OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the concurrent and construct validity of two diet-quality indices, a modified Mediterranean diet score (mMDS) and a Mediterranean-like diet score (MLDS) additionally incorporating unhealthy food choices, as determined by an FFQ. DESIGN: A validation study assessing FFQ intake estimates compared with ten or more unannounced 24 h recalls. Pearson's correlation coefficients, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman plots and the limits of agreement method were used to assess the between-method agreement of scores. Construct validity was shown using associations between nutrient intakes derived from multiple 24 h recalls and the mMDS and MLDS derived from the FFQ. SETTING: Gerona, Spain. SUBJECTS: A total of 107 consecutively selected participants from a population-based cross-sectional survey. RESULTS: Pearson's correlations for the energy-adjusted mMDS and MLDS compared with multiple recalls were 0·48 and 0·62, respectively. The average FFQ energy-adjusted mMDS and MLDS were 102 % and 98 % of the recall-based mMDS and MLDS estimates, respectively. The FFQ under- and overestimated dietary recall estimates of the energy-adjusted MLDS by 28 % and 25 %, respectively, with slightly wider boundaries for the mMDS (31 % and 34 %). The ICC, which assesses absolute agreement, was similar to Pearson's correlations (mMDS = 0·48 and MLDS = 0·61). The mean differences between methods were similar across the range of average ratings for both scores, indicating the absence of bias. The FFQ-derived mMDS and MLDS correlated in the anticipated directions with intakes of eleven (73·3 %) and thirteen of fifteen nutrients (86·7 %), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The FFQ provides valid estimates of diet quality as assessed by the mMDS and MLDS.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the concurrent and construct validity of two diet-quality indices, a modified Mediterranean diet score (mMDS) and a Mediterranean-like diet score (MLDS) additionally incorporating unhealthy food choices, as determined by an FFQ. DESIGN: A validation study assessing FFQ intake estimates compared with ten or more unannounced 24 h recalls. Pearson's correlation coefficients, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman plots and the limits of agreement method were used to assess the between-method agreement of scores. Construct validity was shown using associations between nutrient intakes derived from multiple 24 h recalls and the mMDS and MLDS derived from the FFQ. SETTING: Gerona, Spain. SUBJECTS: A total of 107 consecutively selected participants from a population-based cross-sectional survey. RESULTS: Pearson's correlations for the energy-adjusted mMDS and MLDS compared with multiple recalls were 0·48 and 0·62, respectively. The average FFQ energy-adjusted mMDS and MLDS were 102 % and 98 % of the recall-based mMDS and MLDS estimates, respectively. The FFQ under- and overestimated dietary recall estimates of the energy-adjusted MLDS by 28 % and 25 %, respectively, with slightly wider boundaries for the mMDS (31 % and 34 %). The ICC, which assesses absolute agreement, was similar to Pearson's correlations (mMDS = 0·48 and MLDS = 0·61). The mean differences between methods were similar across the range of average ratings for both scores, indicating the absence of bias. The FFQ-derived mMDS and MLDS correlated in the anticipated directions with intakes of eleven (73·3 %) and thirteen of fifteen nutrients (86·7 %), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The FFQ provides valid estimates of diet quality as assessed by the mMDS and MLDS.
Authors: Ismael Alvarez-Alvarez; Estefanía Toledo; Oscar Lecea; Jordi Salas-Salvadó; Dolores Corella; Pilar Buil-Cosiales; María Dolores Zomeño; Jesús Vioque; J Alfredo Martinez; Jadwiga Konieczna; Francisco J Barón-López; José López-Miranda; Ramon Estruch; Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas; Ángel M Alonso-Gómez; Josep A Tur; Francisco J Tinahones; Lluís Serra-Majem; Vicente Martín; Manuel Ortega-Calvo; Clotilde Vázquez; Xavier Pintó; Josep Vidal; Lidia Daimiel; Miguel Delgado-Rodríguez; Pilar Matía; José I González; Andrés Díaz-López; Indira Paz-Graniel; Miguel A Muñoz; Montse Fito; Salvador Pertusa-Martinez; Itziar Abete; Antonio García-Ríos; Emilio Ros; Miguel Ruiz-Canela; Miguel Á Martínez-González Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: Yiyang Yue; Changzheng Yuan; Dong D Wang; Molin Wang; Mingyang Song; Zhilei Shan; Frank Hu; Bernard Rosner; Stephanie A Smith-Warner; Walter C Willett Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 8.472
Authors: Anna N Funtikova; Santiago F Gomez; Montserrat Fitó; Roberto Elosua; Alejandra A Benítez-Arciniega; Helmut Schröder Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Charlotte Juton; Sara Castro-Barquero; Rosa Casas; Tania Freitas; Ana Maria Ruiz-León; Francesca Crovetto; Mónica Domenech; Fátima Crispi; Eduard Vieta; Eduard Gratacós; Ramon Estruch; Helmut Schroder Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Jyh Eiin Wong; Winsome R Parnell; Anna S Howe; Katherine E Black; Paula M L Skidmore Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-06-08 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Linde van Lee; Edith J M Feskens; Eveline J C Hooft van Huysduynen; Jeanne H M de Vries; Pieter van 't Veer; Anouk Geelen Journal: J Nutr Sci Date: 2014-01-02