiving care in safety-net settings for food insecurity.

show abstract

A valid two-item food security questionnaire for screening HIV-1 infected patients in a clinical setting

Cited by 30 publications

References 9 publications

Validity of a Single Item Food Security Questionnaire in Arctic Canada

Validity of a Single Item Food Security Questionnaire in Arctic Canada

The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?

Clinical Management of Food-Insecure Individuals With Diabetes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About