4.7 Article

Development and Relative Validity of a Semiquantitative Food Frequency Questionnaire to Estimate Dietary Intake among a Multi-Ethnic Population in the Malaysian Cohort Project

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13041163

关键词

food frequency questionnaire; relative validity; dietary intake; The Malaysian Cohort

资金

  1. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION MALAYSIA [PDE48]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that the interviewer-administered food frequency questionnaire in The Malaysian Cohort has good relative validity in assessing participants' dietary habits, but estimates for iron, vitamin A, and vitamin C should be interpreted with caution.
Measuring dietary intakes in a multi-ethnic and multicultural setting, such as Malaysia, remains a challenge due to its diversity. This study aims to develop and evaluate the relative validity of an interviewer-administered food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) in assessing the habitual dietary exposure of The Malaysian Cohort (TMC) participants. We developed a nutrient database (with 203 items) based on various food consumption tables, and 803 participants were involved in this study. The output of the FFQ was then validated against three-day 24-h dietary recalls (n = 64). We assessed the relative validity and its agreement using various methods, such as Spearman's correlation, weighed Kappa, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman analysis. Spearman's correlation coefficient ranged from 0.24 (vitamin C) to 0.46 (carbohydrate), and almost all nutrients had correlation coefficients above 0.3, except for vitamin C and sodium. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from -0.01 (calcium) to 0.59 (carbohydrates), and weighted Kappa exceeded 0.4 for 50% of nutrients. In short, TMC's FFQ appears to have good relative validity for the assessment of nutrient intake among its participants, as compared to the three-day 24-h dietary recalls. However, estimates for iron, vitamin A, and vitamin C should be interpreted with caution.

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

4.7
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