OBJECTIVE: To assess validity of the Nambour food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) relative to weighed food records (WFRs), and the extent to which selected demographic, anthropometric and social characteristics explain differences between the two dietary methods. DESIGN: Inter-method validity study; 129-item FFQ vs. 12 days of WFR over 12 months. SETTING: Community-based Nambour Skin Cancer Prevention Trial. SUBJECTS:One hundred and fifteen of 168 randomly selected participants in the trial (68% acceptance rate) aged 25-75 years. RESULTS: Spearman correlations between intakes from the two methods ranged from 0.18 to 0.71 for energy-adjusted values. Differences between FFQ and WFR regressed on personal characteristics were significantly associated with at least one characteristic for 16 of the 21 nutrients. Sex was significantly associated with differences for nine nutrients; body mass index (BMI), presence of any medical condition and age were each significantly associated with differences for three to six nutrients; use of dietary supplements and occupation were associated with differences for one nutrient each. There was no consistency in the direction of the significant associations. Regression models explained from 7% (riboflavin) to 27% (saturated fat) of variation in differences in intakes. CONCLUSIONS: The relative validity of FFQ estimates for many nutrients is quite different for males than for females. Age, BMI, medical condition and level of intake were also associated with relative validity for some nutrients, resulting in the need to adjust intakes estimates for these in modelling diet-disease relationships. Estimates for cholesterol, beta-carotene equivalents, retinol equivalents, thiamine, riboflavin and calcium would not benefit from this.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess validity of the Nambour food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) relative to weighed food records (WFRs), and the extent to which selected demographic, anthropometric and social characteristics explain differences between the two dietary methods. DESIGN: Inter-method validity study; 129-item FFQ vs. 12 days of WFR over 12 months. SETTING: Community-based Nambour Skin Cancer Prevention Trial. SUBJECTS: One hundred and fifteen of 168 randomly selected participants in the trial (68% acceptance rate) aged 25-75 years. RESULTS: Spearman correlations between intakes from the two methods ranged from 0.18 to 0.71 for energy-adjusted values. Differences between FFQ and WFR regressed on personal characteristics were significantly associated with at least one characteristic for 16 of the 21 nutrients. Sex was significantly associated with differences for nine nutrients; body mass index (BMI), presence of any medical condition and age were each significantly associated with differences for three to six nutrients; use of dietary supplements and occupation were associated with differences for one nutrient each. There was no consistency in the direction of the significant associations. Regression models explained from 7% (riboflavin) to 27% (saturated fat) of variation in differences in intakes. CONCLUSIONS: The relative validity of FFQ estimates for many nutrients is quite different for males than for females. Age, BMI, medical condition and level of intake were also associated with relative validity for some nutrients, resulting in the need to adjust intakes estimates for these in modelling diet-disease relationships. Estimates for cholesterol, beta-carotene equivalents, retinol equivalents, thiamine, riboflavin and calcium would not benefit from this.
Authors: Torukiri I Ibiebele; Maria Celia Hughes; Nirmala Pandeya; Zhen Zhao; Grant Montgomery; Nick Hayward; Adèle C Green; David C Whiteman; Penelope M Webb Journal: J Nutr Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Juliana Araujo Teixeira; Maria Luiza Baggio; Anna R Giuliano; Regina Mara Fisberg; Dirce Maria Lobo Marchioni Journal: J Am Diet Assoc Date: 2011-07
Authors: Kyoko Miura; Mandy Way; Zainab Jiyad; Louise Marquart; Elsemieke I Plasmeijer; Scott Campbell; Nicole Isbel; Jonathan Fawcett; Lisa E Ferguson; Marcia Davis; David C Whiteman; H Peter Soyer; Peter O'Rourke; Adèle C Green Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: Kate Gersekowski; Rachel Delahunty; Kathryn Alsop; Ellen L Goode; Julie M Cunningham; Stacey J Winham; Paul Pharoah; Honglin Song; Susan Jordan; Sian Fereday; Anna DeFazio; Michael Friedlander; Andreas Obermair; Penelope M Webb Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 5.304
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: Sarah C Wallingford; Suzanne M Pilkington; Karen A Massey; Naser M I Al-Aasswad; Torukiri I Ibiebele; Maria Celia Hughes; Susan Bennett; Anna Nicolaou; Lesley E Rhodes; Adèle C Green Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 3.718