↓ Skip to main content

Reliability and validity of a novel tool to comprehensively assess food and beverage marketing in recreational sport settings

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reliability and validity of a novel tool to comprehensively assess food and beverage marketing in recreational sport settings
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12966-018-0667-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel J. L. Prowse, Patti-Jean Naylor, Dana Lee Olstad, Valerie Carson, Louise C. Mâsse, Kate Storey, Sara F. L. Kirk, Kim D. Raine

Abstract

Current methods for evaluating food marketing to children often study a single marketing channel or approach. As the World Health Organization urges the removal of unhealthy food marketing in children's settings, methods that comprehensively explore the exposure and power of food marketing within a setting from multiple marketing channels and approaches are needed. The purpose of this study was to test the inter-rater reliability and the validity of a novel settings-based food marketing audit tool. The Food and beverage Marketing Assessment Tool for Settings (FoodMATS) was developed and its psychometric properties evaluated in five public recreation and sport facilities (sites) and subsequently used in 51 sites across Canada for a cross-sectional analysis of food marketing. Raters recorded the count of food marketing occasions, presence of child-targeted and sports-related marketing techniques, and the physical size of marketing occasions. Marketing occasions were classified by healthfulness. Inter-rater reliability was tested using Cohen's kappa (κ) and intra-class correlations (ICC). FoodMATS scores for each site were calculated using an algorithm that represented the theoretical impact of the marketing environment on food preferences, purchases, and consumption. Higher FoodMATS scores represented sites with higher exposure to, and more powerful (unhealthy, child-targeted, sports-related, large) food marketing. Validity of the scoring algorithm was tested through (1) Pearson's correlations between FoodMATS scores and facility sponsorship dollars, and (2) sequential multiple regression for predicting "Least Healthy" food sales from FoodMATS scores. Inter-rater reliability was very good to excellent (κ = 0.88-1.00, p < 0.001; ICC = 0.97, p < 0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between FoodMATS scores and food sponsorship dollars, after controlling for facility size (r = 0.86, p < 0.001). The FoodMATS score explained 14% of the variability in "Least Healthy" concession sales (p = 0.012) and 24% of the variability total concession and vending "Least Healthy" food sales (p = 0.003). FoodMATS has high inter-rater reliability and good validity. As the first validated tool to evaluate the exposure and power of food marketing in recreation facilities, the FoodMATS provides a novel means to comprehensively track changes in food marketing environments that can assist in developing and monitoring the impact of policies and interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Master 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 35 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 16%
Sports and Recreations 8 10%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Psychology 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 37 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,320,766
of 23,083,773 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#1,570
of 1,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,096
of 331,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#30
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,083,773 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,944 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,175 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.