Sharon I Kirkpatrick1, Kevin W Dodd2, Nancy Potischman3, Thea Palmer Zimmerman4, Deirdre Douglass4, Patricia M Guenther5, Carrie Durward6, Abiodun T Atoloye7, Lisa L Kahle8, Amy F Subar9, Jill Reedy9. 1. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. Electronic address: sharon.kirkpatrick@uwaterloo.ca. 2. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. 3. Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD. 4. Westat, Rockville, MD. 5. Department of Nutrition and Integrative Physiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. 6. Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT. 7. Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, University of Connecticut, Hartford, CT. 8. Information Management Services, Inc, Rockville, MD. 9. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The construct and predictive validity of the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) have been demonstrated, but how error in reported dietary intake may affect scores is unclear. OBJECTIVE: These analyses examined concordance between HEI-2015 scores based on observed vs reported intake among adults. DESIGN: Data were from two feeding studies (Food and Eating Assessment STudy, or FEAST, I and II) in which true intake was observed for three meals on 1 day. The following day, participants completed an unannounced 24-hour dietary recall. PARTICIPANTS/ SETTING: FEAST I (2012) included 81 men and women, aged 20 to 70 years, living in the Washington, DC, area. FEAST II (2016) included 302 women, aged 18 years or older, with low household incomes and living in the Washington, DC, area. In FEAST I, recalls were completed independently using the Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment Tool (ASA24-2011) or interviewer-administered using the Automated Multiple-Pass Method. In FEAST II, recalls were completed using ASA24-2016, independently or in a small group setting with assistance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: HEI-2015 scores were calculated using the population ratio method. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: T-tests determined whether differences between scores based on observed and reported intake were different from zero. FEAST I data were stratified by sex, and in FEAST II, analyses were repeated by education and body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Differences in total HEI-2015 scores between observed and reported intake ranged from -1.3 to 5.8 points among those completing ASA24 independently in both studies, compared with -2.5 points in the small group setting. For interviewer-administered recalls, the differences were -1.1 for men and 2.3 for women. In FEAST II, total HEI-2015 scores derived from observed intake were lower than scores derived from reported intake among those who had completed high school or less (-3.2, SE 1.1, P<0.01) and those with BMI ≥ 30 (-2.8, SE 1.1, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: HEI-2015 scores based on 24-hour dietary recall data are generally well estimated.
BACKGROUND: The construct and predictive validity of the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) have been demonstrated, but how error in reported dietary intake may affect scores is unclear. OBJECTIVE: These analyses examined concordance between HEI-2015 scores based on observed vs reported intake among adults. DESIGN: Data were from two feeding studies (Food and Eating Assessment STudy, or FEAST, I and II) in which true intake was observed for three meals on 1 day. The following day, participants completed an unannounced 24-hour dietary recall. PARTICIPANTS/ SETTING: FEAST I (2012) included 81 men and women, aged 20 to 70 years, living in the Washington, DC, area. FEAST II (2016) included 302 women, aged 18 years or older, with low household incomes and living in the Washington, DC, area. In FEAST I, recalls were completed independently using the Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment Tool (ASA24-2011) or interviewer-administered using the Automated Multiple-Pass Method. In FEAST II, recalls were completed using ASA24-2016, independently or in a small group setting with assistance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: HEI-2015 scores were calculated using the population ratio method. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: T-tests determined whether differences between scores based on observed and reported intake were different from zero. FEAST I data were stratified by sex, and in FEAST II, analyses were repeated by education and body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Differences in total HEI-2015 scores between observed and reported intake ranged from -1.3 to 5.8 points among those completing ASA24 independently in both studies, compared with -2.5 points in the small group setting. For interviewer-administered recalls, the differences were -1.1 for men and 2.3 for women. In FEAST II, total HEI-2015 scores derived from observed intake were lower than scores derived from reported intake among those who had completed high school or less (-3.2, SE 1.1, P<0.01) and those with BMI ≥ 30 (-2.8, SE 1.1, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: HEI-2015 scores based on 24-hour dietary recall data are generally well estimated.
Authors: Victor Kipnis; Amy F Subar; Douglas Midthune; Laurence S Freedman; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Richard P Troiano; Sheila Bingham; Dale A Schoeller; Arthur Schatzkin; Raymond J Carroll Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 4.897
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: 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: 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: Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Nancy Potischman; Kevin W Dodd; Deirdre Douglass; Thea P Zimmerman; Lisa L Kahle; Frances E Thompson; Stephanie M George; Amy F Subar Journal: J Nutr Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 4.798
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: Susan M Krebs-Smith; TusaRebecca E Pannucci; Amy F Subar; Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Jennifer L Lerman; Janet A Tooze; Magdalena M Wilson; Jill Reedy Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Jill Reedy; Susan M Krebs-Smith; TusaRebecca E Pannucci; Amy F Subar; Magdalena M Wilson; Jennifer L Lerman; Janet A Tooze Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Jill Reedy; Susan M Krebs-Smith; Paige E Miller; Angela D Liese; Lisa L Kahle; Yikyung Park; Amy F Subar Journal: J Nutr Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Natalia I Heredia; Xiaotao Zhang; Maya Balakrishnan; Carrie R Daniel; Jessica P Hwang; Lorna H McNeill; Aaron P Thrift Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 4.018