Sharon I Kirkpatrick1, Nancy Potischman2, Kevin W Dodd3, Deirdre Douglass4, Thea P Zimmerman4, Lisa L Kahle5, Frances E Thompson6, Stephanie M George7, Amy F Subar6. 1. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada; sharon.kirkpatrick@uwaterloo.ca. 2. Office of Dietary Supplements and. 3. Division of Cancer Prevention and. 4. Westat, Rockville, MD; and. 5. Information Management Services, Inc., Rockville, MD. 6. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. 7. Office of Disease Prevention, NIH, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Automated Self-Administered 24-hour (ASA24) dietary recall system enhances the feasibility of collecting high-quality intake data in population-based studies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of portion size reporting in the ASA24 compared with interviewer-administered recalls. METHODS: True intake for 3 meals was ascertained in 81 adults aged 20-70 y from the Washington, DC area. Participants were randomly assigned to complete an unannounced ASA24 or an interviewer-administered Automated Multiple-Pass Method (AMPM) recall the following day. An adapted Bland-Altman approach was used to assess agreement between true and reported portion sizes. Linear regression was used to assess log-scale differences between true and reported portion sizes by recall mode. The proportions of reported portion sizes within 10% and 25% of truth were estimated. Analyses were conducted for all foods and drinks and predetermined categories. RESULTS: Mean differences between true and reported portion sizes were 3.7 g for the ASA24 and 11.8 g for the AMPM. According to the Bland-Altman-type plots, between 92% and 100% (depending on food or drink category and recall mode) of observations fell within the limits of agreement. After adjustment for multiple testing, the mean ratio of reported to true portion sizes was significantly >1 for the categories of all foods and drinks, all foods excluding liquids, amorphous or soft foods, and small pieces among AMPM respondents. Misestimation in the AMPM was significantly different from that in the ASA24 for all foods and drinks and for all foods excluding liquids. Small proportions of reported portions fell within 10% (16.2% for the ASA24 and 14.9% for the AMPM) and 25% (37.5% for the ASA24 and 33.2% for the AMPM) of truth. CONCLUSIONS: The results raise the possibility that digital images tailored to different types and formats of foods may facilitate improved estimation of amounts eaten but highlight the need for continued work in this aspect of dietary assessment. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00978406.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The Automated Self-Administered 24-hour (ASA24) dietary recall system enhances the feasibility of collecting high-quality intake data in population-based studies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of portion size reporting in the ASA24 compared with interviewer-administered recalls. METHODS: True intake for 3 meals was ascertained in 81 adults aged 20-70 y from the Washington, DC area. Participants were randomly assigned to complete an unannounced ASA24 or an interviewer-administered Automated Multiple-Pass Method (AMPM) recall the following day. An adapted Bland-Altman approach was used to assess agreement between true and reported portion sizes. Linear regression was used to assess log-scale differences between true and reported portion sizes by recall mode. The proportions of reported portion sizes within 10% and 25% of truth were estimated. Analyses were conducted for all foods and drinks and predetermined categories. RESULTS: Mean differences between true and reported portion sizes were 3.7 g for the ASA24 and 11.8 g for the AMPM. According to the Bland-Altman-type plots, between 92% and 100% (depending on food or drink category and recall mode) of observations fell within the limits of agreement. After adjustment for multiple testing, the mean ratio of reported to true portion sizes was significantly >1 for the categories of all foods and drinks, all foods excluding liquids, amorphous or soft foods, and small pieces among AMPM respondents. Misestimation in the AMPM was significantly different from that in the ASA24 for all foods and drinks and for all foods excluding liquids. Small proportions of reported portions fell within 10% (16.2% for the ASA24 and 14.9% for the AMPM) and 25% (37.5% for the ASA24 and 33.2% for the AMPM) of truth. CONCLUSIONS: The results raise the possibility that digital images tailored to different types and formats of foods may facilitate improved estimation of amounts eaten but highlight the need for continued work in this aspect of dietary assessment. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00978406.
Authors: Christina D Lee; Junghoon Chae; TusaRebecca E Schap; Deborah A Kerr; Edward J Delp; David S Ebert; Carol J Boushey Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2012-03-01
Authors: Frances E Thompson; Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Amy F Subar; Jill Reedy; TusaRebecca E Schap; Magdalena M Wilson; Susan M Krebs-Smith Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Amy F Subar; Deirdre Douglass; Thea P Zimmerman; Frances E Thompson; Lisa L Kahle; Stephanie M George; Kevin W Dodd; Nancy Potischman Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Frances E Thompson; Sujata Dixit-Joshi; Nancy Potischman; Kevin W Dodd; Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Lawrence H Kushi; Gwen L Alexander; Laura A Coleman; Thea P Zimmerman; Maria E Sundaram; Heather A Clancy; Michelle Groesbeck; Deirdre Douglass; Stephanie M George; TusaRebecca E Schap; Amy F Subar Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2015-05-10 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Mary Margaret Huizinga; Adam J Carlisle; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Dianne L Davis; Rebecca P Gregory; David G Schlundt; Russell L Rothman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Andrea B Goldschmidt; E Whitney Evans; Jared M Saletin; Katie O'Sullivan; Dorit Koren; Scott G Engel; Alissa Haedt-Matt Journal: Appetite Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Somdat Mahabir; Walter C Willett; Christine M Friedenreich; Gabriel Y Lai; Carol J Boushey; Charles E Matthews; Rashmi Sinha; Graham A Colditz; Joseph A Rothwell; Jill Reedy; Alpa V Patel; Michael F Leitzmann; Gary E Fraser; Sharon Ross; Stephen D Hursting; Christian C Abnet; Lawrence H Kushi; Philip R Taylor; Ross L Prentice Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Amanda Raffoul; Erin P Hobin; Jocelyn E Sacco; Kirsten M Lee; Jess Haines; Paula J Robson; Kevin W Dodd; Sharon I Kirkpatrick Journal: J Nutr Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Yikyung Park; Kevin W Dodd; Victor Kipnis; Frances E Thompson; Nancy Potischman; Dale A Schoeller; David J Baer; Douglas Midthune; Richard P Troiano; Heather Bowles; Amy F Subar Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Amy F Subar; Nancy Potischman; Kevin W Dodd; Frances E Thompson; David J Baer; Dale A Schoeller; Douglas Midthune; Victor Kipnis; Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Beth Mittl; Thea P Zimmerman; Deirdre Douglass; Heather R Bowles; Yikyung Park Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: J Graham Thomas; Carly M Goldstein; Dale S Bond; Jason Lillis; Eric B Hekler; Jessica A Emerson; Hallie M Espel-Huynh; Stephanie P Goldstein; Shira I Dunsiger; E Whitney Evans; Meghan L Butryn; Jeff Huang; Rena R Wing Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-11-14 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Kevin W Dodd; Nancy Potischman; Thea Palmer Zimmerman; Deirdre Douglass; Patricia M Guenther; Carrie Durward; Abiodun T Atoloye; Lisa L Kahle; Amy F Subar; Jill Reedy Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 4.910