Liangzhi Xu1, Michael J Dibley, Catherine D'Este. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Second West China Hospital, West China Medical Centre, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, People's Republic of China. liangzxu@mail.sc.cninfo.net
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1). To determine the reliability and validity of a food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) for use in epidemiological research in postmenopausal women; and (2). to compare the volume estimation (VE) and weight estimation (WE) method of administration of this questionnaire. DESIGN: An initial list of foods was derived and modified after pre-testing in 22 subjects. Test-retest reliability was assessed in 21 subjects who had repeat administrations of the questionnaire 14 days apart (FFQ1, FFQ2). The validity of the FFQ was assessed by comparing nutrient intakes with those from a 4-day food record. SETTING: Chengdu, People's Republic of China. SUBJECTS: Twenty-two postmenopausal women (50-70 years) were recruited from The Second University Hospital, West China University of Medical Sciences, Chengdu and participated in the pre-test. Another 21 women (50-70 years) were randomly selected from the general population of all five districts of Chengdu and participated in the reliability and validity sub-studies. RESULTS: Energy, protein, carbohydrate, magnesium and sodium intakes in this sample were less than the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) for 45-70-year-old women in China. Intake of non-cooking fat was higher than the Chinese RDA. Pearson correlation coefficients and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) for reliability of the VE FFQ ranged from 0.51 to 0.85 and from 0.51 to 0.81, respectively; for the WE FFQ, they ranged from 0.22 to 0.86 and from 0.21 to 0.81. Correlation coefficients and ICCs for validity of the WE FFQ ranged from 0.36 to 0.69 and from 0.34 to 0.57, respectively; corresponding values for the VE FFQ were -0.30 to 0.65 and -0.14 to 0.65. CONCLUSIONS: Both the VE and WE FFQs were reliable and valid except for sodium intake. The VE FFQ provided more valid estimates of nutrient intakes than did the WE FFQ.
OBJECTIVES: (1). To determine the reliability and validity of a food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) for use in epidemiological research in postmenopausal women; and (2). to compare the volume estimation (VE) and weight estimation (WE) method of administration of this questionnaire. DESIGN: An initial list of foods was derived and modified after pre-testing in 22 subjects. Test-retest reliability was assessed in 21 subjects who had repeat administrations of the questionnaire 14 days apart (FFQ1, FFQ2). The validity of the FFQ was assessed by comparing nutrient intakes with those from a 4-day food record. SETTING: Chengdu, People's Republic of China. SUBJECTS: Twenty-two postmenopausal women (50-70 years) were recruited from The Second University Hospital, West China University of Medical Sciences, Chengdu and participated in the pre-test. Another 21 women (50-70 years) were randomly selected from the general population of all five districts of Chengdu and participated in the reliability and validity sub-studies. RESULTS: Energy, protein, carbohydrate, magnesium and sodium intakes in this sample were less than the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) for 45-70-year-old women in China. Intake of non-cooking fat was higher than the Chinese RDA. Pearson correlation coefficients and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) for reliability of the VE FFQ ranged from 0.51 to 0.85 and from 0.51 to 0.81, respectively; for the WE FFQ, they ranged from 0.22 to 0.86 and from 0.21 to 0.81. Correlation coefficients and ICCs for validity of the WE FFQ ranged from 0.36 to 0.69 and from 0.34 to 0.57, respectively; corresponding values for the VE FFQ were -0.30 to 0.65 and -0.14 to 0.65. CONCLUSIONS: Both the VE and WE FFQs were reliable and valid except for sodium intake. The VE FFQ provided more valid estimates of nutrient intakes than did the WE FFQ.
Authors: Fei Xu; Robert S Ware; Lap Ah Tse; Zhiyong Wang; Xin Hong; Aiju Song; Jiequan Li; Youfa Wang Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: René Canuel; Sylvie Boucher de Grosbois; Laura Atikessé; Marc Lucotte; Paul Arp; Charles Ritchie; Donna Mergler; Hing Man Chan; Marc Amyot; Robin Anderson Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Fei Xu; Robert S Ware; Lap Ah Tse; YouFa Wang; ZhiYong Wang; Xin Hong; Emily Ying Yang Chan; David W Dunstan; Neville Owen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 3.240