RATIONALE: The field of research regarding the effects of habitual caffeine use is immense and frequently utilizes self-report measures of caffeine use. However, various self-report measures have different methodologies, and the accuracy of these different methods has not been compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Self-reported caffeine use was estimated from two methods (a retrospective interview of weekly caffeine use and a 7-day prospective diary; n = 79). These estimates were then tested against salivary caffeine concentrations in a subset of participants (n = 55). RESULTS: The estimates of caffeine use (mg/day) from the interview- and diary-based methods correlated with one another (r = 0.77) and with salivary caffeine concentrations (r = 0.61 and 0.68, respectively). However, almost half of the subjects who reported more than 600 mg/day in the interview reported significantly less caffeine use in the diary. CONCLUSIONS: Self-report measures of caffeine use are a valid method of predicting actual caffeine levels. Estimates of high caffeine use levels may need to be corroborated by more than one method.
RATIONALE: The field of research regarding the effects of habitual caffeine use is immense and frequently utilizes self-report measures of caffeine use. However, various self-report measures have different methodologies, and the accuracy of these different methods has not been compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Self-reported caffeine use was estimated from two methods (a retrospective interview of weekly caffeine use and a 7-day prospective diary; n = 79). These estimates were then tested against salivary caffeine concentrations in a subset of participants (n = 55). RESULTS: The estimates of caffeine use (mg/day) from the interview- and diary-based methods correlated with one another (r = 0.77) and with salivary caffeine concentrations (r = 0.61 and 0.68, respectively). However, almost half of the subjects who reported more than 600 mg/day in the interview reported significantly less caffeine use in the diary. CONCLUSIONS: Self-report measures of caffeine use are a valid method of predicting actual caffeine levels. Estimates of high caffeine use levels may need to be corroborated by more than one method.
Authors: Michael B Bracken; Elizabeth Triche; Laura Grosso; Karen Hellenbrand; Kathleen Belanger; Brian P Leaderer Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Charlotte J W Connell; Benjamin Thompson; Jason Turuwhenua; Robert F Hess; Nicholas Gant Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Kira C Taylor; Chanley M Small; Celia E Dominguez; Lauren E Murray; Weining Tang; Malania M Wilson; Mark Bouzyk; Michele Marcus Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Merideth A Addicott; Lucie L Yang; Ann M Peiffer; Luke R Burnett; Jonathan H Burdette; Michael Y Chen; Satoru Hayasaka; Robert A Kraft; Joseph A Maldjian; Paul J Laurienti Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: David K Simon; Cai Wu; Barbara C Tilley; Anne-Marie Wills; Michael J Aminoff; Jacquelyn Bainbridge; Robert A Hauser; Jay S Schneider; Saloni Sharma; Carlos Singer; Caroline M Tanner; Daniel Truong; Pei Shieen Wong Journal: Clin Neuropharmacol Date: 2015 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.592
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: Demario S Overstreet; Terence M Penn; Sarah T Cable; Edwin N Aroke; Burel R Goodin Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Alberto Merola; Michael A Germuska; Esther Ah Warnert; Lewys Richmond; Daniel Helme; Sharmila Khot; Kevin Murphy; Peter J Rogers; Judith E Hall; Richard G Wise Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-03-18 Impact factor: 7.400