4.3 Article

A tool for assessing healthy food knowledge in 5-6-year-old Australian children

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
Volume 14, Issue 7, Pages 1177-1183

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980010003721

Keywords

Nutrition knowledge; Young children; Survey design

Funding

  1. University of South Australia SA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: In the early years of life, influential attributes are formed and may be difficult to change later in life. Early childhood is now recognised as a key target in the prevention of overweight and obesity, and the knowledge that children gain at this time about food and its health benefits may have an important influence on their dietary choices and preferences in later life. Therefore, an activity was designed using age-appropriate methods to assess nutrition knowledge of young children. Design: The Healthy Food Knowledge Activity was developed using a list of thirty healthy and unhealthy foods and drinks generated from the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating. Setting: The activity was conducted with individual children from reception classes of South Australian schools. Subjects: Children aged 5-6 years undertook the activity in a pilot study (n 13) and in the main study (n 192). Results: Pilot data indicated good test-retest reliability of the activity (r = 0.84, P < 0.01). In the main study, there was a good distribution of scores with acceptable skewness and kurtosis statistics. A breakdown of responses indicated good face validity, with more obvious foods being more correctly classified. Conclusions: Children as young as 5-6 years of age can correctly identify healthy foods, and this can be measured objectively. This activity also provides interesting insights regarding misconceptions about foods that could be attributed to influences such as media advertising and that can be addressed by educators of this age group.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available