4.6 Article

Validity of a Multipass, Web-based, 24-Hour Self-Administered Recall for Assessment of Total Energy Intake in Blacks and Whites

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 174, 期 11, 页码 1256-1265

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwr224

关键词

diet; energy metabolism; mental recall; questionnaires; validation studies

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-CA105048]
  2. University of California, Los Angeles General Clinical Research Center [M01-RR000865]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To date, Web-based 24-hour recalls have not been validated using objective biomarkers. From 2006 to 2009, the validity of 6 Web-based DietDay 24-hour recalls was tested among 115 black and 118 white healthy adults from Los Angeles, California, by using the doubly labeled water method, and the results were compared with the results of the Diet History Questionnaire, a food frequency questionnaire developed by the National Cancer Institute. The authors performed repeated measurements in a subset of 53 subjects approximately 6 months later to estimate the stability of the doubly labeled water measurement. The attenuation factors for the DietDay recall were 0.30 for blacks and 0.26 for whites. For the Diet History Questionnaire, the attenuation factors were 0.15 and 0.17 for blacks and whites, respectively. Adjusted correlations between true energy intake and the recalls were 0.50 and 0.47 for blacks and whites, respectively, for the DietDay recall. For the Diet History Questionnaire, they were 0.34 and 0.36 for blacks and whites, respectively. The rate of underreporting of more than 30% of calories was lower with the recalls than with the questionnaire (25% and 41% vs. 34% and 52% for blacks and whites, respectively). These findings suggest that Web-based DietDay dietary recalls offer an inexpensive and widely accessible dietary assessment alternative, the validity of which is equally strong among black and white adults. The validity of the Web-administered recall was superior to that of the paper food frequency questionnaire.

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

4.6
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