4.0 Article

Relative validities of 3-day food records and the food frequency questionnaire

期刊

NUTRITION RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 142-148

出版社

KOREAN NUTRITION SOC
DOI: 10.4162/nrp.2010.4.2.142

关键词

Relative validity; food records; food frequency questionnaire

资金

  1. Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2007-E71014-00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) has been used as an important dietary assessment tool in epidemiologic studies, but the usefulness of the FFQ has been debated in recent years. This study was performed to evaluate the relative validities of 3-day food records and the semi-quantitative FFQ. A total of 124 subjects finished 3-day food records (FRs) during each of the four seasons, as well as the FFQ from December 2002 to May 2004. The FFQ was a food based semi-quantitative FFQ including 103 items. Three-day FRs from each season and a randomly selected season were compared with the remaining 9-day FRs. The remaining 9-day FRs, as a reference measurement, were also compared with the FFQ. Pearson's correlation coefficients between the 3-day FRs and the 9-day FRs were between 0.14 and 0.56. Pearson's correlation coefficients between the FFQ and the 9-day FRs ranged between 0.07 and 0.41. Average proportions of classification into the same quartiles, adjacent quartiles, and distant quartiles between the 3-day FRs and the 9-day FRs were 35.8%, 40.5%, and 5.2%, respectively. On average, the proportions of classification into the same quartiles, adjacent quartiles, and distant quartiles between the FFQ and the 9-day FRs were 31.1%, 39.4%, and 6.9%, respectively. Three-day FRs showed higher correlations and higher agreement proportions of quartile classification with the 9-day FRs than did the FFQ, but both relative validities of 3-day FRs and the FFQ appear to be acceptable as dietary assessment tools. Further studies for validating food intake by reliable biomarkers are necessary.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据