J Gittelsohn1, A V Shankar, R P Pokhrel, K P West. 1. Department of International Health, School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of direct observation in food-weight estimation as measured under controlled field conditions. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Ten local Nepalis were trained in observational techniques and tested in food-weight estimation during a 3-month training period and for 4 months after training. SETTING: The study was carried out in the Sarlahi District, a rural, central lowland region of Nepal that borders India. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Thirty testing sessions (a total of 6,902 observations) were completed on more than 150 different foods. Estimates of observed food weight were compared with actual weights and were analyzed. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated to examine associations between estimated and actual weights. RESULTS: Observer estimates of food weights were highly correlated with actual weights (r = .96) for the entire testing period. The linear regression equation (y = .96x + 1.3) suggests that the relationship between actual and observed food weights (in grams) was also accurate. Most observers showed improvement with training. Substantial reductions in both mean and standard deviation of percentage error were achieved over time. Accuracy of estimates was influenced by characteristics of foods weighted; small quantities (less than 20 g), certain nonstaple foods, and foods of high volume but light weight had less accurate estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Direct observation is an important method for assessing dietary intake that does not rely on a respondents' ability to recall his or her own or another's food consumption. It is feasible to train local observers to make visual estimates of food weight, but the accuracy of their estimates varies by food and portion size.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of direct observation in food-weight estimation as measured under controlled field conditions. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Ten local Nepalis were trained in observational techniques and tested in food-weight estimation during a 3-month training period and for 4 months after training. SETTING: The study was carried out in the Sarlahi District, a rural, central lowland region of Nepal that borders India. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Thirty testing sessions (a total of 6,902 observations) were completed on more than 150 different foods. Estimates of observed food weight were compared with actual weights and were analyzed. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated to examine associations between estimated and actual weights. RESULTS: Observer estimates of food weights were highly correlated with actual weights (r = .96) for the entire testing period. The linear regression equation (y = .96x + 1.3) suggests that the relationship between actual and observed food weights (in grams) was also accurate. Most observers showed improvement with training. Substantial reductions in both mean and standard deviation of percentage error were achieved over time. Accuracy of estimates was influenced by characteristics of foods weighted; small quantities (less than 20 g), certain nonstaple foods, and foods of high volume but light weight had less accurate estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Direct observation is an important method for assessing dietary intake that does not rely on a respondents' ability to recall his or her own or another's food consumption. It is feasible to train local observers to make visual estimates of food weight, but the accuracy of their estimates varies by food and portion size.
Authors: Deborah J Toobert; Lisa A Strycker; Sarah E Hampson; Erika Westling; Steven M Christiansen; Thomas G Hurley; James R Hébert Journal: J Am Diet Assoc Date: 2011-10
Authors: Sally N Akarolo-Anthony; Folake O Odubore; Susan Yilme; Omolola Aragbada; George Odonye; Frank Hu; Walter Willett; Donna Spiegelman; Clement A Adebamowo Journal: Int J Food Sci Nutr Date: 2012-12-03 Impact factor: 3.833
Authors: Andrew Breck; Ken Goodman; Lillian Dunn; Robert L Stephens; Nicola Dawkins; Beth Dixon; Jan Jernigan; Jakub Kakietek; Catherine Lesesne; Laura Lessard; Cathy Nonas; Sarah Abood O'Dell; Thearis A Osuji; Bernice Bronson; Ye Xu; Laura Kettel Khan Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Miaobing Zheng; Jason H Y Wu; Jimmy Chun Yu Louie; Victoria M Flood; Tim Gill; Beth Thomas; Xenia Cleanthous; Bruce Neal; Anna Rangan Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-01-20 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Tom E Nightingale; Jean-Philippe Walhin; James E Turner; Dylan Thompson; James L J Bilzon Journal: Trials Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Nitin Shivappa; Justyna Godos; James R Hébert; Michael D Wirth; Gabriele Piuri; Attilio F Speciani; Giuseppe Grosso Journal: Nutrients Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Pratibha Dhingra; Sunil Sazawa; Venugopal P Menon; Usha Dhingra; Robert E Black Journal: J Health Popul Nutr Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 2.000