Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Comparative analysis of the Cancer Council of Victoria and the online Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ

  • Samantha L. Gardener (a1) (a2), Stephanie R. Rainey-Smith (a1) (a2), S. Lance Macaulay (a3), Kevin Taddei (a1) (a2), Alan Rembach (a4), Paul Maruff (a4) (a5), Kathryn A. Ellis (a4) (a6) (a7), Colin L. Masters (a4), Christopher C. Rowe (a8), David Ames (a6) (a7), Jennifer B. Keogh (a9), Ralph N. Martins (a1) (a2) and The AIBL Research Group (a10)...

Abstract

FFQ are commonly used to examine the association between diet and disease. They are the most practical method for usual dietary data collection as they are relatively inexpensive and easy to administer. In Australia, the Cancer Council of Victoria FFQ (CCVFFQ) version 2 and the online Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ (CSIROFFQ) are used. The aim of our study was to establish the level of agreement between nutrient intakes captured using the online CSIROFFQ and the paper-based CCVFFQ. The CCVFFQ and the online CSIROFFQ were completed by 136 healthy participants. FFQ responses were analysed to give g per d intake of a range of nutrients. Agreement between twenty-six nutrient intakes common to both FFQ was measured by a variety of methods. Nutrient intake levels that were significantly correlated between the two FFQ were carbohydrates, total fat, Na and MUFA. When assessing ranking of nutrients into quintiles, on average, 56 % of the participants (for all nutrients) were classified into the same or adjacent quintiles in both FFQ, with the highest percentage agreement for sugar. On average, 21 % of participants were grossly misclassified by three or four quintiles, with the highest percentage misclassification for fibre and Fe. Quintile agreement was similar to that reported by other studies, and we concluded that both FFQ are suitable tools for dividing participants’ nutrient intake levels into high- and low-consumption groups. Use of either FFQ was not appropriate for obtaining accurate estimates of absolute nutrient intakes.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Comparative analysis of the Cancer Council of Victoria and the online Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Comparative analysis of the Cancer Council of Victoria and the online Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Comparative analysis of the Cancer Council of Victoria and the online Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

* Corresponding author: R. N. Martins, fax +61 8 9347 4299, email ralph.n.martins@gmail.com

Footnotes

Hide All

www.aibl.csiro.au

Footnotes

References

Hide All
1. Ireland, PJ, Giles, D, O’Dea, G, et al. (1994) Development of the Melbourne FFQ: a food frequency questionnaire for use in an Australian prospective study involving an ethnically diverse cohort. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 3, 1931.
2. Baghurst, KI & Record, SJ (1984) A computerised dietary analysis system for use with diet diaries or food frequency questionnaires. Community Health Stud 8, 1118.
3. Baghurst, KI & Baghurst, PA (1981) The measurement of usual dietary intake in individuals and groups. Trans Menzies Found 3, 139160.
4. Keogh, JB, Lange, K & Syrette, J (2010) Comparative analysis of two FFQ. Public Health Nutr 13, 15531558.
5. Ellis, KA, Bush, AI, Darby, D, et al. (2009) The Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle (AIBL) study of aging: methodology and baseline characteristics of 1112 individuals recruited for a longitudinal study of Alzheimer’s disease. Int Psychogeriatr 21, 672687.
6. Xinying, PX, Noakes, M & Keogh, J (2004) Can a food frequency questionnaire be used to capture dietary intake data in a 4 week clinical intervention trial? Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 13, 318323.
7. Lewis, J, Milligan, G & Hunt, A (1995) NUTTAB95 nutrient Data table for use in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
8. Lassale, C, Guilbert, C, Keogh, J, et al. (2009) Estimating food intakes in Australia: validation of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) food frequency questionnaire against weighed dietary intakes. J Hum Nutr Diet 22, 559566.
9. Ambrosini, GL, Mackerras, D, de Klerk, NH, et al. (2003) Comparison of an Australian food-frequency questionnaire with diet records: implications for nutrition surveillance. Public Health Nutr 6, 415422.
10. Ambrosini, GL, de Klerk, NH, O’Sullivan, TA, et al. (2009) The reliability of a food frequency questionnaire for use among adolescents. Eur J Clin Nutr 63, 12511259.
11. Baghurst, KI & Record, SJ (1983) Intake and sources in selected Australian subpopulations, of dietary constituents implicated in the etiology of chronic diseases. J. Food Nutr 40, 115.
12. Rohan, TE, Record, SJ & Cook, MG (1987) Repeatability of estimates of nutrient and energy intake: the quantitative food frequency approach. Nutr Res 7, 125137.
13. Bland, JM & Altman, DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1, 307310.
14. Ludbrook, J (2002) Statistical techniques for comparing measurers and methods of measurement: a critical review. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 29, 527536.
15. Cade, JE, Burley, VJ, Warm, DL, et al. (2004) Food-frequency questionnaires: a review of their design, validation and utilisation. Nutr Res Rev 17, 522.
16. Jacobs, DR Jr, Gross, MD & Tapsell, LC (2009) Food synergy: an operational concept for understanding nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr 89, 1543S1548S.
17. Krebs-Smith, S, Heimendinger, J, Subar, AF, et al. (1995) Using food frequency questionnaires to estimate fruit and vegetable intake: association between number of questions and total intakes. J Nutr Educ Behav 27, 8085.
18. Steptoe, A, Pollard, TM & Wardle, J (1995) Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite 25, 267284.
19. Sobolewski, R, Cunningham, J & Mackerras, D (2010) Which Australian food composition database should I use? Nutr Diet 67, 3740.
20. Amanatidis, S, Mackerras, D & Simpson, JM (2001) Comparison of two frequency questionnaires for quantifying fruit and vegetable intake. Public Health Nutr 4, 233239.
21. Forster, H, Fallaize, R, Gallagher, C, et al. (2014) Online dietary intake estimation: the Food4Me food frequency questionnaire. J Med Internet Res 16, e150.
22. Gonzalez Carrascosa, R, Garcia Segovia, P & Martinez Monzo, J (2011) Paper and pencil vs online self-administered food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) applied to university population: a pilot study. Nutr Hosp 26, 13781384.
23. Boeckner, LS, Pullen, CH, Walker, SN, et al. (2002) Use and reliability of the World Wide Web version of the Block Health Habits and History Questionnaire with older rural women. J Nutr Educ Behav 34, Suppl. 1, S20S24.

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Gardener supplementary material
Tables S1-S2

 Word (24 KB)
24 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed