Table 3.

Assessment criteria used to evaluate the experimental studies in the systematic review

Author, year country	1	2	3	4
de Droog et al., 2011 (86) Netherlands	N	3/12	M	M
de Droog et al., 2012 (87) Netherlands	N	2/12	L	M
Keller et al., 2012 (88) United States	N	2/12	M	M
Kotler et al., 2012 (89) United States	N	4/12	M	M
Lapierre et al., 2011 (90) United States	N	3/12	L	M
Letona et al., 2014 (95) Guatemala	N	2/12	L	M
Neeley & Schumann, 2004 (91) United States	Y	7/12	M	M
Roberto et al., 2010 (92) United States	N	3/12	L	M
Smits & Vanderbosch, 2012 (94) Belgium	N	3/12	L	M
Ülger, 2009 (93) Turkey	N	2/12	M	M
Wansink et al., 2012 (96) United States	N	2/12	L	M

1. Did the investigators use a theoretically grounded conceptual model or analytic framework to guide the research design and analysis, and to interpret the results? (Y, yes, N, no, NR, not reported.)

2. How many outcomes were measured for each study?^† (x/12 = number of outcomes measured out of 12 potential outcomes identified in Figure 3.)

3. What is the level of causal inference validity for each study?^‡§ (H, high, M, medium, L, low. Casual inference validity is the strength of the evidence for the investigator to make an associative or casual inference between a marketing variable [media character exposure] and a diet-related cognitive [n = 7], behavioural [n = 4] and health [n = 1] outcome. The measures [H, M or L] take into consideration three dimensions: validity, reliability and precision.)

4. What is the level of ecological validity for each study?^†‡§ (H, high, M, medium, L, low. Ecological validity is the degree to which the investigator can generalize the study results to daily life.)

Criteria 3 and 4 were adapted from the IOM Food Marketing to Children and Youth report (8).