BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: We applied three dietary assessment methods and aimed at obtaining a set of physical, social and psychological variables that can discriminate those individuals who did not underreport ('never under-reporters'), those who underreported in one dietary assessment method ('occasional under-reporters') and those who underreported in two or three dietary assessment methods ('frequent under-reporters'). PARTICIPANTS/ METHODS: Sixty-five women aged 18-57 years were recruited for this study. Total energy expenditure was determined by doubly labelled water, and energy intake was estimated by three 24-h diet recalls, 3-day food records and a food frequency questionnaire. A multiple discriminant analysis was used to identify which of those variables better discriminated the three groups: body mass index (BMI), income, education, social desirability, nutritional knowledge, dietary restraint, physical activity practice, body dissatisfaction and binge-eating symptoms. RESULTS: Twenty-three participants were 'never under-reporters'. Twenty-four participants were 'occasional under-reporters' and 18 were 'frequent under-reporters'. Four variables entered the discriminant model: income, BMI, social desirability and body dissatisfaction. According to potency indices, income contributed the most to the total discriminant power, followed in decreasing order by social desirability score, BMI and body dissatisfaction. Income, social desirability and BMI were the characteristics that mainly separated the 'never under-reporters' from the under-reporters (occasional or frequent). Body dissatisfaction better discriminated the 'occasional under-reporters' from the 'frequent under-reporters'. CONCLUSIONS: 'Frequent under-reporters' have a greater BMI, social desirability score, body dissatisfaction score and lower income. These four variables seemed to be able to discriminate individuals who are more prone to systematic under reporting.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: We applied three dietary assessment methods and aimed at obtaining a set of physical, social and psychological variables that can discriminate those individuals who did not underreport ('never under-reporters'), those who underreported in one dietary assessment method ('occasional under-reporters') and those who underreported in two or three dietary assessment methods ('frequent under-reporters'). PARTICIPANTS/ METHODS: Sixty-five women aged 18-57 years were recruited for this study. Total energy expenditure was determined by doubly labelled water, and energy intake was estimated by three 24-h diet recalls, 3-day food records and a food frequency questionnaire. A multiple discriminant analysis was used to identify which of those variables better discriminated the three groups: body mass index (BMI), income, education, social desirability, nutritional knowledge, dietary restraint, physical activity practice, body dissatisfaction and binge-eating symptoms. RESULTS: Twenty-three participants were 'never under-reporters'. Twenty-four participants were 'occasional under-reporters' and 18 were 'frequent under-reporters'. Four variables entered the discriminant model: income, BMI, social desirability and body dissatisfaction. According to potency indices, income contributed the most to the total discriminant power, followed in decreasing order by social desirability score, BMI and body dissatisfaction. Income, social desirability and BMI were the characteristics that mainly separated the 'never under-reporters' from the under-reporters (occasional or frequent). Body dissatisfaction better discriminated the 'occasional under-reporters' from the 'frequent under-reporters'. CONCLUSIONS: 'Frequent under-reporters' have a greater BMI, social desirability score, body dissatisfaction score and lower income. These four variables seemed to be able to discriminate individuals who are more prone to systematic under reporting.
Authors: Justin E Harbison; Lara R Dugas; William Brieger; Bamidele O Tayo; Tunrayo Alabi; Dale A Schoeller; Amy Luke Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2015-05-14
Authors: Loneke T Blackman Carr; Carmen Samuel-Hodge; Dianne Stanton Ward; Kelly R Evenson; Shrikant I Bangdiwala; Deborah F Tate Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 1.847
Authors: Michelle C Kegler; Regine Haardörfer; Iris C Alcantara; Julie A Gazmararian; J K Veluswamy; Tarccara L Hodge; Ann R Addison; James A Hotz Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Johanna W Lampe; Ying Huang; Marian L Neuhouser; Lesley F Tinker; Xiaoling Song; Dale A Schoeller; Soyoung Kim; Daniel Raftery; Chongzhi Di; Cheng Zheng; Yvonne Schwarz; Linda Van Horn; Cynthia A Thomson; Yasmin Mossavar-Rahmani; Shirley Aa Beresford; Ross L Prentice Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 7.045