OBJECTIVE: The study was conducted to assess the validity of a self-administered 150-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), used in a cohort study on diet and cancer (120,852 men and women, aged 55-69). DESIGN & SUBJECTS: The study was carried out in a subgroup of the cohort (59 men and 50 women) 2 years after the baseline FFQ was completed. A dietary record, kept over three 3-day periods, 4-5 months apart, served as reference method. To evaluate the representativeness of the study population for the entire cohort, a comparison was made with the baseline questionnaire of a random sample of the cohort. RESULTS: Pearson correlation coefficients between nutrient intakes assessed by the record and the FFQ that was completed afterwards ranged from 0.40 (95% CI: 0.22-0.54) for vitamin B1 to 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80-0.90) for alcohol intake, with correlations for most nutrients between 0.6 and 0.8. Adjustment for energy intake and sex did not materially affect these correlations, except the correlation for fat intake, which changed from 0.72 to 0.52. Correlation coefficients were only slightly modified when the results were extrapolated to the cohort at large. Correction of correlation coefficients for attenuation by day-to-day variance in the record data improved them by 0.07 on average. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that the FFQ is able to rank subjects according to intake of food groups and nutrients. Despite a better performance of validation study participants, this conclusion also applies to the cohort at large.
OBJECTIVE: The study was conducted to assess the validity of a self-administered 150-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), used in a cohort study on diet and cancer (120,852 men and women, aged 55-69). DESIGN & SUBJECTS: The study was carried out in a subgroup of the cohort (59 men and 50 women) 2 years after the baseline FFQ was completed. A dietary record, kept over three 3-day periods, 4-5 months apart, served as reference method. To evaluate the representativeness of the study population for the entire cohort, a comparison was made with the baseline questionnaire of a random sample of the cohort. RESULTS: Pearson correlation coefficients between nutrient intakes assessed by the record and the FFQ that was completed afterwards ranged from 0.40 (95% CI: 0.22-0.54) for vitamin B1 to 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80-0.90) for alcohol intake, with correlations for most nutrients between 0.6 and 0.8. Adjustment for energy intake and sex did not materially affect these correlations, except the correlation for fat intake, which changed from 0.72 to 0.52. Correlation coefficients were only slightly modified when the results were extrapolated to the cohort at large. Correction of correlation coefficients for attenuation by day-to-day variance in the record data improved them by 0.07 on average. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that the FFQ is able to rank subjects according to intake of food groups and nutrients. Despite a better performance of validation study participants, this conclusion also applies to the cohort at large.
Authors: Xuehong Zhang; Demetrius Albanes; W Lawrence Beeson; Piet A van den Brandt; Julie E Buring; Andrew Flood; Jo L Freudenheim; Edward L Giovannucci; R Alexandra Goldbohm; Karen Jaceldo-Siegl; Eric J Jacobs; Vittorio Krogh; Susanna C Larsson; James R Marshall; Marjorie L McCullough; Anthony B Miller; Kim Robien; Thomas E Rohan; Arthur Schatzkin; Sabina Sieri; Donna Spiegelman; Jarmo Virtamo; Alicja Wolk; Walter C Willett; Shumin M Zhang; Stephanie A Smith-Warner Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: A J van Loon; R A Goldbohm; I J Kant; G M Swaen; A M Kremer; P A van den Brandt Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Albert Hofman; Guy G O Brusselle; Sarwa Darwish Murad; Cornelia M van Duijn; Oscar H Franco; André Goedegebure; M Arfan Ikram; Caroline C W Klaver; Tamar E C Nijsten; Robin P Peeters; Bruno H Ch Stricker; Henning W Tiemeier; André G Uitterlinden; Meike W Vernooij Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2015-09-19 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Albert Hofman; Sarwa Darwish Murad; Cornelia M van Duijn; Oscar H Franco; André Goedegebure; M Arfan Ikram; Caroline C W Klaver; Tamar E C Nijsten; Robin P Peeters; Bruno H Ch Stricker; Henning W Tiemeier; André G Uitterlinden; Meike W Vernooij Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Sarah Rosner Preis; Donna Spiegelman; Barbara Bojuan Zhao; Alanna Moshfegh; David J Baer; Walter C Willett Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Joshua Petimar; Kathryn M Wilson; Kana Wu; Molin Wang; Demetrius Albanes; Piet A van den Brandt; Michael B Cook; Graham G Giles; Edward L Giovannucci; Gary E Goodman; Phyllis J Goodman; Niclas Håkansson; Kathy Helzlsouer; Timothy J Key; Laurence N Kolonel; Linda M Liao; Satu Männistö; Marjorie L McCullough; Roger L Milne; Marian L Neuhouser; Yikyung Park; Elizabeth A Platz; Elio Riboli; Norie Sawada; Jeannette M Schenk; Shoichiro Tsugane; Bas Verhage; Ying Wang; Lynne R Wilkens; Alicja Wolk; Regina G Ziegler; Stephanie A Smith-Warner Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Laura A E Hughes; Piet A van den Brandt; Adriaan P de Bruïne; Kim A D Wouters; Sarah Hulsmans; Angela Spiertz; R Alexandra Goldbohm; Anton F P M de Goeij; James G Herman; Matty P Weijenberg; Manon van Engeland Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-11-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lina J Leurs; Leo J Schouten; Margreet N Mons; R Alexandra Goldbohm; Piet A van den Brandt Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2009-10-26 Impact factor: 9.031