Eck LH, Klesges LM, Klesges RC. Precision and estimated accuracy of two short-term food frequency questionnaires compared with recalls and records. J Clin Epidemiol 49, 1195-1200

Department of Psychology, University of Memphis, Tennessee 38152, USA.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 3.42). 11/1996; 49(10):1195-200. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(96)00219-3
Source: PubMed


Two widely used food frequency questionnaires (Block FFQ, Willett FFQ) were modified to reflect intake over the past 7 days and compared to intake information gathered from diet records and 24-hr recalls covering the same 7-day period. The Block FFQ and the Willett FFQ were also gathered at the beginning of the assessment period to reflect the 7-day period of time before records and recalls were gathered. Fifty-six subjects were assigned to either recording diet for 3 days, recording diet for 6 days, or providing three 24-hr recalls. Results indicate similar levels of within-method test-retest reliabilities for 3-day RECORDS and 6-day RECORDS, and within the two Block FFQs and within the two Willett FFQs from each subject, while lower reliabilities were seen in 24-hr RECALLS. When the FFQs were compared to the 6-day RECORDS with between-method agreement coefficients, there was a moderate level of agreement, with most values between 0.5 and 0.8 for both FFQs. Significant differences between mean levels of nutrients estimated by the three methods indicated differences only in the estimates of carbohydrate and vitamin A. The use of FFQs to gather short-term intake information is discussed.

4 Reads
  • Source
    • "ICCs were chosen in addition to correlations to allow for evaluation of how interchangeable the LMU RAM is with 3DRs. ICCs, whose use is supported by others, allow for assessment of equivalency, unlike the Pearson correlations which simply evaluate proportionality (Eck et al.,1996; Ward et al., 2004). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: When conducting research in the area of bone health, accurate measurement of calcium intake is crucial. The rapid assessment method (RAM) is one technique that has frequently been used for its measurement of calcium intake. However, the RAM and other currently established questionnaires lack the assessment of dietary supplement use, which is common for athletes. Our objective was to evaluate the validity of a RAM questionnaire designed to assess daily calcium consumption which was further modified to meet the needs of athletes who frequently consume dietary supplements. Usefulness of the modified RAM for athletes and non-athletes was evaluated as well as utility among those who do and do not use supplements. The 47 volunteers (n = 31 women, 16 men) were between the ages of 18 and 25 including, 33 athletes and 14 controls. The population also contained 23 supplement users and 24 non-supplement users. Participants completed the modified RAM and were instructed to complete a three-day diet record (3DR), logging food intake for 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day. The data collected via the modified RAM was compared with the 3DR. Mean calcium intake was 935mg ± 420mg and 1085mg ± 573mg, for the modified RAM and 3DR respectively. A strong positive correlation (r) was found between calcium intake measured with the modified RAM and 3DRs (r(45) = 0.854, p < 0.01). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) revealed that agreement between the two instruments was good (ICC = 0.76, df = 45, p < 0.01) and much improved when compared to agreements without consideration of supplements (ICC = 0.05, df = 21, p > 0.05). We have found the modified RAM to be a valid tool which can be used to estimate calcium intake in the athletes and controls we strive to study. The accuracy of this instrument improved by including assessment of dietary supplement sources of calcium. Key pointsWhen conducting research on bone health, accurate measurement of calcium intake is crucial. The rapid assessment method (RAM) is one technique that has frequently been used for its measurement; however, currently established questionnaires lack assessment of dietary supplement use, which is common for athletes.We report that estimated calcium intake from the LMU RAM modified to evaluate supplement use has good agreement with three-day diet records (3DRs). There was a strong correlation between the two methods with about 69% (r = 0.83, r(2) = 0.69) of the variability in calcium intake quantified via the LMU RAM being accounted for by the 3DR.Calculated intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.63 and 0.77 reveal that the LMU RAM appears to be a valid tool of measuring daily calcium intake in athletes and non-athletes and among those who do and do not use supplements.When evaluating calcium intake without considering supplements, agreement (ICC) and correlation (r) values decreased considerably.We found the LMU RAM to be a valid measurement of calcium intake in athletes and controls. Without the addition of a section on supplement use, estimated calcium intake would have decreased an average of 32%.
    Journal of sports science & medicine 01/2009; 8(2):225-9. · 1.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The original Willett FFQ has been validated in a number of populations and is a well-recognized dietary tool with validity correlations between 0.35 and 0. 74 [41,44,45]. The reliability of the ARIC FFQ has been estimated among both white and African Americans participants in the ARIC study [46]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Television (TV) watching is the most common leisure activity in the United States. Few studies of adults have described the relationship between TV and health behaviors such as physical activity, diet, and body weight status. Extant data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study were analyzed to assess the association of TV with physical activity, diet, and body mass index (BMI) among 15,574 adults at baseline (1986-89) and 12,678 adults six years later. Television, physical activity, and diet were collected with questionnaires and BMI was measured at both time points. Based on baseline TV exposure, adults were categorized into high, medium, and low TV exposure. Linear and logistic regression models were adjusted for gender, age, race-center, smoking, education, and general health. Relative to participants who had low TV exposure, those with high TV exposure were more likely to be less physically active and have a poorer dietary profile at baseline and six-years later. Participants with high TV exposure at baseline had a 40% and 31% greater odds of being considered insufficiently active at baseline (1.40, 95% CI 1.26, 1.55), and six years later (1.31, 95% CI 1.18, 1.46). At baseline, high TV exposure was also associated with a 20% to 30% greater odds of being above the median for servings of salty snacks (1.37, 95% CI 1.24, 1.51), sweets (1.26, 95% CI 1.15, 1.38), and sweetened drinks (1.29, 95% CI 1.17, 1.42), and below the median for fruit and vegetable servings (1.36, 95% CI 1.24, 1.50). Higher TV exposure was also cross-sectionally associated with a greater odds for being overweight or obese (1.43, 95% CI 1.29, 1.58). Similar associations were observed between baseline TV exposure and six-year physical activity and diet, but were not observed with BMI after six years follow-up. These results support the hypothesis that time spent watching TV is associated with deleterious effects on physical activity, diet, and BMI.
    International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 01/2009; 5(1):68. DOI:10.1186/1479-5868-5-68 · 4.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "During the period of recording, participants were instructed to record all food and drink consumed, and were strongly encouraged to consume their normal diets. Using standardized procedures for dietary data collection that our unit has used for several years [17,18], participants were provided with written instructions on how to complete the food records in addition to personal instruction during their screening visit. Upon return of records, each entry was reviewed with participants to assure accuracy. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Blood of cigarette smokers routinely displays decreased antioxidant capacity and increased oxidized lipids compared to nonsmokers. This is thought to be due to both chronic exposure to cigarette smoke in addition to low intake of dietary antioxidants, and is a routine finding in veteran smokers. No study to date has determined the independent and combined impact of dietary intake and cigarette smoking on blood antioxidant capacity and oxidative stress in a sample of young, novice smokers. We compared resting plasma antioxidant reducing capacity (ARC; expressed in uric acid equivalents), serum trolox-equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC), whole blood total glutathione, plasma malondialdehyde (MDA), and plasma oxidized low density lipoprotein (oxLDL) between 15 young (24 +/- 4 years), novice smokers (pack-year history: 3 +/- 2) and 13 nonsmokers of similar age (24 +/- 5 years). Detailed dietary records were maintained during a seven-day period for analysis of total energy, macro- and micronutrient intake. ARC (0.0676 +/- 0.0352 vs. 0.1257 +/- 0.0542 mmolxL-1; mean +/- SD, p = 0.019), TEAC (0.721 +/- 0.120 vs. 0.765 +/- 0.130 mmolxL-1, p = 0.24) and glutathione (835 +/- 143 vs. 898 +/- 168 micromolxL-1, p = 0.28) were lower in smokers compared to nonsmokers, with only the former being statistically significant. MDA (0.919 +/- 0.32 vs. 0.647 +/- 0.16 mumolxL-1, p = 0.05) and oxLDL were both higher in smokers compared to nonsmokers (229 +/- 94 vs. 110 +/- 62 ngxmL-1, p = 0.12), although only the MDA comparison was of statistical significance. Interestingly, these findings existed despite no differences in dietary intake, including antioxidant micronutrient consumption, between both smokers and nonsmokers. These data, with specificity to young, novice cigarette smokers, underscore the importance of smoking abstinence. Future studies with larger sample sizes, inclusive of smokers of different ages and smoking histories, are needed to extend these findings.
    Nutrition Journal 02/2007; 6(1):39. DOI:10.1186/1475-2891-6-39 · 2.60 Impact Factor
Show more