Validação de uma tecnologia educacional sobre alimentação saudável para escolares

VASCONCELOS, Celia Maria Ribeiro de; VASCONCELOS, Eliane Maria Ribeiro de; VASCONCELOS, Maria Gorete Lucena de; AZEVEDO, Suelen Brito de; RAPOSO, Maria Cristina Falcão; VASCONCELOS, Ana Lucia Ribeiro de

doi:10.1590/1678-98652018000500005

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ORIGINAL ARTICLES • Rev Nutr 31 (5) • Sep-Oct 2018 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-98652018000500005 copiar

Validação de uma tecnologia educacional sobre alimentação saudável para escolares

Autoria SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

RESUMO

Objetivo

O objetivo deste estudo foi validar o jogo de cartas “O Enigma da Pirâmide” sobre alimentação saudável, utilizando juízes “especialistas” na validação do conteúdo e aparência; e escolares do 4º e 5º ano do ensino fundamental, com idade entre nove e dez anos (“público alvo”) na validação semântica (teste piloto).

Métodos

Utilizou-se o Índice de Validade de Conteúdo em Nível de Item para verificar a congruência de opinião dos juízes, item a item; e o Índice de Validade de Conteúdo em Nível de Escala para determinar à média aritmética da proporção dos itens que receberem avaliação de “não discordância” pelos juízes. Foi considerado aprovado na validação o item que obteve Índice de Validade de Conteúdo em Nível de Item maior ou igual a 0,80 e Índice de Validade de Conteúdo em Nível de Escala maior ou igual a 0,90, sendo estes os coeficientes de validade. Para selecionar os itens que deveriam ser revisados/modificados utilizou-se o teste binominal, através do valor p da proporção (rejeitando-se a H₀ se o p≤0,8) – itens validados ao nível de significância ≤0,05.

Resultados

Participaram do estudo 22 juízes e 12 escolares. Dos 23 itens que compõem o jogo de cartas, nove foram selecionados para revisão/modificação, sendo cinco do componente linguagem e quatro do componente adequação ao público-alvo.

Conclusão

Realizadas as modificações, foram todas aprovadas, e por todos os alunos participantes, tornando essa ferramenta educativa sobre hábitos alimentares saudáveis disponível para uso nessa população estudantil.

Palavras-chave
Educação Alimentar e Nutricional; Educação em Saúde; Educação Pré-Escolar

	Items	Disagreement		Non-Disagreement				I-CVI	p-value^* * Binomial test, using the means of the p-value of the proportion, reject H0 if p≤0.8
	Items	Total	Partial	Neither agree nor disagree	Partial	Total	∑ (%)
Content	1.1 Is the game in accordance with the recommendations of the Ministry of Health on healthy eating?	0	0	2	7	13	22 (100)	1	0.00939^ Validated Items, at the level of significance ≤0.05); Mean=Σ of non-agreement points (=474)/Number of expert judges (=22)/Number of items evaluated (=23); Adopted scores (Likert scale): Strong agreement=2; Partial agreement=1; Neither agree nor disagree=Zero; Partial agreement=minus 1; Strong disagreement=minus 2.
	1.2. Do the instruction cards address the issue of healthy eating?	0	0	0	9	13	22 (100)	1	0.00939^ Validated Items, at the level of significance ≤0.05); Mean=Σ of non-agreement points (=474)/Number of expert judges (=22)/Number of items evaluated (=23); Adopted scores (Likert scale): Strong agreement=2; Partial agreement=1; Neither agree nor disagree=Zero; Partial agreement=minus 1; Strong disagreement=minus 2.
	1.3. Do the challenge cards address the issue of healthy eating?	0	0	0	10	12	22 (100)	1	0.00939^ Validated Items, at the level of significance ≤0.05); Mean=Σ of non-agreement points (=474)/Number of expert judges (=22)/Number of items evaluated (=23); Adopted scores (Likert scale): Strong agreement=2; Partial agreement=1; Neither agree nor disagree=Zero; Partial agreement=minus 1; Strong disagreement=minus 2.
Language	2.1. Are the cards for each segment of the pyramid clear?	0	2	1	11	8	20 (90.9)	0.9091	0.10000
	2.2. Are the cards referring to each segment of the pyramid objective?	0	2	0	11	9	20 (90.9)	0.9091	0.10000
	2.3. Are the instruction cards clear?	0	1	2	10	9	21 (95.5)	0.9545	0.0352^ Validated Items, at the level of significance ≤0.05); Mean=Σ of non-agreement points (=474)/Number of expert judges (=22)/Number of items evaluated (=23); Adopted scores (Likert scale): Strong agreement=2; Partial agreement=1; Neither agree nor disagree=Zero; Partial agreement=minus 1; Strong disagreement=minus 2.
	2.4. Are the instruction cards objective?	0	1	1	12	8	21 (95.5)	0.9545	0.0352^ Validated Items, at the level of significance ≤0.05); Mean=Σ of non-agreement points (=474)/Number of expert judges (=22)/Number of items evaluated (=23); Adopted scores (Likert scale): Strong agreement=2; Partial agreement=1; Neither agree nor disagree=Zero; Partial agreement=minus 1; Strong disagreement=minus 2.
	2.5. Are the challenge cards clear?	0	1	1	12	8	21 (95.5)	0.9545	0.0352^ Validated Items, at the level of significance ≤0.05); Mean=Σ of non-agreement points (=474)/Number of expert judges (=22)/Number of items evaluated (=23); Adopted scores (Likert scale): Strong agreement=2; Partial agreement=1; Neither agree nor disagree=Zero; Partial agreement=minus 1; Strong disagreement=minus 2.
	2.6. Are the challenge cards objective?	0	0	2	11	9	21 (95.5)	0.9545	0.0352^ Validated Items, at the level of significance ≤0.05); Mean=Σ of non-agreement points (=474)/Number of expert judges (=22)/Number of items evaluated (=23); Adopted scores (Likert scale): Strong agreement=2; Partial agreement=1; Neither agree nor disagree=Zero; Partial agreement=minus 1; Strong disagreement=minus 2.
	2.7. Are the rules of the game clear?	0	1	2	13	6	21 (95.5)	0.9545	0.0352^ Validated Items, at the level of significance ≤0.05); Mean=Σ of non-agreement points (=474)/Number of expert judges (=22)/Number of items evaluated (=23); Adopted scores (Likert scale): Strong agreement=2; Partial agreement=1; Neither agree nor disagree=Zero; Partial agreement=minus 1; Strong disagreement=minus 2.
	2.8 Are the rules of the game objective?	0	2	1	13	6	20 (90.9)	0.9091	0.1000
	2.9. Do the rules of the game arouse interest?	0	2	1	13	6	20 (90.9)	0.9091	0.1000
	2.10. Are the rules of the game appropriate for the age group?	1	2	2	10	7	19 (86.4)	0.8636	0.2267
Design	3.1. Are the illustrations compatible with the content?	0	0	0	9	13	22 (100)	1	0.00939^ Validated Items, at the level of significance ≤0.05); Mean=Σ of non-agreement points (=474)/Number of expert judges (=22)/Number of items evaluated (=23); Adopted scores (Likert scale): Strong agreement=2; Partial agreement=1; Neither agree nor disagree=Zero; Partial agreement=minus 1; Strong disagreement=minus 2.
	3.2. Are the illustrations adjusted for the age group?	1	0	2	9	10	21 (95.5)	0.9545	0.0352^ Validated Items, at the level of significance ≤0.05); Mean=Σ of non-agreement points (=474)/Number of expert judges (=22)/Number of items evaluated (=23); Adopted scores (Likert scale): Strong agreement=2; Partial agreement=1; Neither agree nor disagree=Zero; Partial agreement=minus 1; Strong disagreement=minus 2.
	3.3. Are the illustrations adequate?	0	1	1	9	11	21 (95.5)	0.9545	0.0352^ Validated Items, at the level of significance ≤0.05); Mean=Σ of non-agreement points (=474)/Number of expert judges (=22)/Number of items evaluated (=23); Adopted scores (Likert scale): Strong agreement=2; Partial agreement=1; Neither agree nor disagree=Zero; Partial agreement=minus 1; Strong disagreement=minus 2.
	3.4. Are food illustrations appropriate for the region?	0	1	2	13	6	21 (95.5)	0.9545	0.0352^ Validated Items, at the level of significance ≤0.05); Mean=Σ of non-agreement points (=474)/Number of expert judges (=22)/Number of items evaluated (=23); Adopted scores (Likert scale): Strong agreement=2; Partial agreement=1; Neither agree nor disagree=Zero; Partial agreement=minus 1; Strong disagreement=minus 2.
Adequacy	4.1. Are the cards for each segment of the pyramid appropriate for the age group?	1	2	4	4	11	19 (86.4)	0.8636	0.2267
	4.2. Are the instruction cards appropriate for the age group?	1	0	5	8	8	21 (95.5)	0.9545	0.0352^ Validated Items, at the level of significance ≤0.05); Mean=Σ of non-agreement points (=474)/Number of expert judges (=22)/Number of items evaluated (=23); Adopted scores (Likert scale): Strong agreement=2; Partial agreement=1; Neither agree nor disagree=Zero; Partial agreement=minus 1; Strong disagreement=minus 2.
	4.3. Are the challenge cards appropriate for the age group?	1	1	4	7	9	20 (90.9)	0.9091	0.1000
	4.4. Are the rules of the game appropriate for the age group?	1	0	4	11	6	21 (95.5)	0.9545	0.0352^ Validated Items, at the level of significance ≤0.05); Mean=Σ of non-agreement points (=474)/Number of expert judges (=22)/Number of items evaluated (=23); Adopted scores (Likert scale): Strong agreement=2; Partial agreement=1; Neither agree nor disagree=Zero; Partial agreement=minus 1; Strong disagreement=minus 2.
	4.5..Regarding motivation, are they appropriate for the age group?	1	2	4	8	7	19 (86.4)	0.8636	0.2267
	4.6..Regarding motivation, do cards arouse interest in the game?	1	2	3	9	7	19 (86.4)	0.8636	0.2267
						Média: 0,94

Judges	Disagreement		Non-Disagreement				S-CVI/AVE
Judges	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree	Strongly agree	∑ (%)	S-CVI/AVE
1				10	13	23 (100.0)	1
2				6	17	23 (100.0)	1
3				20	3	23 (100.0)	1
4		6	8	9		17 (73.9)	00.74
5				2	21	23 (100.0)	1
6			1	22		23 (100.0)	1
7				1	22	23 (100.0)	1
8		1		11	11	22 (95.6)	00.96
9				21	2	23 (100.0)	1
10			7	13	3	23 (100.0)	1
11		12	1	10		11 (47.8)	00.48
12			8	15		23 (100.0)	1
13	8	5		10		10 (43.5)	00.43
14			6	15	2	23 (100.0)	1
15				17	6	23 (100.0)	1
16					23	23 (100.0)	1
17					23	23 (100.0)	1
18				23		23 (100.0)	1
19			2	16	5	23 (100.0)	1
20				7	16	23 (100.0)	1
21			8	10	5	23 (100.0)	1
22					23	23 (100.0)	1
							20.61
					S-CVI 20.61/22=0.94

Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas Núcleo de Editoração SBI - Campus II , Av. John Boyd Dunlop, s/n. - Prédio de Odontologia, 13059-900 Campinas - SP Brasil, Tel./Fax: +55 19 3343-6875 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
E-mail: sbi.submissionrn@puc-campinas.edu.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Note: Validity coefficient Item-Level Content Validity Index (I-CVI) ≥.80;

[TFN01] ^*
Binomial test, using the means of the p-value of the proportion, reject H₀ if p≤0.8

[TFN02] ^**
Validated Items, at the level of significance ≤0.05); Mean=Σ of non-agreement points (=474)/Number of expert judges (=22)/Number of items evaluated (=23); Adopted scores (Likert scale): Strong agreement=2; Partial agreement=1; Neither agree nor disagree=Zero; Partial agreement=minus 1; Strong disagreement=minus 2.