| Literature DB >> 31783477 |
Yatiman Noor Hafizah1, Lee Choo Ang1, Fendy Yap1, Wan Nurul Najwa1, Whye Lian Cheah2, Abd Talib Ruzita1, Farra Aidah Jumuddin1, Denise Koh3, Julia Ai Cheng Lee4, Cecilia A Essau5, Sue Reeves6, Carolyn Summerbell7, Edward Leigh Gibson5, Bee Koon Poh1.
Abstract
As there are few food frequency questionnaires (FFQ) to assess the dietary intake of preschool children, this study examined the validity and reliability of an FFQ for this purpose. A total of 210 preschoolers aged 4 to 6 years participated in the validation study, while a subsample of 66 participants joined the reliability study. The FFQ is modified from the ToyBox-study and South East Asian Nutrition Surveys (SEANUTS), and comprised 108 food items from 13 food groups. A three-day estimated dietary record (3DR) was used as reference and reliability was assessed through a second administration of the FFQ (FFQ2), four weeks after the first administration (FFQ1). For the validation study, Spearman's correlation coefficients showed moderate to high correlations (p < 0.001) between FFQ and 3DR. Cross-classification of quartile analysis showed moderate agreement between the two methods. As for reliability, Spearman's correlation coefficients showed moderate to high correlations (p < 0.001) between FFQ1 and FFQ2. Cronbach's alpha values (0.708 to 0.824) and intraclass correlation coefficients (0.710 to 0.826) showed good agreement between repeated FFQs. The results suggest that the FFQ has acceptable validity and good reliability. Hence, the FFQ can be used to assess preschool children's food intake.Entities:
Keywords: Malaysia; child; diet records; dietary assessment; food frequency questionnaire; methodological study; preschool; reliability; validity
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31783477 PMCID: PMC6926524 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16234722
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Physical characteristics of participants (n = 210).
| Characteristics | Total ( | Boys ( | Girls ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | ||||
| Age (years) | 5.2 ± 0.7 | 5.2 ± 0.7 | 5.2 ± 0.7 | 0.615 a |
| Weight (kg) | 18.1 ± 4.1 | 18.6 ± 4.6 | 17.7 ± 3.5 | 0.408 a |
| Height (cm) | 107.1 ± 7.0 | 107.3 ± 7.3 | 106.9 ± 6.6 | 0.392 b |
| Body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2) | 15.7 ± 2.7 | 16.1 ± 3.1 | 15.4 ± 2.2 | 0.269 a |
| Mid upper arm circumference (MUAC) (cm) | 16.7 ± 2.5 | 17.1 ± 2.7 | 16.4 ± 2.2 | 0.136 a |
a Mann–Whitney test was used to examine difference between the sexes. b Independent t-test was used to examine difference between the sexes.
Mean ± SD, mean difference and Spearman’s correlation (rs) for energy and macronutrients intake obtained using Food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and Three-day dietary record (3DR) (n = 210).
| Nutrients | FFQ | 3DR | Mean Difference | % of Mean Difference | Spearman’s Correlation (rs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||||
| Energy (kcal) | 1978 ± 769 | 1293 ± 333 | 685 a | 53.0 | 0.511 ** |
| Carbohydrate (g) | 265.8 ± 102.5 | 180.3 ± 50.2 | 85.5 a | 47.4 | 0.498 ** |
| Protein (g) | 74.0 ± 30.7 | 51.4 ± 14.9 | 22.6 a | 44.0 | 0.439 ** |
| Fat (g) | 69.8 ± 30.3 | 40.1 ± 11.7 | 29.7 a | 74.1 | 0.363 ** |
Percentage mean difference was individually calculated using the formula (mean FFQ − mean 3DR)/mean FFQ × 100% [23]. a Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed significant differences between FFQ and 3DR, p < 0.001. ** Spearman’s correlations were all significant at p < 0.001.
Mean ± SD, mean difference, Spearman’s correlation (rs), Cronbach’s alpha values (α), and intraclass correlation (ICC) for energy and macronutrients intake obtained using FFQ1 and FFQ2 in the subsample (n = 66).
| Nutrients | FFQ1 | FFQ2 | Mean Difference | % of Mean Difference | Spearman’s Correlation (rs) | FFQ1 vs. FFQ2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | α | ICC | ||||
| Energy (kcal) | 2084 ± 806 | 2048 ± 755 | −36 | −1.7 | 0.630 ** | 0.823 | 0.825 ** |
| Carbohydrate (g) | 284.6 ± 105.4 | 277.3 ± 99.7 | −7.3 | −2.6 | 0.464 ** | 0.708 | 0.710 ** |
| Protein (g) | 78.3 ± 35.5 | 79.0 ± 33.7 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.665 ** | 0.791 | 0.794 ** |
| Fat (g) | 72.5 ± 31.8 | 72.3 ± 29.9 | −0.2 | −0.3 | 0.655 ** | 0.824 | 0.826 ** |
Percentage mean difference was individually calculated using the formula (mean FFQ2 − mean FFQ1)/mean FFQ1 × 100% [6]. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests found no significant differences between FFQ1 and FFQ2. ** Spearman’s correlations, p < 0.001.
Cross-classification for energy and macronutrients based on FFQ and 3DR (n = 210).
| Nutrients | Cross-Classification between FFQ and 3DR | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| % CC | % CCI | %GM | |
| Energy (kcal) | 46.7 | 79.0 | 21.0 |
| Carbohydrate (g) | 42.4 | 83.3 | 16.7 |
| Protein (g) | 33.3 | 79.5 | 20.5 |
| Fat (g) | 37.1 | 77.6 | 22.4 |
% CC = percentage of participants with FFQ and 3DR intakes that correctly classified in the same quartiles. % CCI = percentage of participants with FFQ and 3DR intakes that classified in the same and adjacent quartiles. % GM = percentage of participants with FFQ and 3DR intakes that grossly misclassified in the extreme quartiles.
Figure 1Bland-Altman plots show agreement between the FFQ and 3DR for (a) energy; (b) carbohydrate; (c) protein; and (d) fat intake. The solid line represents the mean difference between the FFQ and 3DR, and the dashed lines represent the limits of agreement corresponding to ±1.96 (SD).