Journal
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 191, Issue 6, Pages 1125-1139Publisher
OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwac026
Keywords
24-hour recall; dietary assessment; food frequency questionnaire; food record; recovery biomarkers; validation
Categories
Funding
- National Cancer Institute [HHSN261201000087I, HHSN26100003, N02-PC-64406]
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [RR020915]
- National Institutes of Health [UM1-CA186107, UM1-CA176726, UM1-CA167552, P01-CA055075-18S1, U01-CA152904]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This study examined the measurement error of different dietary assessment instruments and found that they have varying attenuation factors and correlation coefficients. The findings support prior research suggesting that different instruments have unique strengths that should be leveraged in epidemiologic research.
Few biomarker-based validation studies have examined error in online self-report dietary assessment instruments, and food records (FRs) have been considered less than food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) and 24-hour recalls (24HRs). We investigated measurement error in online and paper-based FFQs, online 24HRs, and paper-based FRs in 3 samples drawn primarily from 3 cohorts, comprising 1,393 women and 1,455 men aged 45-86 years. Data collection occurred from January 2011 to October 2013. Attenuation factors and correlation coefficients between reported and true usual intake for energy, protein, sodium, potassium, and respective densities were estimated using recovery biomarkers. Across studies, average attenuation factors for energy were 0.07, 0.07, and 0.19 for a single FFQ, 24HR, and FR, respectively. Correlation coefficients for energy were 0.24, 0.23, and 0.40, respectively. Excluding energy, the average attenuation factors across nutrients and studies were 0.22 for a single FFQ, 0.22 for a single 24HR, and 0.51 for a single FR. Corresponding correlation coefficients were 0.31, 0.34, and 0.53, respectively. For densities (nutrient expressed relative to energy), the average attenuation factors across studies were 0.37, 0.17, and 0.50, respectively. The findings support prior research suggesting different instruments have unique strengths that should be leveraged in epidemiologic research.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available