ArticleNutrients2023
Development and Validation of Nutrition Literacy Assessment Instrument for Chinese Lactating Women: A Preliminary Study.
Article in Nutrients, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Development, Applications, and Future Directions of Nutritional Literacy Scales: A Scoping Review.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Nutritional literacy in young and middle-aged patients with ischemic stroke: a mixed-methods study with IMB model-guided analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study focused on the development and validation of a nutrition literacy assessment instrument for Chinese lactating women (NLAI-L). A comprehensive literature review and group discussion by experts in relevant fields were adopted to determine the dimension, topics and questions of NLAI-L. Content validity was evaluated by a panel of experts. The exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were used to evaluate the construct validity. Cronbach's α and split-half reliability were applied to examine the reliability of NLAI-L. The final NLAI-L consisted of 38 questions covering three dimensions: knowledge, behavior and skill. The EFA revealed four sub-domains for knowledge, one sub-domain for behavior and four sub-domains for skill. The results showed that NLAI-L had satisfactory content validity (CVI = 0.98, CVR = 0.96), good reliability (Cronbach's α coefficient = 0.84) and acceptable construct validity (χ
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.