Online Dietary Intake Estimation: Reproducibility and Validity of the Food4Me Food Frequency Questionnaire Against a 4-Day Weighed Food Record

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Advances in nutritional assessment are continuing to embrace developments in computer technology. The online Food4Me food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was created as an electronic system for the collection of nutrient intake data. To ensure its accuracy in assessing both nutrient and food group intake, further validation against data obtained using a reliable, but independent, instrument and assessment of its reproducibility are required.

Objective

The aim was to assess the reproducibility and validity of the Food4Me FFQ against a 4-day weighed food record (WFR).

Methods

Reproducibility of the Food4Me FFQ was assessed using test-retest methodology by asking participants to complete the FFQ on 2 occasions 4 weeks apart. To assess the validity of the Food4Me FFQ against the 4-day WFR, half the participants were also asked to complete a 4-day WFR 1 week after the first administration of the Food4Me FFQ. Level of agreement between nutrient and food group intakes estimated by the repeated Food4Me FFQ and the Food4Me FFQ and 4-day WFR were evaluated using Bland-Altman methodology and classification into quartiles of daily intake. Crude unadjusted correlation coefficients were also calculated for nutrient and food group intakes.

Results

In total, 100 people participated in the assessment of reproducibility (mean age 32, SD 12 years), and 49 of these (mean age 27, SD 8 years) also took part in the assessment of validity. Crude unadjusted correlations for repeated Food4Me FFQ ranged from .65 (vitamin D) to .90 (alcohol). The mean cross-classification into “exact agreement plus adjacent” was 92% for both nutrient and food group intakes, and Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement for energy-adjusted macronutrient intakes. Agreement between the Food4Me FFQ and 4-day WFR varied, with crude unadjusted correlations ranging from .23 (vitamin D) to .65 (protein, % total energy) for nutrient intakes and .11 (soups, sauces and miscellaneous foods) to .73 (yogurts) for food group intake. The mean cross-classification into “exact agreement plus adjacent” was 80% and 78% for nutrient and food group intake, respectively. There were no significant differences between energy intakes estimated using the Food4Me FFQ and 4-day WFR, and Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement for both energy and energy-controlled nutrient intakes.

Conclusions

The results demonstrate that the online Food4Me FFQ is reproducible for assessing nutrient and food group intake and has moderate agreement with the 4-day WFR for assessing energy and energy-adjusted nutrient intakes. The Food4Me FFQ is a suitable online tool for assessing dietary intake in healthy adults.

Related collections

Most cited references 40

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

J Bland, D Altman (1986)

In clinical measurement comparison of a new measurement technique with an established one is often needed to see whether they agree sufficiently for the new to replace the old. Such investigations are often analysed inappropriately, notably by using correlation coefficients. The use of correlation is misleading. An alternative approach, based on graphical techniques and simple calculations, is described, together with the relation between this analysis and the assessment of repeatability.

0 comments Cited 2544 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Development, validation and utilisation of food-frequency questionnaires - a review.

Janet Cade, Rachel Thompson, Victoria Burley … (2002)

The purpose of this review is to provide guidance on the development, validation and use of food-frequency questionnaires (FFQs) for different study designs. It does not include any recommendations about the most appropriate method for dietary assessment (e.g. food-frequency questionnaire versus weighed record). A comprehensive search of electronic databases was carried out for publications from 1980 to 1999. Findings from the review were then commented upon and added to by a group of international experts. Recommendations have been developed to aid in the design, validation and use of FFQs. Specific details of each of these areas are discussed in the text. FFQs are being used in a variety of ways and different study designs. There is no gold standard for directly assessing the validity of FFQs. Nevertheless, the outcome of this review should help those wishing to develop or adapt an FFQ to validate it for its intended use.

0 comments Cited 430 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Basal metabolic rate studies in humans: measurement and development of new equations.

CJK Henry (2005)

To facilitate the Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization/United Nations University Joint (FAO/WHO/UNU) Expert Consultation on Energy and Protein Requirements which met in Rome in 1981, Schofield et al. reviewed the literature and produced predictive equations for both sexes for the following ages: 0-3, 3-10, 10-18, 18-30, 30-60 and >60 years. These formed the basis for the equations used in 1985 FAO/WHO/UNU document, Energy and Protein Requirements. While Schofield's analysis has served a significant role in re-establishing the importance of using basal metabolic rate (BMR) to predict human energy requirements, recent workers have subsequently queried the universal validity and application of these equations. A survey of the most recent studies (1980-2000) in BMR suggests that in most cases the current FAO/WHO/UNU predictive equations overestimate BMR in many communities. The FAO/WHO/UNU equations to predict BMR were developed using a database that contained a disproportionate number--3388 out of 7173 (47%)--of Italian subjects. The Schofield database contained relatively few subjects from the tropical region. The objective here is to review the historical development in the measurement and application of BMR and to critically review the Schofield et al. BMR database presenting a series of new equations to predict BMR. This division, while arbitrary, will enable readers who wish to omit the historical review of BMR to concentrate on the evolution of the new BMR equations. BMR data collected from published and measured values. A series of new equations (Oxford equations) have been developed using a data set of 10,552 BMR values that (1) excluded all the Italian subjects and (2) included a much larger number (4018) of people from the tropics. In general, the Oxford equations tend to produce lower BMR values than the current FAO/WHO/UNU equations in 18-30 and 30-60 year old males and in all females over 18 years of age. This is an opportune moment to re-examine the role and place of BMR measurements in estimating total energy requirements today. The Oxford equations' future use and application will surely depend on their ability to predict more accurately the BMR in contemporary populations.

0 comments Cited 303 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Julie A Lovegrove:

Hugh Sinclair Unit of Human Nutrition and Institute for Cardiovascular and Metabolic ResearchDepartment of Food and Nutritional SciencesUniversity of ReadingWhiteknightsPO Box 226Reading, RG6 6APUnited Kingdom44 118 378 641844 118 378 7708j.a.lovegrove@reading.ac.uk

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7633-9455

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Med Internet Res

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J. Med. Internet Res

Journal ID (publisher-id): JMIR

Title: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc. (Toronto, Canada )

ISSN (Print): 1439-4456

ISSN (Electronic): 1438-8871

Publication date Collection: August 2014

Publication date (Electronic): 11 August 2014

Volume: 16

Issue: 8

Electronic Location Identifier: e190

Affiliations

[1] ¹Hugh Sinclair Unit of Human Nutrition and Institute for Cardiovascular and Metabolic Research Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences University of Reading ReadingUnited Kingdom

[2] ²UCD Institute of Food and Health UCD Centre for Molecular Innovation University College Dublin DublinIreland

[3] ³Human Nutrition Research Centre Institute for Health and Ageing Newcastle University NewcastleUnited Kingdom

Author notes

Corresponding Author: Julie A Lovegrove j.a.lovegrove@ 123456reading.ac.uk

Author information

Rosalind Fallaize http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3734-6489

Hannah Forster http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5944-8027

Anna L Macready http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0368-9336

Marianne C Walsh http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6651-2434

John C Mathers http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3406-3002

Lorraine Brennan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7711-7499

Eileen R Gibney http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9465-052X

Michael J Gibney http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5250-361X

Julie A Lovegrove http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7633-9455

Article

Publisher ID: v16i8e190

DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3355

PMC ID: 4147714

PubMed ID: 25113936

SO-VID: 282e5e47-d84e-4cb3-9f4b-8bdc145c2d0a

Copyright © ©Rosalind Fallaize, Hannah Forster, Anna L Macready, Marianne C Walsh, John C Mathers, Lorraine Brennan, Eileen R Gibney, Michael J Gibney, Julie A Lovegrove. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 11.08.2014.

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

History

Date received : 27 February 2014

Date revision requested : 07 July 2014

Date accepted : 22 July 2014

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 67

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 670

See all reference authors

Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
- celebrating 25 years of open access