Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jun 21;12(6):1853.
doi: 10.3390/nu12061853.

Development of the Home Cooking EnviRonment and Equipment Inventory Observation form (Home-CookERITM): An Assessment of Content Validity, Face Validity, and Inter-Rater Agreement

Sonja Schönberg  1 , Roberta Asher  2   3 , Samantha Stewart  2 , Matthew J Fenwick  2   3 , Lee Ashton  2   3 , Tamara Bucher  2   4 , Klazine Van der Horst  1 , Christopher Oldmeadow  5   6 , Clare E Collins  2   3 , Vanessa A Shrewsbury  2   3
Affiliations

Development of the Home Cooking EnviRonment and Equipment Inventory Observation form (Home-CookERITM): An Assessment of Content Validity, Face Validity, and Inter-Rater Agreement

Sonja Schönberg et al. Nutrients. .

Abstract

Introduction: Quantifying Home Cooking EnviRonments has applications in nutrition epidemiology, health promotion, and nutrition interventions. This study aimed to develop a tool to quantify household cooking environments and establish its content validity, face validity, and inter-rater agreement.

Methods: The Home Cooking EnviRonment and equipment Inventory observation form (Home-CookERI™) was developed as a 24-question (91-item) online survey. Items included domestic spaces and resources for storage, disposal, preparation, and cooking of food or non-alcoholic beverages. Home-CookERITM was piloted to assess content validity, face validity, and usability with six Australian experts (i.e., dietitians, nutrition researchers, chefs, a food technology teacher, and a kitchen designer) and 13 laypersons. Pilot participants provided feedback in a 10 min telephone interview. Home-CookERI™ was modified to an 89-item survey in line with the pilot findings. Inter-rater agreement was examined between two trained raters in 33 unique Australian households. Raters were required to observe each item before recording a response. Home occupants were instructed to only assist with locating items if asked. Raters were blinded to each other's responses. Inter-rater agreement was calculated by Cohen's Kappa coefficient (κ) for each item. To optimize κ, similar items were grouped together reducing the number of items to 81.

Results: Home-CookERITM had excellent content and face validity with responding participants; all 24 questions were both clear and relevant (X2 (1, n = 19; 19.0, p = 0.392)). Inter-rater agreement for the modified 81-item Home-CookERI™ was almost-perfect to perfect for 46% of kitchen items (n = 37 items, κ = 0.81-1), moderate to substantial for 28% (n = 23, κ = 0.51-0.8), slight to fair for 15% (n = 12, κ = 0.01-0.5), and chance or worse for 11% of items (n = 9, κ ≤ 0.0). Home-CookERITM was further optimized by reduction to a 77-item version, which is now available to researchers.

Conclusion: Home-CookERI™ is a comprehensive tool for quantifying Australian household cooking environments. It has excellent face and content validity and moderate to perfect inter-rater agreement for almost three-quarters of included kitchen items. To expand Home-CookERI™ applications, a home occupant self-completion version is planned for validation.

Keywords: cooking environment; inter-rater agreement; online survey; reproducibility; validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure A1
Figure A1
Example of Feedback Stage 2: Face and Content Validity.
Figure A2
Figure A2
Changelog Home-CookERITM.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hasan B., Thompson W.G., Almasri J., Wang Z., Lakis S., Prokop L.J., Hensrud D.D., Frie K.S., Wirtz M.J., Murad A.L., et al. The effect of culinary interventions (cooking classes) on dietary intake and behavioral change: A systematic review and evidence map. BMC Nutr. 2019;5:1462. doi: 10.1186/s40795-019-0293-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McGowan L., Pot G.K., Stephen A.M., Lavelle F., Spence M., Raats M., Hollywood L., McDowell D., McCloat A., Mooney E., et al. The influence of socio-demographic, psychological and knowledge-related variables alongside perceived cooking and food skills abilities in the prediction of diet quality in adults: A nationally representative cross-sectional study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2016;13:111. doi: 10.1186/s12966-016-0440-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tiwari A., Aggarwal A., Tang W., Drewnowski A. Cooking at Home: A Strategy to Comply With U.S. Dietary Guidelines at No Extra Cost. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2017;52:616–624. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.017. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mills S., White M., Brown H., Wrieden W., Kwasnicka D., Halligan J., Robalino S., Adams J. Health and social determinants and outcomes of home cooking: A systematic review of observational studies. Appetite. 2017;111:116–134. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.12.022. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wolfson J.A., Bleich S.N. Is cooking at home associated with better diet quality or weight-loss intention? Public Health Nutr. 2015;18:1397–1406. doi: 10.1017/S1368980014001943. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources