OBJECTIVE: For proper interpretation of results from epidemiological studies that use food-frequency questionnaires (FFQs), it is necessary to know the relationship between reported intakes from the FFQ and true usual intake. In this paper, we report a calibration study conducted to investigate the performance of the FFQ used in a cohort study, the Canadian Study of Diet, Lifestyle and Health. METHODS: Over a 1-year period, 151 men and 159 women completed a full set of questionnaires including a self-administered baseline FFQ, three 24-hour diet recalls administered by telephone, and a second FFQ self-administered subsequently. The association between the nutrient estimates derived from the FFQs and the diet recalls was evaluated by calculating deattenuated Pearson's correlation coefficients. RESULTS: FFQs estimated mean daily nutrient intakes higher than the diet recalls. When the log-transformed and energy-adjusted nutrient intakes from the average of three 24-hour recalls were compared against the baseline FFQ, the following deattenuated correlations were obtained in men and women, respectively: total energy 0.44 and 0.32, total fat 0.64 and 0.68, saturated fat 0.68 and 0.70, dietary fibre 0.65 and 0.44, vitamin E 0.32 and 0.37, vitamin C 0.40 and 0.37, beta-carotene 0.34 and 0.29, alcohol 0.74 and 0.67, caffeine 0.81 and 0.76, with a median correlation of 0.49 and 0.53. Correlations between the second FFQ and diet recalls were similar. The correlations between the two FFQs as a test of reliability had a median value 0.64 for men and 0.63 for women for selected nutrients. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that the FFQ method gives acceptable levels of nutrients or food component estimates, as assessed by this calibration study against diet recalls, when limited to energy-adjusted and deattenuated values.
OBJECTIVE: For proper interpretation of results from epidemiological studies that use food-frequency questionnaires (FFQs), it is necessary to know the relationship between reported intakes from the FFQ and true usual intake. In this paper, we report a calibration study conducted to investigate the performance of the FFQ used in a cohort study, the Canadian Study of Diet, Lifestyle and Health. METHODS: Over a 1-year period, 151 men and 159 women completed a full set of questionnaires including a self-administered baseline FFQ, three 24-hour diet recalls administered by telephone, and a second FFQ self-administered subsequently. The association between the nutrient estimates derived from the FFQs and the diet recalls was evaluated by calculating deattenuated Pearson's correlation coefficients. RESULTS: FFQs estimated mean daily nutrient intakes higher than the diet recalls. When the log-transformed and energy-adjusted nutrient intakes from the average of three 24-hour recalls were compared against the baseline FFQ, the following deattenuated correlations were obtained in men and women, respectively: total energy 0.44 and 0.32, total fat 0.64 and 0.68, saturated fat 0.68 and 0.70, dietary fibre 0.65 and 0.44, vitamin E 0.32 and 0.37, vitamin C 0.40 and 0.37, beta-carotene 0.34 and 0.29, alcohol 0.74 and 0.67, caffeine 0.81 and 0.76, with a median correlation of 0.49 and 0.53. Correlations between the second FFQ and diet recalls were similar. The correlations between the two FFQs as a test of reliability had a median value 0.64 for men and 0.63 for women for selected nutrients. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that the FFQ method gives acceptable levels of nutrients or food component estimates, as assessed by this calibration study against diet recalls, when limited to energy-adjusted and deattenuated values.
Authors: Sarah Rosner Preis; Donna Spiegelman; Barbara Bojuan Zhao; Alanna Moshfegh; David J Baer; Walter C Willett Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Karen Jaceldo-Siegl; Synnove F Knutsen; Joan Sabaté; W Lawrence Beeson; Jacqueline Chan; R Patti Herring; Terrence L Butler; Ella Haddad; Hannelore Bennett; Susanne Montgomery; Shalini S Sharma; Keiji Oda; Gary E Fraser Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Yun Zhu; Peizhon Peter Wang; Jing Zhao; Roger Green; Zhuoyu Sun; Barbara Roebothan; Josh Squires; Sharon Buehler; Elizabeth Dicks; Jinhui Zhao; Michelle Cotterchio; Peter T Campbell; Meera Jain; Patrick S Parfrey; John R Mclaughlin Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: Karen C Schliep; Enrique F Schisterman; Sunni L Mumford; Neil J Perkins; Aijun Ye; Anna Z Pollack; Cuilin Zhang; Christina A Porucznik; James A VanDerslice; Joseph B Stanford; Jean Wactawski-Wende Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-03-04 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Teresa C Carithers; Sameera A Talegawkar; Marjuyua L Rowser; Olivia R Henry; Patricia M Dubbert; Margaret L Bogle; Herman A Taylor; Katherine L Tucker Journal: J Am Diet Assoc Date: 2009-07
Authors: Selin Bolca; Inge Huybrechts; Mia Verschraegen; Stefaan De Henauw; Tom Van de Wiele Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lin Liu; Peizhong Peter Wang; Barbara Roebothan; Ann Ryan; Christina Sandra Tucker; Jennifer Colbourne; Natasha Baker; Michelle Cotterchio; Yanqing Yi; Guang Sun Journal: Nutr J Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 3.271
Authors: Yun Zhu; Hao Wu; Peizhong Peter Wang; Sevtap Savas; Jennifer Woodrow; Tyler Wish; Rong Jin; Roger Green; Michael Woods; Barbara Roebothan; Sharon Buehler; Elizabeth Dicks; John R McLaughlin; Peter T Campbell; Patrick S Parfrey Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 2.692