1
68 Journal of NUTRITION EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR VOLUME 35, NUMBER 2 MARCH APRIL 2003 F RO M J N E B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Honing the Tools of Our Trade and the Skills Needed to Use Them If I were asked the number one reason man- uscripts are turned down at JNEB, I would have to say it is a lack of confidence in results obtained with measurement tools that have not been properly pretested with members of the target audience. Measurement tools like tests, surveys, food frequency questionnaires and others are pretested to establish their va- lidity and reliability.Validity is the extent to which a measurement instrument or tool measures what it purports to measure. Relia- bility is the extent to which the instrument yields consistent results under identical condi- tions.There are several types of validity and re- liability. Each is measured in its own way and makes a unique contribution to our overall confidence in data obtained with the instru- ment and conclusions based on these data. 1 Development and validation of measure- ment tools are challenging and time-consuming, as evidenced by many of the articles in this is- sue.It draws on a vast body of literature with a growing segment devoted solely to the mea- surement of food behavior and its complex net- work of determinants.Authors publishing in the Journal contribute to that body of literature on a regular basis.We are delighted to bring you an issue that showcases some of this critical work. If you’re like me, you spent 2 to 3 hours at a pop in lab classes as part of a core curricu- lum in nutrition. Everybody learned how to calibrate and use the basic instruments of measurement in a chemistry lab, then a bio- chemistry lab, and an animal lab. Most uni- versities offered courses in behavioral and psychosocial measurement for students of ed- ucation and psychology, sociology, consumer science, and marke t i n g .M a ny nutrition pro- grams accepted those courses as electives, but only the largest departments offered such courses in-house, with an emphasis on tools specific to nutrition education, and fewer re- quired them as core courses. Behavioral and psychosocial measurement was covered in research courses for graduate students in nutrition at those larger unive rs i- ties, but precious little time was available for addressing behavioral and psychosocial mea- surement when the courses also covered an- t h ro p o m e t r ic and biochemical measure s . Some students opted to minor in disciplines in which behavioral and psychosocial measure- ment was more central to the curriculum,but many students still emerged from graduate school in nutrition without a firm foundation in the type of measurement needed in their work as nutrition educators. Today’s students have more options, but training in methods of measurement specific to nutrition education remains limited,especially in smaller departments,where faculty members al- ready cover too many courses.Departments that do offer a course on this topic often do it every other year as an elective, not a requirement. The theories and methods of measurement grow more sophisticated every day, but many is- sues remain under debate.No instrument is per- fect.Not all require the type of extensive pre- testing illustrated in these articles, but every instrument needs to be pretested to some ex- tent,depending on its intended use.Greater ef- forts are need to ensure that the academic train- ing and continuing education of professionals in nutrition education include adequate attention to the fundamentals of measurement and the critical advances being made in this area. Evaluation is the cornerstone of account- ability (to ourselves most of all). Without sound measurement instruments for gathering data, that cornerstone is weak.Many thanks to these authors and others who are active in the ongoing quest for better measurement tools for our profession. I hope others will be in- spired to take up the cause. Sandra K. Shepherd, PhD, RD Editor 1. Parmenter K,Wardle J. Evaluation and design of nutrition knowledge measures. J Nutr Educ. 2000;32:269-277. F RO M S N E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . President’s Message Process and procedures for written com- munications: are they really necessary? Based on the route the board is currently taking, the answer is yes.A key goal for SNE as an organization is to take positions that harness our different points of view and represent the strength of our diversity at the same time.We want to ensure a consistent, high standard of excellence that showcases SNE as the premier organization for nutri- tion education professionals. Your board is committed to welcoming— even embracing—our philosophical differences while working toward common goals for the Society. In many are n a s ,f rom setting strategic direction for SNE to taking public policy po- sitions, it is not an easy task to meld our indi- vidual points of view to consensus positions that reflect the Society as a whole. Please know it can be done and I’ve seen it happen! My experience was in early 1990s, when SNE developed comments on NLEA. Fran Cronin devoted the time and energy to develop insightful and unique comments reflecting the diversity of the group of mem- bers that comprised the committee to prepare comments.This group of committed members provided input, engaged in open dialogue, and agreed to common, cohesive messages that represented SNE as a whole. In establishing processes and procedures, we hope to ensure a clear way to communi- cate, as well as best represent the breadth and scope of SNE. Lynn Paul has done a terrific job leading the effort to set guidelines for written organization communications.These guidelines ensure that sufficient and compre- hensive information gathering is done, as well as providing enough information for SNE leadership to make timely and informed deci- sions regarding official SNE communications. This is a vital step in ensuring that all written communications made public and distributed by the society are truly representative of our diversity. These guidelines also set high stan- dards for quality in the same manner as our Journal—peer review, technical editing—all critical for presenting ourselves credibly to outside groups. How will (OR DO?) we work with vari- ous opinions or interpretation of scientific ev- idence? Through open and respectful com- munications, an open, ongoing dialogue to de- termine where agreement can be found. There will be times where we need to draw the line and cannot state an official SNE position be- cause our processes just do not yield a cohesive position. For example, a current hot issue is the 5 A Day/3 A Day debate.We have members at the state and national levels in the dairy indus- try and 5 A Day national and state representa- tives who will not have the same perspectives. SNE can only provide a forum for differ ing points of view but will not take an official po- sition as we have members on both sides of the issue. Our goal is to establish “democratic”pro- cedures that allow all of us to constructively communicate, work together to understand others’ philosophies, and trust the process to produce messages of which we can all be proud and support.This is a lot of work, but necessary work, to build on the strength of our diversity and showcase SNE as the voice for nutrition education professionals. Kathy McMahon, PhD, RD 2002-2003 SNE President

Honing the Tools of Our Trade and the Skills Needed to Use Them

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

6 8

J o u rnal of NU T R I T I O N ED U CAT I O N A N D BE H AV I O R VO L U M E 3 5 , NU M B E R 2 MA R C H • AP R I L 2 0 0 3

FRO M J N E B

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Honing the Tools of Our Trade and the Skills Needed to Use T h e mIf I we re asked the number one reason man-u s c ripts are turned down at J N E B, I wo u l dh ave to say it is a lack of confidence in re s u l t sobtained with measurement tools that havenot been properly pretested with members ofthe target audience. M e a s u rement tools liket e s t s , s u rvey s , food frequency questionnaire sand others are pretested to establish their va-lidity and re l i a b i l i t y.Validity is the extent towhich a measurement instrument or toolm e a s u res what it purp o rts to measure.R e l i a-bility is the extent to which the instru m e n tyields consistent results under identical condi-t i o n s .T h e re are several types of validity and re-l i a b i l i t y. Each is measured in its own way andm a kes a unique contri bution to our ove r a l lc o n fidence in data obtained with the instru-ment and conclusions based on these data.1

D evelopment and validation of measure-ment tools are challenging and time-consuming,as evidenced by many of the articles in this is-s u e. It draws on a vast body of literature with agrowing segment devoted solely to the mea-s u rement of food behavior and its complex net-work of determ i n a n t s .A u t h o rs publishing in theJ o u rn a l c o n t ri bute to that body of literature ona regular basis.We are delighted to bring you anissue that showcases some of this critical wo r k .

If yo u ’re like me, you spent 2 to 3 hours ata pop in lab classes as part of a core curr i c u-

lum in nu t ri t i o n . E ve rybody learned how tocalibrate and use the basic instruments ofm e a s u rement in a chemistry lab, then a bio-c h e m i s t ry lab, and an animal lab. Most uni-ve rsities offered courses in behavioral andpsychosocial measurement for students of ed-ucation and psycholog y, s o c i o l og y, c o n s u m e rs c i e n c e, and marke t i n g .M a ny nu t rition pro-grams accepted those courses as elective s , bu tonly the largest departments offered suchc o u rses in-house, with an emphasis on toolsspecific to nu t rition education, and fewer re-q u i red them as core cours e s .

B e h avioral and psychosocial measure m e n twas cove red in re s e a rch courses for gr a d u a t estudents in nu t rition at those larger unive rs i-t i e s , but precious little time was ava i l a ble fora d d ressing behavioral and psychosocial mea-s u rement when the courses also cove red an-t h ro p o m e t r ic and biochemical measure s .Some students opted to minor in disciplines inwhich behavioral and psychosocial measure-ment was more central to the curr i c u l u m ,bu tm a ny students still emerged from gr a d u a t eschool in nu t r ition without a firm foundationin the type of measurement needed in theirwork as nu t rition educators .

To d ay ’s students have more options, bu ttraining in methods of measurement specific tonu t rition education remains limited,especially in

smaller depart m e n t s ,w h e re faculty members al-ready cover too many cours e s .D e p a rtments thatdo offer a course on this topic often do it eve ryother year as an elective, not a re q u i re m e n t .

The theories and methods of measurementgrow more sophisticated eve ry day,but many is-sues remain under debate.No instrument is per-fect.Not all require the type of extensive pre-testing illustrated in these articles, but everyinstrument needs to be pretested to some ex-tent,depending on its intended use. Greater ef-f o rts are need to ensure that the academic train-ing and continuing education of professionals innutrition education include adequate attentionto the fundamentals of measurement and thecritical advances being made in this area.

E valuation is the corn e rstone of account-ability (to ours e l ves most of all). Wi t h o u tsound measurement instruments for gatheri n gd a t a , that corn e rstone is we a k .M a ny thanks tothese authors and others who are active in theongoing quest for better measurement toolsfor our pro f e s s i o n . I hope others will be in-s p i red to take up the cause.

Sandra K. Shepherd, PhD, RDEditor

1. Parmenter K, Wardle J. Evaluation and designof nutrition knowledge measures. J Nutr Educ.2000;32:269-277.

FRO M S N E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

P re s i d e n t ’s MessageP rocess and pro c e d u res for written com-mu n i c a t i o n s : a re they really necessary ?Based on the route the board is curre n t l yt a k i n g , the answer is ye s .A key goal for SNEas an organization is to take positions thath a rness our different points of view andre p resent the strength of our dive rsity at thesame time.We want to ensure a consistent,high standard of excellence that show c a s e sSNE as the p r e m i e r organization for nu t ri-tion education pro f e s s i o n a l s .

Your board is committed to we l c o m i n g —even embracing—our philosophical differe n c e swhile working towa rd common goals for theS o c i e t y. In many are n a s ,f rom setting strategi cd i rection for SNE to taking public policy po-s i t i o n s , it is not an easy task to meld our indi-vidual points of view to consensus positionsthat re flect the Society as a whole.Please knowit can be done and I’ve seen it happen!

My experience was in early 1990s, w h e nSNE developed comments on NLEA. F r a nC ro n i n d evoted the time and energy tod evelop insightful and unique commentsreflecting the dive rsity of the group of mem-b e rs that comprised the committee to pre p a re

c o m m e n t s .This group of committed membersp rovided input, engaged in open dialog u e,and agreed to common, c o h e s ive messagesthat re p resented SNE as a whole.

In establishing processes and pro c e d u re s ,we hope to ensure a clear way to commu n i-c a t e, as well as best re p resent the breadth andscope of SNE. Lynn Pa u l has done a terri ficjob leading the effort to set guidelines forw ritten organization commu n i c a t i o n s .T h e s eguidelines ensure that sufficient and compre-h e n s ive information gathering is done, as we l las providing enough information for SNEl e a d e rship to make timely and informed deci-sions re g a rding official SNE commu n i c a t i o n s .This is a vital step in ensuring that all wri t t e nc o m munications made public and distri bu t e dby the society are truly re p re s e n t a t ive of ourd ive rs i t y. These guidelines also set high stan-d a rds for quality in the same manner as ourJo u rnal—peer rev i ew, technical editing—allc ritical for presenting ours e l ves cre d i bly tooutside gro u p s.

H ow will (OR DO?) we work with va ri-ous opinions or interp retation of scientific ev-idence? T h rough open and respectful com-

mu n i c a t i o n s , an open,ongoing dialogue to de-t e rmine where agreement can be found. T h e rewill be times where we need to draw the lineand cannot state an official SNE position be-cause our processes just do not yield a cohesivep o s i t i o n .For example, a current hot issue is the5 A Day/3 A Day debate.We have members atthe state and national levels in the dairy indus-t ry and 5 A Day national and state re p re s e n t a-t ives who will not have the same pers p e c t ive s .SNE can only provide a forum for differi n gpoints of view but will not take an official po-sition as we have members on both sides of thei s s u e.

Our goal is to establish “ d e m o c r a t i c ”p ro-c e d u res that allow all of us to constru c t ive l yc o m mu n i c a t e, work together to unders t a n do t h e rs ’ p h i l o s o p h i e s , and trust the process top roduce messages of which we can all bep roud and support .This is a lot of wo r k , bu tn e c e s s a ry wo r k , to build on the strength of ourd ive rsity and showcase SNE as the voice fornu t r ition education pro f e s s i o n a l s .

K a t hy McMahon, P h D, R D2002-2003 SNE President