OBJECTIVE: Evaluations of trials of the effectiveness of dietary intervention programs may be compromised by response set biases, such as those attributable to social desirability. Participants who receive a behavioral intervention may bias their reports of diet to appear in compliance with intervention goals. This study examined whether responses to standard dietary assessment instruments could be affected by a brief dietary intervention. DESIGN: We assigned 192 undergraduate students randomly to (a) see a 17-minutevideotape on the consequences of eating a high-fat diet or a placebo videotape on workplace management and (b) receive preintervention and post-intervention assessments or only postintervention assessment. Dietary assessments included 4 independent measures of fat intake. RESULTS: Among women, bias (intervention minus control) was -9.7 g fat (from a short food frequency questionnaire) and -0.6 high-fat foods (from a questionnaire about use of 23 foods in the previous day) (P < .05 for both). No results were significant among men or for 2 instruments that measured more qualitative aspects of fat-related dietary habits. APPLICATIONS: Even a modest dietary intervention can affect responses to dietary assessment instruments. Nutritionists should recognize that assessment of adherence to dietary change recommendations, when based on dietary self-report, can be overestimated as a result of response set biases.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Evaluations of trials of the effectiveness of dietary intervention programs may be compromised by response set biases, such as those attributable to social desirability. Participants who receive a behavioral intervention may bias their reports of diet to appear in compliance with intervention goals. This study examined whether responses to standard dietary assessment instruments could be affected by a brief dietary intervention. DESIGN: We assigned 192 undergraduate students randomly to (a) see a 17-minute videotape on the consequences of eating a high-fat diet or a placebo videotape on workplace management and (b) receive preintervention and post-intervention assessments or only postintervention assessment. Dietary assessments included 4 independent measures of fat intake. RESULTS: Among women, bias (intervention minus control) was -9.7 g fat (from a short food frequency questionnaire) and -0.6 high-fat foods (from a questionnaire about use of 23 foods in the previous day) (P < .05 for both). No results were significant among men or for 2 instruments that measured more qualitative aspects of fat-related dietary habits. APPLICATIONS: Even a modest dietary intervention can affect responses to dietary assessment instruments. Nutritionists should recognize that assessment of adherence to dietary change recommendations, when based on dietary self-report, can be overestimated as a result of response set biases.
Authors: M K Campbell; W Demark-Wahnefried; M Symons; W D Kalsbeek; J Dodds; A Cowan; B Jackson; B Motsinger; K Hoben; J Lashley; S Demissie; J W McClelland Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Gabriel Nama Medoua; Estelle C Sajo Nana; Anne Christine A Ndzana; Caroline S Makamto; Lucien S Etame; Honorine A Rikong; Jean Louis E Oyono Journal: Matern Child Nutr Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Todd M Manini; Thomas W Buford; Donovan J Lott; Krista Vandenborne; Michael J Daniels; Jeffrey D Knaggs; Hetain Patel; Marco Pahor; Michael G Perri; Stephen D Anton Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Alan R Kristal; Ann S Kolar; James L Fisher; Jesse J Plascak; Phyllis J Stumbo; Rick Weiss; Electra D Paskett Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Nazmus Saquib; Loki Natarajan; Cheryl L Rock; Shirley W Flatt; Lisa Madlensky; Sheila Kealey; John P Pierce Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.900