4.4 Article

Relative validity of a semi-quantitative food-frequency questionnaire in an elderly Mediterranean population of Spain

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 103, Issue 12, Pages 1808-1816

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114509993837

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain [RD06/0045/0001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the present study was to assess reproducibility and relative validity of a self-administered FFQ used in the PREDIMED Study, a clinical trial for primary prevention of CVD by Mediterranean diet in a population at high cardiovascular risk. The FFQ was administered twice (FFQ1 and FFQ2) to explore reproducibility at 1 year. Four 3d dietary records (DR) were used as reference to explore validity; participants therefore recorded their food intake over 12 d in the course of 1 year. The degree of misclassification in the FFQ was also evaluated by a contingency table of quintiles comparing the information from the FFQ2 and the DR. A total of 158 men and women (aged 55-80 years) were asked not to modify their dietary habits during the study period. Reproducibility for food groups, energy and nutrient intake, explored by the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) raneed 0.50-0.82, and the intraclass correlation coefficient ([CC) ranged from 0.63 to 0.90. The FFQ2 tended to report higher energy and nutrient intake than the DR. The validity indices of the FFQ in relation to the DR for food groups and energy and nutrient intake ranged (r) from 0.24 to 0.72, while the ranee of the ICC: was between 0.40 and 0.84. With regard to food groups, 68-83 % of individuals were in the same or adjacent quintile in both methods, a figure which decreased to 55-75 % for enemy and nutrient intake. We concluded that FFQ measurements had :good reproducibility and a relative validity similar to those of FFQ used in other prospective studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available