SPECIAL ARTICLE
Qualitative Methods in Nutrition Education
Evaluation Research
CHERYL ACHTERBERG, PH.D.
Nutrition Department, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
Evaluation research is seen as an essential component
in the development, production, and implementation of
all nutrition education programs (1-4), and more nutri-
tion educators are involved in evaluation than in other
research activities. The goal of this article is to discuss
selected qualitative methods that may improve the qual-
ity of those evaluation efforts.
Traditionally, nutrition education evaluation research
has been quantitative in nature depending primarily on
survey questionnaires that assess knowledge, attitudes,
and behavior (see [5] for a comprehensive review and
meta-analysis). In this type of evaluation, effectiveness
is determined by the degree of change noted between
pre- and postintervention (6). However, nutrition edu-
cators are becoming increasingly aware of the inadequacy
of evaluation results that are based exclusively on quan-
titative data (3, 7). This is because such accounts often
do not provide educators with any detailed insight as to
how or why the changes were achieved (8). Qualitative
data, on the other hand, can provide more complete
information, especially on the process variables that fall
between pre- and postmeasurements (9). This increases
the explanatory power of the evaluation while accounting
for variations in context (10). Aqualitative approach also
yields a report on effects that were not anticipated by
the program planners (9). Hence, leaders in nutrition
education research (ll) have emphasized the need for
more qualitative research.
Since few nutrition educators have received formal
training in qualitative research methodology, I will begin
by defining and clarifying terms. Then I will describe a
set of qualitative methods that may be useful in nutrition
education evaluati/:m research. And finally, I will discuss
the role of both qualitative and quantitative methods in
evaluation re~earch.
In this article, evaluation is defined as the process of
delineating, obtaining, and providing useful information
for judging decision alternatives (12) based on an estab-
lished set of criteria (4). In other words, its primary use
is to determine accountability, i.e., "whether teachers
0022-3182/88/2005-0244$02.00/0
1988 SOCIETY FOR NUTRITION EDUCATION
244 JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
are really teaching, whether students are really learning,
whether curricula yield their intended effects, and
whether money is being wasted" (13). It is generally
performed with a minimal consideration of theoretical
constructs. In contrast, the purpose of evaluation re-
search is at least twofold: to systematically describe, judge,
and assign some value or worth to an object or event
and to contribute new techniques or strategies for de-
termining that worth. Ideally, it should also contribute
new knowledge to the theoretical base(s) of the field (14).
Hence, evaluation research is both a measuring rod and
a diagnostic tool; it documents the degree of effect and
informs educators about what works (or not) and why
(15). Although this distinction between evaluation and
evaluation research may appear academic, it has "enor-
mous implications for the design, conduct, analysis, and
interpretation of results of evaluation studies" (16). The
substance of this article should be pertinent to both eval-
uation and evaluation research, though I will continually
refer to evaluation research.
A DEFINITION OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Precise definitions for qualitative research are rarely found
in the literature. So, qualitative research may be de-
scribed by comparing it to quantitative research.
Considerable disagreement exists in the social sciences
over the appropriateness of quantitative and qualitative
methods for conducting evaluation research (17-20). As
Bogdan and Taylor (21) noted, however, "most debates
over methods are debates over assumptions and goals,
over theory and perspective" (p. 1, original emphasis).
Hence, the root of the debate between quantitative and
qualitative research is philosophical (22), and the phrases
"qualitative methods" and "quantitative methods" mean
far more than data-collecting techniques (10). It is ap-
propriate, therefore, to discuss each approach as a par-
ticular philosophical paradigm.
The quantitative approach is derived from Bacon's pos-
itivist philosophy of science (9, 22). Adherents are called
positivists because they feel "positive" or certain about
VOLUME 20 NUMBER 5 1988
 Bacon's scientific approach to inquiry and truth (21). Key
assumptions or beliefs include the idea that 1) inquiry
can (and should) be value free and 2) reality exists as a
single truth independent of human beings and subject
to general laws that predict and determine causality for
all physical and social phenomena (9, 19, 22). Thus, ob-
jectivity is demanded of investigators within this para-
digm (19) and this demand has led, in turn, to the em-
phasis on numerical data. Numbers are thought to be
purely objective, a universal language that can be inter-
preted the same way in all situations throughout the
world.
The qualitative approach is based on a "naturalistic"
philosophy, and it has been a staple approach in anthro-
pology, history, and political science since the turn of
the century (21,23). From a naturalist's viewpoint, real-
ity is constructed and shaped by the human mind. Be-
cause people vary, there are multiple realities in the
world (21). So, all inquiries are inevitably value-bound
and context-bound because the knower and the known
are interactive and inseparable. Truth too is context-
bound and multiple truths are possible because there
are multiple views of reality. Hence, objectivity is im-
possible, general laws that explain human and social be-
havior are impossible, and generalizations become pos-
sible only within a time- and context-bound framework
(19). Thomas and Thomas (24) summed it up in their
classic dictum, "If men define situations as real, they are
real in their consequences."
These two philosophical views provide a basis for the
selection of research instrumentation, sampling proce-
dures, use of theory, and the formulation of objectives.
The approaches are different because the underlying as-
sumptions about the nature of the phenomena under
study are different. Thus, positivists tend to be quanti-
tative scientists who, in turn, tend to design tightly con-
trolled experimental studies where the role of instru-
mentation, research protocols, and methods for analysis
are emphasized and conceptual inquiry is minimized (18).
"Naturalists" tend to be qualitative scientists who ob-
serve events as they occur "naturally," and no attempt
is made to artificially manipulate controls for intervening
variables. This is not to say that qualitative research is
less rigorous. Rather, the focus is changed and concep-
tualization is very important in qualitative inquiries. As
Tukey stated, it is better to have "an approximate answer
to the right question; which is often vague, than an exact
answer to the wrong question, which can always be made
more precise" (19). Qualitative research is valued in
formative evaluation and theory-building research for
several reasons. First, it permits analysis to go beyond
a "no significant difference" statistical result to explain
why a program did or did not work (25). Second, it pre-
serves the natural variation exhibited in human behavior
(25). Third, it fosters the development of a conceptual
framework to guide future research efforts (19), and fourth,
VOLUME 20 NUMBER 5 1988
it enables investigators to explore human phenomena
that are not amenable to direct observation such as feel-
ings and semantic meanings (26).
It is important to point out, however, that qualitative
and quantitative data do not exist as a simple dichotomy
but as a continuum, with pure analytic induction on one
extreme and standardized measures and statistical pro-
tocols at the other (19). Even in terms of philosophic
differences, few people are truly purists in one extreme
or the other. Therefore, the distinctions between qual-
itative and quantitative data are often not as clear in
practice as they are in theory (17). For example, food
frequency data are qualitative data that can be counted;
they have both a qualitative and a quantitative nature.
Thus, the degree to which an investigator in the social
sciences depends on qualitative or quantitative methods
should be determined by the nature of the problem.
There is a place and a role for both (even within the
same study) depending on the purpose of the research.
Quantitative methods include those designs, tech-
niques, and measures that produce discrete numerical
(or quantifiable) data (19). This conventional approach to
scientific research includes "randomized experiments,
quasi-experiments, paper and pencil 'objective' tests,
multivariate statistical analyses, sample surveys and the
like" (17). Qualitative methods, on the other hand, in-
clude those designs, techniques, and measures that do
not produce discrete numerical data (19). More often the
data are words rather than numbers and these words are
often grouped into categories. But these data cannot, by
their nature, be reduced into quantifiable terms (23).
Ethnography, case studies, in-depth interviews, and par-
ticipant observation are methods that are commonly used
to collect data in qualitative research (17).
A DESCRIPTION OF QUALITATIVE METHODS
The purpose of sampling in qualitative research is to
discover and describe categories of phenomena (27).
Therefore, the participants are selected in order to obtain
the fullest range of characteristics possible. Random sam-
pling is not a concern because the distribution char-
acteristics of the data categories are not important in
qualitative research. In fact, random sampling can in
some cases be counterproductive because these proce-
dures may miss the full range of outliers or types of
people and characteristics that are substantially different
than the average case. Furthermore, there are no "rules
of comparability" (e.g., equal size and equal variance) in
choosing groups because standard statistical tests are sel-
dom used. Finally, sample size is considered sufficient
when an increase in the sample size yields no new data
(27). Sample size cannot, therefore, be accurately esti-
mated before the study begins; power equations are non-
applicable.
JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION 245
 Data collection methods include sampling methods as
well as the techniques used to collect data from the sam-
ple population. The three methods that are most often
associated with qualitative data collection are direct ob-
servation, ethnography (or participant observation), and
interviewing. Other methods that are used increasingly
in marketing and advertising include focus groups and
cognitive response techniques.
Direct observation is the primary technique for col-
lecting data on overt, nonverbal behavior but it can apply
to any observed behavior including verbal interactions
and external or environmental events. It is the preferred
method when one wants to study in detail a behavior
that occurs in some particular setting or institution (18).
There are three distinct advantages to an observational
approach vs. a surveyor experimental approach. First,
data are collected in the subject's natural environment,
which increases the validity of the observations (28). Sec-
ond, the behavior is observed as it occurs, which de-
creases the bias that can be introduced by an incomplete
or inaccurate memory of the event (18). And third, the
investigator is not dependent on the subject's ability to
articulate an event in either written or oral form, which
increases this technique's usefulness in cross-cultural set-
tings (e.g., 29) or among young children (30).
Disadvantages of direct observation include difficulties
in gaining entry (for example, many people are uncom-
fortable with observers watching them while they eat)
and lack of anonymity in studying sensitive issues (18).
More important, meaning and thought processes are not
revealed by observation. Thus, observers must have a
prior understanding of the language or jargon used in
any particular "culture" they observe whether it be in a
nursery school playroom or a hut in the Philippines (26).
In addition, their observational skills must be very acute
or little insight will be derived from their work. Examples
of direct observation in the nutrition education literature
include Hunt (29) and Davidson et al. (31).
Ethnography is the term used to describe participant
observation, i. e., data is collected by an observer who
is a regular participant in the activities being observed
(26). Through long-term interaction with the subjects in
the context of their everyday lives, an investigator can
gain a sense of the underlying beliefs, explanations, and
meanings that a group of people have for certain events
in their lives (18). This method has been widely practiced
among nutritional anthropologists (see 32-33), especially
in cross-cultural settings (e.g., 34-35). It has all the ad-
vantages of direct observation that were noted above,
plus it tends to produce a deeper, richer understanding
of context and meaning (36). Sample sizes tend to be
very small and the observations must be collected for a
long period of time, averaging one or more years per site
(18). Moreover, certain populations are either imprac-
tical for, or are not amenable to, participant observation
(for example, single adult households).
246 JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
The third methodology that is frequently employed in
qualitative data collection is interviewing. There are three
general approaches to interviewing, including the infor-
mal conversational interview (26), the semi-structured
interview (37), and the standardized open-ended inter-
view (9).
The important distinction between the qualitative in-
terviewing methods described above and the close-ended
interviews that are characteristically used in social sci-
ence research is that participants are allowed to respond
in words of their own choosing. This is in stark contrast
to the predetermined choices, wording, and meaning
imposed on respondents by the close-ended, fixed re-
sponse, multiple-choice type of interview.
The informal conversational interview is widely used
by ethnographers. It is used to gain insight into an in-
dividual's point of view, his or her relation to life, and
vision of the world (26). Since the interviewer seeks to
learn about what is important to the respondent, none
of the content of the interview is predetermined. In-
stead, the respondent determines the topic areas to be
discussed. The informal conversational interview allows
for maximum flexibility, but it is the least efficient ap-
proach when time is limited.
In the semi-structured interview, the interviewer comes
with a list of topic areas which need to be addressed
during the interview. Some degree of flexibility is main-
tained because the wording and sequence of interview
questions are adapted by the interviewer to the respond-
ent (9). Examples in the nutrition literature include re-
cent research by Campbell (Note 1) and Harrison (Note
2). The semi-structured interview approach has also been
widely applied by other investigators with an interest in
defining and understanding meaning frameworks (e.g.,
37-40). Holmes and Roser (Note 3) compared it to four
other methods and concluded that a semi-structured
probe interview proVided the greatest amount of infor-
mation, the most correct information and the most ef-
ficient use of time, but noted that the entire process was
slow, relative to close-ended surveys.
In the standardized open-ended interview, the inter-
viewer predetermines the topic areas as well as the word-
ing and sequence of the interview questions (9). This
type of interview is often associated with Piaget. The
education literature often refers to the standardized open-
ended interview as a Piagetian or clinical interview (e.g. ,
38), whereas the psychological literature often uses the
term "probed interview." All of these terms are equiv-
alent. In the nutrition literature, Contento (41-42) has
made extensive use of the Piagetian or standardized open-
ended interview with young children.
The focus group method of data collection was devel-
oped in the 1950s from the group therapy method used
by psychiatrists. It is based on the assumption that in-
dividuals who share a problem may be more willing to
talk about it amid the security of others with similar
VOLUME 20 NUMBER 5 1988
 problems (43). Focus groups are usually composed of a
facilitator and 6-12 respondents. The facilitator or mod-
erator encourages group discussion and exchange of ideas
about a subject without restricting the range of responses
or directing the conversation (15, 44). The combined
group effort tends to produce a wide range of informa-
tion, insight, and ideas, and speeds up the interview
process and accumulation of data (45). The use of focus
groups has become so widespread in marketing research
that it is almost "synonymous" with qualitative research
in that field (15). Sims and Shepherd (Note 4) found it
extremely useful in a formative evaluation of nutrition
education materials. It is ofless value, however, in sum-
mative evaluation when the investigator must identify
idiosyncratic understandings of a specified educational
intervention in a pre-/postanalysis. In other words, focus
groups are designed to pinpoint common barriers or re-
actions to certain ideas or products; they are not designed
to reflect individual understanding or changes in under-
standing due to exposure to a piece of educational ma-
terial.
In the cognitive response method, respondents are
asked to verbalize the thoughts, feelings, and ideas that
come to mind while examining or reading a message. It
was introduced into the psychological literature during
the early 1970s, and it is now considered to be one of
the most important new trends in consumer research
(46). Sims and Shepherd (Note 5) recently demonstrated
the efficacy of this method for evaluating a respondent's
affective reaction to a nutrition education message pres-
entation. These investigators concluded that the tech-
nique was valuable because responses could be analyzed
at both an individual and an aggregate level, and it al-
lowed them to assess unpredicted as well as predicted
outcomes of message exposure. It should be noted, how-
ever, that this work did not produce data about the re-
spondents' comprehension of the material. It can be con-
cluded, therefore, that a combination of different
qualitative methods may produce a more complete pic-
ture of message acceptance than anyone method can
alone.
DATA ANALYSIS
Books and articles on qualitative methodology focus pri-
marily on data collection methods and tend to address
data analysis issues only superficially. As Miles (47) co-
gently remarkea, "The most serious and central difficulty
in the use of qualitative data is that the methods of anal-
ysis are not well formulated." There are, however, sev-
eral steps to follow in any qualitative data analysis. These
are to 1) aggregate the data, 2) analyze the aggregate
data in order to describe the data set and/or generate
hypotheses, and 3) generate a theoretical framework from
the totality of concept relationships and hypotheses.
VOLUME 20 NUMBER 5 1988
Data aggregation, the first step in data analysis, is both
a form of data reduction and a preliminary analysis where
the raw field notes or observations are systematized and
organized to make the entire data set more amenable to
further analysis and assembly (47). Important topics are
coded and broad categories for different types of data are
constructed (21). These topical categories tend to be those
generated by the participants. Spradley (26) labeled this
process a taxonomic analysis. Concept mapping (37) is
one technique that can be used for data aggregation.
The second step in data analysis usually involves some
form of content analysis or scrutiny of the data for its
underlying themes or typologies. The researcher gen-
erally identifies these theoretical categories to explain
the results in Level I, i.e., categories are grouped into
themes that tie the categories together at a more abstract
or conceptual level. In Spradley's (26) terms, this is a
theme analysis. A reliable theme analysis should be guided
by an explicit set of rules which should enable multiple
analysts to arrive at the same results (19). For example,
Novak and Gowin (37) have introduced a set of rules for
scoring and interpreting concept maps. A reliable anal-
ysis, however, presumes that the analysts share the same
philosophical orientation and understanding of the re-
search questions. According to the naturalistic paradigm,
however, multiple realities are not only possible but
probable (19). Therefore, different analysts, with differ-
ent perspectives, can produce different results and inter-
pretations, but all can be accepted as equally valid. So,
qualitative evaluations must be performed and written
in light of the people who will receive, read, and judge
them. Administrators or others who are used to tradi-
tional approaches with a positivist orientation may be
unlikely to accept a qualitative evaluation unless some
attempt has been made to establish reliability, whereas
those that adhere to a more naturalistic philosophy will
tend to be more interested in the validity. Generally,
study subjects will readily accept the validity of a report
that rings true to their experience.
The third step in data analysis, generating a theoretical
framework, is the most subjective procedure and the
hardest to describe. Miles (47) said that it is "intuitive,
primitive, and unmanageable in any rational sense." Other
investigators (e.g., 19) might consider that an overstate-
ment, but it draws attention to an issue in qualitative
research that has received relatively little discussion. The
most important process that an investigator can engage
in at this stage is writing. By writing multiple drafts of
the study results, the researcher is better able to coalesce
and synthesize these results into a meaningful whole,
picture, or theoretical framework. These multiple writ-
ing drafts can be compared to multiple statistical runs.
Each run or draft further clarifies and refines the former
effort until the finished product is produced with data
that make sense, and which can be reasonably explained
within the confines of a selected theory.
JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION 247
 There are several checks that can be applied to this
final analysis to assess the validity of the final interpre-
tation. The first set of checks should coincide with the
entire process of data analysis. In other words, qualitative
analyses do not proceed in a lock-step fashion from one
stage to another. Rather the investigator must move back
and forth between stages until the data set (and the in-
vestigator) is exhausted. First, each hypothesis that is
suggested by the data should be checked against the
entire data set to determine if there are any negative
cases. Second, assuming that the hypothesis is correct,
the investigator should ask what further relations or ex-
planations can be predicted from the original hypothesis.
In other words, what else would be true? Again, the data
can be checked to ascertain this (48). Third, it is also
important to determine if each hypothesis was produced
from a direct statement/observation or from an indirect
inference (21). These three operations produce what
Glaser and Strauss (27) have called "grounded theory,"
i.e., every generalization made in the analysis can be
traced back directly to a particular instance in the data
set. "Grounding" helps to ensure the validity of the data.
Finally, it should also be ascertained whether these hy-
potheses can explain the results of other similar studies
in the literature (47).
Another important control measure is called trian-
gulation. Triangulation is the process whereby the re-
sults of one analysis on the data set are systematically
checked against the results of another analysis on the
same data set to maximize the validity of the resulting
interpretations and hypotheses (49). For example, an
investigator could combine cognitive response and in-
depth interviewing techniques. If the results of each
subanalysis complement one another, the validity of the
study's interpretation is increased and the research is
less subject to criticism about investigator bias or sub-
jectivity. Another important variation to triangulation is
that each study should strive to use multiple analysts
who, using the same methods, independently arrive at
the same conclusions.
POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS IN
EVALUATION RESEARCH
It is essential that nutrition educators develop effective
and efficient strategies for program evaluation (3) because
inflationary pressures, resource constraints, and com-
peting intere!fts will extinguish ineffective educational
efforts. The potential of a qualitative approach to eval-
uation is largely untapped in nutrition education, either
alone or in combination with more traditional survey
methods. In fact, more and more leaders (3, 10, 48, 50)
in evaluation are encouraging researchers to use a com-
bination of qualitative and quantitative methods for this
task so that the flaws of one method can be compensated
248 JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
for by the strengths of another method. A wide array of
conceptual and methodological tools is also more likely
to unravel the complexity of the situations and problems
generally encountered in program evaluations. It is im-
portant to point out, however, that some investigators
(e. g., 19,44) think that qualitative and quantitative meth-
ods are so incompatible philosophically, that they cannot
be combined in any effort. My purpose in this article is
not to say that either view is correct or incorrect, but
rather to sensitize evaluators in nutrition education to
these issues and to make them aware that there are op-
tions available.
Philosophies change slowly, however, so a person used
to approaching a problem in one manner may have prob-
lems abandoning that position. Hence, a combination of
methods and approaches may be more amenable. But
what is the potential for combining the two approaches
in evaluation research? Conventional wisdom holds that
qualitative research should precede quantitative re-
search in order to test the generalizability of the quali-
tative results (44, 50). While some would argue that qual-
itative results should not be generalized (they being valid
in and of themselves), Sieber (48) went beyond this issue
and summarized multiple ways in which qualitative field
work and quantitative surveys can complement one an-
other:
1) The theoretical structure to guide the quantitative
analysis can be derived from the qualitative field
work,
2) The quantitative survey results can be validated by
reference to direct observations or interviews from
the qualitative research component,
3) The quantitative statistical tests can be interpreted
by reference to field observations from the quali-
tative research component,
4) The selection of items and construction of scales or
other indices used in quantitative research can be
based on field observations from the qualitative re-
search component,
5) Statistical constructs (e. g., factors produced by fac-
tor analysis) used in quantitative research can be
validated by comparison with field observations from
the qualitative research component,
6) Case studies that illustrate statistical inferences
(quantitative research) can be derived from the field
data from the qualitative research component,
7) Puzzling replies on a survey questionnaire used in
quantitative research can be clarified with the field
data from the qualitative research component,
8) The impersonality of a survey (quantitative) can be
counteracted by the subjects' personal acquaint-
ance with the investigator and/or the study (qual-
itative), and
9) The more knowledgeable the questionnaire de-
signer is about the target audience, the more ap-
VOLUME 20 NUMBER 5 1988
 propriate the survey wording will be. Administra-
tion of the survey should run more smoothly as well.
Miles and Huberman (23) added that qualitative research
is the one place where contexts can and should be stud-
ied. This is important because the "bottom line" in the
integration of qualitative methods with quantitative
methods is that the qualitative methods "provide the
context of meanings in which the quantitative methods
can be understood" (10).
In sum, the two methods do not just produce different
kinds of data, but the data produced by each one can
improve the ultimate quality of the other (48).
CONCLUSION
Philosophic issues aside, there are a number of obstacles
to performing qualitative research and for combining
qualitative and quantitative methods in a single study.
These obstacles include cost, time, and insufficient train-
ing of researchers in both types of research. Qualitative
research is costly because it is labor intensive. Costs also
spiral if the researcher needs to travel to collect data.
On the other hand, a single investigator can perform a
qualitative evaluation at a single site with a small sample
relatively quickly. Time is an issue not only in terms of
data collection, but data analysis. There are no short cuts
available for either operation. Data must be collected
and analyzed case by case. However, studies that use
either a qualitative or quantitative approach can take a
long time. "Quick and dirty" methods will produce data
quickly in either approach, just as very careful research
will require a longer amount of time in either approach.
Finally, qualitative evaluations should not be undertaken
without specific training for the task. Nutrition educators
need to be schooled in both the philosophic assumptions
of qualitative research and each method they propose to
use. This training should include supervised experience
in both data collection and data analysis. Therefore, ac-
ademic programs should be encouraged to add specific
training on qualitative methods to their curricula.
Qualitative inquiries and evaluations are intensive,
rigorous efforts that must be open to public scrutiny at
all times. They are not for the faint of heart to try. Rather,
the drive to use them should come from 1) the desire to
answer new and perhaps more important questions than
quantitative approaches allow and 2) the need to collect
more detailed ai.d specific data. Program administrators
rarely want data that generalize across the state or coun-
try. Rather, they want to know how their program worked
in their office. A qualitative approach has much to offer
in that respect and qualitative methods should, there-
fore, become a routine part of the evaluator's toolbox.
Both practitioners and researchers need to work to-
gether, however, to develop model strategies that can
VOLUME 20 NUMBER 5 1988
be readily applied within the everyday constraints of
programmatic efforts in nutrition education (51). D
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was partially supported by Contract Agreement
No. 53-3198-7-35 with the Human Nutrition Information
Service, USDA. I thank Janet Gregoire and Anne-Katrin Schafer
for their excellent editorial and technical assistance and Nancy
Hopkins for secretarial services.
NOTES
1 Campbell, C.C. The social construction of local food systems: A
Habermasian analysis of inter-organizational networks. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1984.
2 Harrison, B. M. Changes in infant feeding practices of Vietnamese
refugees interpreted through qualitative data. Master's thesis. Cor-
nell University, Ithaca, NY, 1985.
3 Holmes, B.C., and N.L. Roser. A comparison of techniques used
to assess readers' prior knowledge. Paper presented at the 30th
annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, 1980.
4 Sims, L.S., and S.K. Shepherd. Further exploration offormatting,
structuring, and sequencing of nutrition information for household
food managers. Final Report. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, December
1985.
5 Sims, L. S., and S.K. Shepherd. An information processing approach
to the evaluation of nutrition education materials. Final Report. Food
and Nutrition Service, April 1987.
LITERATURE CITED
1 U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. Nutrition research alter-
natives. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Technology Assessment,
September 1978, pp. 1-77.
2 U.S. Government Accounting Office. Informing the public about
nutrition: Federal agencies should do better . Washington, DC: U. S.
Government Accounting Office, March 1978, pp. 1-81.
3 Edwards, P.K., RM. Mullis, and B. Clarke. A comprehensive
model for evaluating innovative nutrition education programs. Jour-
nal of Nutrition Education 18:10--15, 1986.
4 Talmage, H., M. Hughes, and M.J. Eash. The role of evaluation
research in nutrition education. Journal of Nutrition Education
10:4, 1978.
5 Johnson, D.W., and R.T. Johnson. Nutrition education: A model
for a synthesis of research. Journal of Nutrition Education
17(Supp.):S1-S44, 1985.
6 Sims, L.S. Toward an understanding of attitude assessment in nu-
trition research. Journal of The American Dietetic Association 78:460-
66, 1981.
7 Hanson, RA., and RE. Schutz. Rethinking evaluation design for
nutrition education programs. Journal of Nutrition Education 13:86--
89, 1981. .
8 Mullen, P.D., and D. Iverson. Qualitative methods for evaluative
research in health education programs. Health Education Mayl
June:1l-18, 1982.
9 Patton, M.Q. Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage, 1980, pp. 9-379, p. 10 (for the quotation).
10 Filstead, W.J. Qualitative methods, a needed perspective in eval-
uation research. In Qualitative and quantitative methods in eval-
uation research. T. D. Cook and C. S. Reichardt, eds. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage, 1979, pp. 33-48.
11 Sims, L. S. Nutrition education research: Reaching toward the lead-
ing edge. Journal of The American Dietetic Association
87(Supp.):SlO--18, 1987.
12 Gabel, L. L. Evaluation strategies for nutrition education curricula.
JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION 249
 In Proceedings of the national workshop on nutrition education in
health professions. Division of Nutrition, Department of Com-
munity Health, Washington, DC, 1981, pp. 85-89.
13 Cooper, K., and C. Go. Analysis of nutrition curriculum gUides at
the K-12 level. Journal of Nutrition Education 8(2):62--66, 1976.
14 Achterberg, C.L., J.D . Novak, and A.H. Gillespie. Theory-driven
research as a means to improve nutrition education. Journal of
Nutrition Education 17:17S-S4, 1985.
15 Manoff, R. K. Sociol marketing, new imperative for public health .
New York: Praeger, 1985, pp. 1~127 .
16 Wolf, R. The role of evaluation in nutrition education. In World
nutrition and nutrition education. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1980, pp. 109--13.
17 Cook, T.D., andC.S . Reichardt. Qualitative and quantitativemeth-
ods in evaluation research . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979, pp. 1-
28.
18 Bailey, K.D. Methods of sociol research, 2d ed. New York: Free
Press, 1982, pp. 61-79, 181-217.
19 Lincoln, Y.S., and E.G. Guba. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage, 1985, p. 338 (for the quotation), pp. 7-382.
20 Rist, R.C. On the means of knOwing: Qualitative research in ed-
ucation. New York University Educational Quarterly 15:17- 21, 1984.
21 Bogdan, R. , and S.J. Taylor. Introduction to qualitative research
methods . New York: John Wiley, 1975, pp. 1-131.
22 Novak, J.D. Atheory of education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1977, pp. 15--63.
23 Miles, M.B., and M. Huberman. Qualitative data analysis: A
sourcebook of new methods . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984, pp.
15-220.
24 Thomas, W.I. , and D.S. Thomas. The child in America . New York:
Alfred P. Knopf, 1928, p. 572.
25 Pelto, G.H. AnthropolOgical contributions to nutrition education
research. Journal of Nutrition Education 13(Supp. 1):S2--28, 1981.
26 Spradley, J.P. The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rine-
hart, and Winston, 1979, pp. ~243.
27 Glaser, B.G. , and A. L. Strauss. The discovery of grounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research . New York: Aldine Publishing
Co., 1967, pp. 1-271.
28 Bronfenbrenner, U. The ecology of human development. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University, 1979, pp. 1-15.
29 Hunt, M.K. Developing cross-cultural nutrition curricula using
qualitative research methods. Journal of Nutrition Education 19:60-
64, 1987.
30 Coates, T.J.Eating-A psychological dilemma. Journal ofNutrition
Education 13(Supp. 1): S~S48 , 1981.
31 Davidson, F .R., L.A. Hayek, and A.M. Altschul. Towards accurate
assessment of children's food consumption. Ecology of Food and
Nutrition 18:309--17, 1986.
32 Grivetti, L.E., and R.M . Pangborn. Food habit research: A review
of approaches and methods. Journal of Nutrition Education 5 : ~
8, 1973.
250 JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
33 Wilson, C.S. Food custom and nurture. Journal of Nutrition Ed-
ucation 11(Supp. 1):211-64, 1979.
34 Kolasa, K.M., and M.A. Bass. Participant-observation in nutrition
education program development. Journal of Nutrition Education
6:89-92, 1974.
35 Marchione, T.J. Food and nutrition in self-reliant national devel-
opment: The impact on child nutrition of Jamaican government
policy. Medical Anthropology 1:57, 1977.
36 Kolasa, K.M. Nutritional anthropolOgists and nutrition educators-
Potentials for a multidimensional world view. Journal of Nutrition
Education 13(Supp. l ):S9-S11, 1981.
37 Novak, J.D., and D.B. Gowin. Learning how to learn . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984, pp. 1-199.
38 Arnaudin, M.W. , and J.J. Mintzes. Students' alternative concep-
tions of the human Circulatory system: Across-age study. Science
Education 69(5):721-33, 1985.
39 Finley, F.N. Variations in prior knowledge. Science Knowledge
69(5):697-705, 1985.
40 Happs, J.C. Cognitive learning theory and classroom complexity.
Research in Science and Technological Education 3(2):159-74, 1985.
41 Contento, I. Children's thinking about food and eating-A Piage-
tian-based study. Journal of Nutrition Education 13(Supp. 1):S86-
S90, 1981.
42 Michela, J. L., and I. R. Contento. Spontaneous classification of
foods by elementary school-aged children. Health Education Quar-
terly 11:57-76, 1985.
43 Bellenger, D.N., K.L. Bernardt, andJ.L. Goldstucker. Qualitative
research in marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Institute, 1976,
pp. 1-76.
44 Calder, B.J. Focus groups and the nature of qualitative marketing
research. Journal of Marketing Research 14:353-64, 1977.
45 Wells, W.D. Group interviewing. In Handbook of marketing re-
search, R. Farber, ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974, pp. 2.13~
2.146.
46 Kassarjian, H.H. Consumer psychology. American Review ofPsy-
chology 33:619-49, 1982.
47 Miles, M. B. Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: The problem
of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 24:590-001, 1979.
48 Sieber, S.D. The integration of fieldwork and survey methods.
American Journal of Sociology 78(6):1335-59, 1973.
49 Campbell, D.T., and D.W. Fiske. Convergent and discriminant
validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychology Bul-
letin 54:81-105, 1959.
50 Campbell, D.T. Degrees of freedom and the case study. In Qual-
itative and quantitative methods in evaluation research, T. D. Cook
and C.S. Reichardt, eds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979, pp. 49-
67.
51 Achterberg, C. A perspective on nutrition education research and
practice. Journal of Nutrition Education 20:240-43, 1988.
VOLUME 20 NUMBER 5 1988