PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Teixeira, Aline Rissatto
AU  - Bicalho, Daniela
AU  - Slater, Betzabeth
AU  - Lima, Tacio de Mendonça
TI  - Systematic review of instruments for assessing culinary skills and other related concepts in adults: What is the quality of evidence of their psychometric properties?
AID  - 10.1101/2020.06.12.20129668
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.06.12.20129668
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/16/2020.06.12.20129668.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/16/2020.06.12.20129668.full
AB  - Background Culinary skills and food practices are important objects of study in the field of Public Health. Studies that propose to develop instruments for assessing such constructs show lack of methodological uniformity to provide evidence of validity and reliability of their instruments.Objective To identify studies that have developed instruments to measure culinary skills and other related concepts in adult population, and critically assess their psychometric properties.Design A systematic review was conducted. A literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, LILACS, and Web of Science databases until June 2019. The Directory of Open Access Journals and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify relevant grey literature. Searching, selecting and reporting were done according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement. Two reviewers were independently involved in study selection, data extraction, and instrument quality assessment. A third reviewer resolved all disagreements.Results The search identified 1428 potentially relevant studies, out of which 18 had potentially relevant records and 8 met the inclusion criteria. Studies used literature, experts’ judgement, or qualitative interviews to develop the instruments. No studies received positive scores for all validity criteria. Although most studies received positive scores for internal consistency, none of them received positive scores for stability or presented evidence for content validity. One study showed positive results for construct validity. Two studies reported criterion validity, whose scores were deemed negative.Conclusions Many studies that surveyed culinary skills and related latent phenomena were identified. The overall quality of the psychometric properties of most instruments was considered insufficient, especially for validity measures. A universal definition of culinary skills as an overarching construct 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 these constructs.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