RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Systematic review of instruments for assessing culinary skills in adults: What is the quality of their psychometric properties?
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.06.12.20129668
DO 10.1101/2020.06.12.20129668
A1 Teixeira, Aline Rissatto
A1 Bicalho, Daniela
A1 Slater, Betzabeth
A1 Tacio, de Mendonça Lima
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/09/2020.06.12.20129668.abstract
AB Background Culinary skills are important objects of study in the field of Public Health. Studies that propose to develop instruments for assessing such construct show lack of methodological uniformity to report validity and reliability of their instruments.Objective To identify studies that have developed instruments to measure culinary skills in adult population, and critically assess their psychometric properties.Design We conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA statement. We searched literature PubMed/Medline, Scopus, LILACS, and Web of Science databases until January 2021, and consulted Google Scholar for relevant grey literature. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, conducted data extraction, and assessed the psychometric quality of the instruments. A third reviewer resolved any doubts or disagreements in all steps of the systematic review.Results The search identified 1148 potentially relevant studies, out of which 9 met the inclusion criteria. In addition, we included 3 studies by searching the related articles and the reference lists of these studies, totaling 12 included studies in this review. Ten studies reported the development of tools measuring culinary skills in adults and 2 studies performed cross-cultural adaptations of original instruments. We considered adequate quality of internal consistency reliability in four studies. One study received adequate rating for test-retest reliability. No studies presented adequate rating for content validity and four studies showed satisfactory results for at least one type of construct validity. One study reported criterion validity and the quality of this psychometric property was inadequate.Conclusions We identified many studies that surveyed culinary skills. Although the isolated measures appraised in this review show good promise in terms of quality of psychometric properties, no studies presented adequate measures for each aspect of reliability and validity. A more consistent and consensual definition of culinary skills is recommended. The flaws observed in these studies show that there is a need for ongoing research in the area of the psychometric properties of instruments assessing culinary skills.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP: http://www.fapesp.br/), process number 2019/14348-5. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not ApplicableAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data underlying the findings described fully available, without restriction. All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files