Katie A Loth1, Angela Fertig2, Amanda Trofholz1, Lisa Harnack3, Ross Crosby4, Dianne Neumark-Sztainer3, Jerica M Berge1. 1. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN55414, USA. 2. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 4. Sanford Center for Biobehavioral Research, Fargo, ND, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand how dietary intake data collected via a brief ecological momentary assessment (EMA) measure compares to that of data collected via interviewer-administered 24-h dietary recalls, and explore differences in level of concordance between these two assessment types by individual- and meal-level characteristics. DESIGN: Parents completed three 24-h dietary recalls and 8 d of brief EMA surveys on behalf of their child; in total, there were 185 d where dietary intake data from both EMA and 24-h recall were available. The EMA measure asked parents to indicate whether (yes/no) their child had consumed any of the nine total food items (e.g. fruit, vegetable, etc.) at eating occasions where both the child and parent were present. SETTING: Twenty-four-hour dietary recalls were completed in person in the study participant's home; participants completed EMA surveys using a study provided in iPad or their personal cell phone. PARTICIPANTS: A diverse, population-based sample of parent-child dyads (n 150). RESULTS: Among meals reported in both the EMA and dietary recalls, concordance of reporting of specific types of food ranged from moderate agreement for meat (kappa = 0·55); fair agreement for sweets (kappa = 0·38), beans/nuts (kappa = 0·37), dairy (kappa = 0·31), fruit (kappa = 0·31) and vegetables (kappa = 0·27); and little to no agreement for refined grains, whole grains and sweetened beverages (73 % overall agreement; kappa = 0·14). Concordance of reporting was highest for breakfast and snacks, as compared with other eating occasions. Higher concordance was observed between the two measures if the meal occurred at home. CONCLUSIONS: Data suggest that among meals reported in both the EMA and dietary recalls, concordance in reporting was reasonably good for some types of food but only fair or poor for others.
OBJECTIVE: To understand how dietary intake data collected via a brief ecological momentary assessment (EMA) measure compares to that of data collected via interviewer-administered 24-h dietary recalls, and explore differences in level of concordance between these two assessment types by individual- and meal-level characteristics. DESIGN: Parents completed three 24-h dietary recalls and 8 d of brief EMA surveys on behalf of their child; in total, there were 185 d where dietary intake data from both EMA and 24-h recall were available. The EMA measure asked parents to indicate whether (yes/no) their child had consumed any of the nine total food items (e.g. fruit, vegetable, etc.) at eating occasions where both the child and parent were present. SETTING: Twenty-four-hour dietary recalls were completed in person in the study participant's home; participants completed EMA surveys using a study provided in iPad or their personal cell phone. PARTICIPANTS: A diverse, population-based sample of parent-child dyads (n 150). RESULTS: Among meals reported in both the EMA and dietary recalls, concordance of reporting of specific types of food ranged from moderate agreement for meat (kappa = 0·55); fair agreement for sweets (kappa = 0·38), beans/nuts (kappa = 0·37), dairy (kappa = 0·31), fruit (kappa = 0·31) and vegetables (kappa = 0·27); and little to no agreement for refined grains, whole grains and sweetened beverages (73 % overall agreement; kappa = 0·14). Concordance of reporting was highest for breakfast and snacks, as compared with other eating occasions. Higher concordance was observed between the two measures if the meal occurred at home. CONCLUSIONS: Data suggest that among meals reported in both the EMA and dietary recalls, concordance in reporting was reasonably good for some types of food but only fair or poor for others.
Authors: Patricia M Guenther; Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Jill Reedy; Susan M Krebs-Smith; Dennis W Buckman; Kevin W Dodd; Kellie O Casavale; Raymond J Carroll Journal: J Nutr Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Jerica M Berge; Amanda Trofholz; Allan D Tate; Maureen Beebe; Angela Fertig; Michael H Miner; Scott Crow; Kathleen A Culhane-Pera; Shannon Pergament; Dianne Neumark-Sztainer Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-08-09 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Patricia M Guenther; Kellie O Casavale; Jill Reedy; Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Hazel A B Hiza; Kevin J Kuczynski; Lisa L Kahle; Susan M Krebs-Smith Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Sydney G O'Connor; Wangjing Ke; Eldin Dzubur; Susan Schembre; Genevieve F Dunton Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2018-01-21 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Amanda C Trofholz; Allan D Tate; Michelle L Draxten; Seth S Rowley; Anna K Schulte; Dianne Neumark-Sztainer; Richard F MacLehose; Jerica M Berge Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Meg Bruening; Irene van Woerden; Michael Todd; Stephanie Brennhofer; Melissa N Laska; Genevieve Dunton Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Amanda Trofholz; Allan Tate; Mark Janowiec; Angela Fertig; Katie Loth; Junia N de Brito; Jerica Berge Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2021-12-01