4.4 Article

Validity and reproducibility of a FFQ for assessing dietary intake among residents of northeast Cram: northeast cohort study or China

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 129, 期 7, 页码 1252-1265

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114522002318

关键词

FFQ; Validity; Reproducibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the reproducibility and validity of the Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) for residents in northeast China. The findings demonstrated that the FFQ is reliable and valid for assessing the intake of most foods and nutrients.
The study was to evaluate the reproducibility and validity of the FFQ for residents of northeast China. A total of 131 participants completed two FFQ (FFQ1 and FFQ2) within a 3-month period, 125 participants completed 8-d weighed diet records (WDR) and 112 participants completed blood biomarker testing. Reproducibility was measured by comparing nutrient and food intake between FFQ1 and FFQ2. The validity of the FFQ was assessed by WDR and the triad method. The Spearman correlation coefficients (SCC) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for reproducibility ranged from 0.41 to 0.69 (median = 0.53) and from 0.18 to 0.68 (median = 0.53) for energy and nutrients and from 0.37 to 0.73 (median = 0.59) and from 0.33 to 0.86 (median = 0.60) for food groups, respectively. The classifications of same or adjacent quartiles ranged from 73.64 to 93.80 % for both FFQ. The crude SCC between the FFQ and WDR ranged from 0.27 to 0.55 (median = 0.46) for the energy and nutrients and from 0.26 to 0.70 (median = 0.52) for food groups, and classifications of the same or adjacent quartiles ranged from 65.32 to 86.29 %. The triad method indicated that validation coefficients for the FFQ were above 0.3 for most nutrients, which indicated a moderate or high level of validity. The FFQ that was developed for residents of northeast China for the Northeast Cohort Study of China is reliable and valid for assessing the intake of most foods and nutrients.

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

4.4
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