OBJECTIVE: To test whether changing a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) on the basis of cognitive theory and testing results in greater accuracy. Accuracy was examined for 4 design issues: a) Grouping: asking about foods in a single vs multiple separate questions; b) different forms of a food: asking consumption frequency of each form of a food (eg, skim, 2%, whole milk) vs a nesting approach--asking frequency of the main food (eg, milk) and proportion of times each form was consumed; c) additions (eg, sugar to coffee): asking independent of the main food vs nested under the main foods; d) units: asking frequency and portion size vs frequency of units (eg, cups of coffee). DESIGN: Participants in two randomly assigned groups completed 30 consecutive daily food reports (DFRs), followed by 1 of 2 FFQs that asked about foods consumed in the past month. One was a new, cognitively-based National Cancer Institute (NCI) Diet History Questionnaire; the other was the 1992 NCI-Block Health Habits and History Questionnaire. SUBJECTS/ SETTING: 623 participants, age range 25 to 70 years, from metropolitan Washington, DC. Statistical analyses performed Accuracy was assessed by comparing DFR and FFQ responses using categorical (percent agreement) and continuous (rank order correlation, discrepancy scores) agreement statistics. RESULTS: Grouping: accuracy was greater using separate questions. Different forms of food: accuracy was greater using nesting. Additions: neither approach was consistently superior; accuracy of the addition report was affected by accuracy of the main food report. Units: both approaches were similarly accurate. CONCLUSIONS:Accuracy of FFQ reporting can be improved by restructuring questions based on cognitive theory and testing.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To test whether changing a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) on the basis of cognitive theory and testing results in greater accuracy. Accuracy was examined for 4 design issues: a) Grouping: asking about foods in a single vs multiple separate questions; b) different forms of a food: asking consumption frequency of each form of a food (eg, skim, 2%, whole milk) vs a nesting approach--asking frequency of the main food (eg, milk) and proportion of times each form was consumed; c) additions (eg, sugar to coffee): asking independent of the main food vs nested under the main foods; d) units: asking frequency and portion size vs frequency of units (eg, cups of coffee). DESIGN:Participants in two randomly assigned groups completed 30 consecutive daily food reports (DFRs), followed by 1 of 2 FFQs that asked about foods consumed in the past month. One was a new, cognitively-based National Cancer Institute (NCI) Diet History Questionnaire; the other was the 1992 NCI-Block Health Habits and History Questionnaire. SUBJECTS/ SETTING: 623 participants, age range 25 to 70 years, from metropolitan Washington, DC. Statistical analyses performed Accuracy was assessed by comparing DFR and FFQ responses using categorical (percent agreement) and continuous (rank order correlation, discrepancy scores) agreement statistics. RESULTS: Grouping: accuracy was greater using separate questions. Different forms of food: accuracy was greater using nesting. Additions: neither approach was consistently superior; accuracy of the addition report was affected by accuracy of the main food report. Units: both approaches were similarly accurate. CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy of FFQ reporting can be improved by restructuring questions based on cognitive theory and testing.
Authors: Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Douglas Midthune; Kevin W Dodd; Nancy Potischman; Amy F Subar; Frances E Thompson Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Daruneewan Warodomwichit; Donna K Arnett; Edmond K Kabagambe; Michael Y Tsai; James E Hixson; Robert J Straka; Michael Province; Ping An; Chao-Qiang Lai; Ingrid Borecki; Jose M Ordovas Journal: J Nutr Date: 2009-01-13 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Sheri J Hartman; Patricia M Risica; Kim M Gans; Bess H Marcus; Charles B Eaton Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-06-15 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Gia L Tyson; Peter A Richardson; Donna L White; Jill Kuzniarek; David J Ramsey; Shahriar Tavakoli-Tabasi; Hashem B El-Serag Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.062
Authors: Mireia Junyent; Laurence D Parnell; Chao-Qiang Lai; Yu-Chi Lee; Caren E Smith; Donna K Arnett; Michael Y Tsai; Edmond K Kabagambe; Robert J Straka; Michael Province; Ping An; Ingrid Borecki; José M Ordovás Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2009-07-15 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Alan R Kristal; Ann S Kolar; James L Fisher; Jesse J Plascak; Phyllis J Stumbo; Rick Weiss; Electra D Paskett Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: David Berrigan; Barbara H Forsyth; Cynthia Helba; Kerry Levin; Alicia Norberg; Gordon B Willis Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-08-13 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Stephen L George; Boyd R Switzer; Denise C Snyder; John F Madden; Thomas J Polascik; Mack T Ruffin; Robin T Vollmer Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.486