Table 1 Proposition and revisions per step and per construct of the Canteen Scan
Element | Step 1: Development (expert meeting n = 19; interviews n = 6; second expert meeting n = 10) | Step 2: Content validity of paper scan (n = 4) | Step 3: Pilot testing the online scan | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Translation into online scan | Pilot testing the online scan (n = 4) | |||
Basic conditions | - 2 automatically assessed questions - 2 multiple choice questions | - 2 multiple choice questions were split into two different sets of questions. | - Improve formulation of the questions | |
Availability of food and drinks - method to classify products | Link the tool with the LEDAa | - Link with LEDA was evaluated positive | - Optimise the database - Buttons were difficult to find - Added the option to adapt entered composite products. | |
Availability of food and drinks - method to assess quantity | - Measuring relative shelf space - Combination of counting facings and product numbers on displays, racks, coolers - Counting facings in vending machines | - A product list with common products was suggested, to reduce time to enter a product - Counting facings on displays (racks, shelf) was infeasible. In coolers facings was feasible - Counting facings in vending machines was feasible | - Two separate elements were created for “food and drink on display” and “food and drinks in vending machines” to increase clarity. - The combination of facings and numbers in displays was technically infeasible, so all products need to be counted | - Difficult to fill in the Canteen Scan during opening hours as the assortment changes. - Numbers of product above 30 go in steps of 5. |
Accessibility criteria | - Experts suggested to add “not applicable” to the response options - Reformulations were suggested - 3 Price items were proposed, but reduced to 1 on advice of experts, because infeasible/too costly for practice - 2 Items about prominent placing were split into three to improve comprehensiveness - A portion size item was suggested and rejected - Finally, 10 items were proposed | - Item for attractive presentation of fruit and vegetables was added [54] - 11 Items remained | - Three items for prominent placing were reduced to one item, to ensure equal contribution of placing regarding all accessibility items - 9 Items remained | - Add examples in text or picture, of the criteria - Questions to assess whether products are placed on the most eye-catching spot is reformulated |
Results and feedback | - A score per construct and an awarded level - A general advice and a specific advice with all entered and classification of products - Portion size and pricing were added to the advice | - Improved the advises of the accessibility criteria | ||