Test Validity of a Single-Item Food Insecurity Screening Assessment Among College Students.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH American Journal of Health Promotion Pub Date : 2024-11-19 DOI:10.1177/08901171241302001
Jocelyn E Jarvis, Jacqueline Perez, David Himmelgreen, Amber D Dumford, Kyaien Conner, Marilyn Stern, Rita DeBate
{"title":"Test Validity of a Single-Item Food Insecurity Screening Assessment Among College Students.","authors":"Jocelyn E Jarvis, Jacqueline Perez, David Himmelgreen, Amber D Dumford, Kyaien Conner, Marilyn Stern, Rita DeBate","doi":"10.1177/08901171241302001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Given the high prevalence of food insecurity among college students, there is an interest in identifying whether the use of a single item can adequately screen for food insecurity. The current study aimed to determine the validity of a single-item food insecurity screening question among college students.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional study exploring food insecurity among racial and ethnic undergraduate college students.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Large urban U.S. research university.</p><p><strong>Sample: </strong>Undergraduate students (n = 667) 18 years or older.</p><p><strong>Measures: </strong>Food Insecurity screening was assessed via a single-item from the USDA Household Food Security Short Form (USDA FSSM-SF). Food security was assessed via the USDA FSSM-SF, a validated six-item scale that assesses food insecurity and hunger.</p><p><strong>Analysis: </strong>Logistic regression assessed the validity of the single-item food insecurity question tested against the USDA FSSM-SF.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The full model was statistically significant, χ2(1) = 161.44, <i>P</i> < .001 explaining 54.5% of the variance in food insecurity status correctly classifying 95.7% of cases. Sensitivity of the model was found to be 97.6%; specificity was found to be 69.6%. Positive predictive value was calculated to be 97.74%; negative predictive value was computed to be 68.09%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results support for the test validity of a single-item screening question that can be used to detect food insecurity among college students and inform secondary prevention programs aimed at food insecurity.</p>","PeriodicalId":7481,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Health Promotion","volume":" ","pages":"8901171241302001"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Health Promotion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171241302001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Given the high prevalence of food insecurity among college students, there is an interest in identifying whether the use of a single item can adequately screen for food insecurity. The current study aimed to determine the validity of a single-item food insecurity screening question among college students.

Design: Cross-sectional study exploring food insecurity among racial and ethnic undergraduate college students.

Setting: Large urban U.S. research university.

Sample: Undergraduate students (n = 667) 18 years or older.

Measures: Food Insecurity screening was assessed via a single-item from the USDA Household Food Security Short Form (USDA FSSM-SF). Food security was assessed via the USDA FSSM-SF, a validated six-item scale that assesses food insecurity and hunger.

Analysis: Logistic regression assessed the validity of the single-item food insecurity question tested against the USDA FSSM-SF.

Results: The full model was statistically significant, χ2(1) = 161.44, P < .001 explaining 54.5% of the variance in food insecurity status correctly classifying 95.7% of cases. Sensitivity of the model was found to be 97.6%; specificity was found to be 69.6%. Positive predictive value was calculated to be 97.74%; negative predictive value was computed to be 68.09%.

Conclusion: Results support for the test validity of a single-item screening question that can be used to detect food insecurity among college students and inform secondary prevention programs aimed at food insecurity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大学生单项食物不安全筛查评估的测试有效性。
目的:鉴于大学生中粮食不安全的发生率很高,人们有兴趣确定使用单一项目是否能够充分筛查粮食不安全。本研究旨在确定大学生中单项食物不安全筛查问题的有效性:设计:横断面研究,探讨不同种族和族裔本科大学生的食物不安全问题:地点:美国大型城市研究型大学:测量方法:食物不安全筛查是通过一个名为 "食物安全"(Food Insecurity)的问卷进行评估的:食物不安全筛查通过美国农业部家庭食物安全简表(USDA FSSM-SF)中的一个单项进行评估。食物安全通过 USDA FSSM-SF 进行评估,这是一个经过验证的六项目量表,用于评估食物不安全和饥饿情况:逻辑回归评估了根据 USDA FSSM-SF 测试的单项食品不安全问题的有效性:完整模型具有统计学意义,χ2(1) = 161.44,P < .001 解释了食物不安全状况 54.5% 的变异,正确分类了 95.7% 的案例。该模型的灵敏度为 97.6%,特异度为 69.6%。阳性预测值为 97.74%,阴性预测值为 68.09%:结果支持单项筛查问题的测试有效性,该问题可用于检测大学生的粮食不安全状况,并为针对粮食不安全状况的二级预防计划提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Health Promotion
American Journal of Health Promotion PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.70%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: The editorial goal of the American Journal of Health Promotion is to provide a forum for exchange among the many disciplines involved in health promotion and an interface between researchers and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
In Brief. The 'Natural' Accord of DuBois and Washington: An Environmentally Racialized Consciousness. Multi-Family Housing Environment and Physical Activity: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Misaligned Supports: Differences in Reported Health Care Worker Well-being Supports Provided and Needed During the COVID-19 Pandemic. A Family-Based Approach to Promoting Pediatric Mental Health Recovery in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1