Gilly A Hendrie1, Megan A Rebuli2, Rebecca K Golley3. 1. CSIRO Food and Nutrition Flagship, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 2. Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 3. Public Health Group, Sansom Institute for Health Research, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, Division of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: Assess the reliability and relative validity of a diet index score for adults derived using a 38-item online survey. METHODS: The short food survey (SFS) measured 'usual' intake of seven food groups, three food choice indicators and variety; and was completed by 61 adults aged 19-50 years from Adelaide, Australia. A score was applied to assess compliance with the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines. Reliability of the survey was measured between two administrations one week apart; and validity by comparing the first administration to the average of three 24-hour dietary recalls. Statistical analyses included paired samples t-tests, intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), percentage agreement, Cohen's kappa coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Estimates of daily food group servings were reliable (within 0.3 servings, P > 0.05) but not valid for all foods groups. The mean total index score was approximately 70 points (out of 100) on both SFS administrations (ICC = 0.71 (95% CI 0.56:0.81). Relative validity analysis showed moderate correlation between SFS#1 and 24-hour recalls (ICC = 0.43 (0.21:0.62, P < 0.001)), with 51% agreement in allocation to tertiles of diet quality between methods (k = 0.262, P = 0.004). The survey overestimated the diet index score by an average of 12.7 points out of 100 [-20.11:42.94] in comparison to recalls. CONCLUSIONS: The survey overestimated compliance with guidelines relative to dietary recalls. It demonstrated good reliability; however, the validity of estimating intake of some food groups needs improvement. Future refinement will provide a valuable online tool to assess compliance with the Australian dietary recommendations.
AIM: Assess the reliability and relative validity of a diet index score for adults derived using a 38-item online survey. METHODS: The short food survey (SFS) measured 'usual' intake of seven food groups, three food choice indicators and variety; and was completed by 61 adults aged 19-50 years from Adelaide, Australia. A score was applied to assess compliance with the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines. Reliability of the survey was measured between two administrations one week apart; and validity by comparing the first administration to the average of three 24-hour dietary recalls. Statistical analyses included paired samples t-tests, intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), percentage agreement, Cohen's kappa coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Estimates of daily food group servings were reliable (within 0.3 servings, P > 0.05) but not valid for all foods groups. The mean total index score was approximately 70 points (out of 100) on both SFS administrations (ICC = 0.71 (95% CI 0.56:0.81). Relative validity analysis showed moderate correlation between SFS#1 and 24-hour recalls (ICC = 0.43 (0.21:0.62, P < 0.001)), with 51% agreement in allocation to tertiles of diet quality between methods (k = 0.262, P = 0.004). The survey overestimated the diet index score by an average of 12.7 points out of 100 [-20.11:42.94] in comparison to recalls. CONCLUSIONS: The survey overestimated compliance with guidelines relative to dietary recalls. It demonstrated good reliability; however, the validity of estimating intake of some food groups needs improvement. Future refinement will provide a valuable online tool to assess compliance with the Australian dietary recommendations.
Authors: Gilly A Hendrie; Megan A Rebuli; Genevieve James-Martin; Danielle L Baird; Jessica R Bogard; Anita S Lawrence; Bradley Ridoutt Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-10-19 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: Gilly A Hendrie; Greg Lyle; Chelsea E Mauch; Joyce Haddad; Rebecca K Golley Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Alline Beleigoli; Stephen J Nicholls; Alex Brown; Derek P Chew; John Beltrame; Anthony Maeder; Carol Maher; Vincent L Versace; Jeroen M Hendriks; Philip Tideman; Billingsley Kaambwa; Christopher Zeitz; Ivanka J Prichard; Rosanna Tavella; Rosy Tirimacco; Wendy Keech; Carolyn Astley; Kay Govin; Katie Nesbitt; Huiyun Du; Stephanie Champion; Maria Alejandra Pinero de Plaza; Imelda Lynch; Vanessa Poulsen; Marie Ludlow; Ken Wanguhu; Hendrika Meyer; Ali Krollig; Lemlem Gebremichael; Chloe Green; Robyn A Clark Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Emma Tonkin; Trevor Webb; Julie Henderson; Paul R Ward; John Coveney; Samantha B Meyer; Dean McCullum; Annabelle M Wilson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 3.295