BACKGROUND: Fruit and vegetable (F/V) intake assessment tools that are valid, reliable, brief, and easy to administer and code are vital to the field of public health nutrition. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate three short F/V intake screeners (ie, a 2-item serving tool, a 2-item cup tool, and a 16-item F/V intake screener) among adults using multiple 24-hour dietary recalls (24-hour recalls) as the reference instrument and evaluate test-retest reliability of the screeners across a 2- to 3-week time period. DESIGN: Validity and reliability study. PARTICIPANTS/ SETTING: Two hundred forty-four adults for the validity study and 335 adults for test-retest reliability. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Median values for F/V intakes were calculated for the screeners and 24-hour recalls. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare screeners with the 24-hour recalls. Deattenuated Pearson correlations were reported for validity and intraclass correlation coefficient used for reliability. RESULTS: The estimated median daily servings/cups of F/V for the 2-item serving screener was lower, for the 2-item cup screener was equivalent for men but higher for women, and for the 16-item F/V intake screener were about the same when compared with 24-hour recall values. The deattenuated correlations comparing the 24-hour recalls with the screeners were positive but weak for the 2-item serving screener, and were positive and moderate in strength for the 2-item cup and 16-item F/V intake screeners. The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients were all positive and fairly strong for all of the screeners. CONCLUSIONS: Although dietary screeners offer a more cost-effective, less burdensome way to obtain gross estimates to rank individuals with regard to F/V intake, these methods are not recommended for assessing precise intake levels.
BACKGROUND: Fruit and vegetable (F/V) intake assessment tools that are valid, reliable, brief, and easy to administer and code are vital to the field of public health nutrition. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate three short F/V intake screeners (ie, a 2-item serving tool, a 2-item cup tool, and a 16-item F/V intake screener) among adults using multiple 24-hour dietary recalls (24-hour recalls) as the reference instrument and evaluate test-retest reliability of the screeners across a 2- to 3-week time period. DESIGN: Validity and reliability study. PARTICIPANTS/ SETTING: Two hundred forty-four adults for the validity study and 335 adults for test-retest reliability. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Median values for F/V intakes were calculated for the screeners and 24-hour recalls. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare screeners with the 24-hour recalls. Deattenuated Pearson correlations were reported for validity and intraclass correlation coefficient used for reliability. RESULTS: The estimated median daily servings/cups of F/V for the 2-item serving screener was lower, for the 2-item cup screener was equivalent for men but higher for women, and for the 16-item F/V intake screener were about the same when compared with 24-hour recall values. The deattenuated correlations comparing the 24-hour recalls with the screeners were positive but weak for the 2-item serving screener, and were positive and moderate in strength for the 2-item cup and 16-item F/V intake screeners. The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients were all positive and fairly strong for all of the screeners. CONCLUSIONS: Although dietary screeners offer a more cost-effective, less burdensome way to obtain gross estimates to rank individuals with regard to F/V intake, these methods are not recommended for assessing precise intake levels.
Authors: Frances E Thompson; Amy F Subar; Albert F Smith; Douglas Midthune; Kathy L Radimer; Lisa L Kahle; Victor Kipnis Journal: J Am Diet Assoc Date: 2002-12
Authors: A L van Kappel; J P Steghens; A Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; V Chajès; P Toniolo; E Riboli Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: A F Subar; F E Thompson; V Kipnis; D Midthune; P Hurwitz; S McNutt; A McIntosh; S Rosenfeld Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2001-12-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: A R Kristal; N C Vizenor; R E Patterson; M L Neuhouser; A L Shattuck; D McLerran Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Amy F Subar; Victor Kipnis; Richard P Troiano; Douglas Midthune; Dale A Schoeller; Sheila Bingham; Carolyn O Sharbaugh; Jillian Trabulsi; Shirley Runswick; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Joel Sunshine; Arthur Schatzkin Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Geoffrey W Greene; Ken Resnicow; Frances E Thompson; Karen E Peterson; Thomas G Hurley; James R Hebert; Deborah J Toobert; Geoffrey C Williams; Diane L Elliot; Tamara Goldman Sher; Andrea Domas; Douglas Midthune; Maria Stacewicz-Sapuntzakis; Amy L Yaroch; Linda Nebeling Journal: J Nutr Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: M Serdula; R Coates; T Byers; A Mokdad; S Jewell; N Chávez; J Mares-Perlman; P Newcomb; C Ritenbaugh; F Treiber Journal: Epidemiology Date: 1993-09 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Jill Reedy; Eboneé N Butler; Kevin W Dodd; Amy F Subar; Frances E Thompson; Robin A McKinnon Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Angela Cb Trude; Pamela J Surkan; Elizabeth Anderson Steeves; Keshia Pollack Porter; Joel Gittelsohn Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Elva M Arredondo; Jessica Haughton; Guadalupe X Ayala; Donald J Slymen; James F Sallis; Kari Burke; Christina Holub; Dayana Chanson; Lilian G Perez; Rodrigo Valdivia; Sherry Ryan; John Elder Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Chandylen L Nightingale; Katherine R Sterba; Janet A Tooze; Brandy-Joe Milliron; Lee Anne Tetrick; Min-So Paek; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-03-19 Impact factor: 3.603