Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Performance of a short tool to assess dietary intakes of fruits and vegetables, percentage energy from fat and fibre

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Frances E Thompson
Affiliation:
Risk Factor Surveillance and Methodology Branch, Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, EPN 4016, 6130 Executive Blvd, MSC 7344, Bethesda, MD 20892-7344, USA
Douglas Midthune
Affiliation:
Risk Factor Surveillance and Methodology Branch, Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, EPN 4016, 6130 Executive Blvd, MSC 7344, Bethesda, MD 20892-7344, USA
Amy F Subar
Affiliation:
Risk Factor Surveillance and Methodology Branch, Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, EPN 4016, 6130 Executive Blvd, MSC 7344, Bethesda, MD 20892-7344, USA
Lisa L Kahle
Affiliation:
Information Management Services, Inc., Silver Spring, MD, USA
Arthur Schatzkin
Affiliation:
Risk Factor Surveillance and Methodology Branch, Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, EPN 4016, 6130 Executive Blvd, MSC 7344, Bethesda, MD 20892-7344, USA
Victor Kipnis
Affiliation:
Risk Factor Surveillance and Methodology Branch, Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, EPN 4016, 6130 Executive Blvd, MSC 7344, Bethesda, MD 20892-7344, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

We describe the methods used to develop and score a 17-item ‘screener’ designed to estimate intake of fruit and vegetables, percentage energy from fat and fibre. The ability of this screener and a food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) to measure these exposures is evaluated.

Design:

Using US national food consumption data, stepwise multiple regression was used to identify the foods to be included on the instrument; multiple regression analysis was used to develop scoring algorithms. The performance of the screener was evaluated in three different studies. Estimates of intakes measured by the screener and the FFQ were compared with true usual intake based on a measurement error model.

Setting:

US adult population.

Subjects:

For development of instrument, n = 9323 adults. For testing of instrument, adult men and women in three studies completing multiple 24-hour dietary recalls, FFQ and screeners, n = 484, 462 and 416, respectively.

Results:

Median recalled intakes for examined exposures were generally estimated closely by the screener. In the various validation studies, the correlations between screener estimates and estimated true intake were 0.5–0.8. In general, the performances of the screener and the full FFQ were similar; estimates of attenuation were lower for screeners than for full FFQs.

Conclusions:

When coupled with appropriate reference data, the screener approach described may yield useful estimates of intake, for both surveillance and epidemiological purposes.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2004

References

1US Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. USDA's food guide pyramid. Home and Garden Bulletin 1992; 252.Google Scholar
2US Department of Agriculture (USDA). What we eat in America 1994–96, Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) 1994–1996 [public use CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: USDA, 1998.Google Scholar
3Subar, AF, Thompson, FE, Smith, AF, Jobe, JB, Ziegler, RG, Potischman, N, et al. Improving food frequency questionnaires: a qualitative approach using cognitive interviewing. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1995; 95: 781–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Thompson, FE, Subar, AF, Smith, AF, Midthune, D, Radimer, KL, Kahle, LL, et al. Fruit and vegetable assessment: performance of two new short instruments and a food frequency questionnaire. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2002; 102: 1764–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Krebs-Smith, SM, Guenther, PM, Cook, A, Thompson, FE, Cucinelli, J, Udler, J. Foods Commonly Eaten in the United States: Quantities Consumed per Eating Occasion and in a Day, 1989–91. NFS Report No.91–3. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, 1997.Google Scholar
6 US National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Applied Research Program. http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/surveys/nhis/multifactor/scoring.htmlGoogle Scholar
7Subar, AF, Kipnis, V, Troiano, R, Midthune, D, Schoeller, DA, Bingham, S, et al. Using intake biomarkers to evaluate the extent of dietary misreporting in a large sample of adults: the Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 158: 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Subar, AF, Thompson, FE, Kipnis, V, Hurwitz, P, McNutt, S, McIntosh, A, et al. Comparative validation of the Block, Willett, and National Cancer Institute food frequency questionnaires: The Eating at America's Table Study (EATS). American Journal of Epidemiology 2001; 154: 1089–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Schatzkin, A, Subar, AF, Thompson, FE, Harlan, LC, Tangrea, J, Hollenbeck, AR, et al. Design and serendipity in establishing a large cohort with wide dietary intake distributions: The National Institutes of Health–American Association of Retired Persons Diet and Health Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2001; 154: 1119–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Thompson, FE, Kipnis, V, Subar, AF, Schatzkin, A, Potischman, N, Kahle, L, et al. Performance of a short instrument to estimate usual dietary intake of percent calories from fat. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1998; 52(Suppl. 2): S63.Google Scholar
11Moshfegh, AJ, Raper, N, Ingwersen, L, Cleveland, L, Anand, J, Goldman, J, et al. An improved approach to 24-hour dietary recall methodology. Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism 2001; 45(Suppl. 1): 156.Google Scholar
12Subar, AF, Midthune, D, Kulldorff, M, Brown, CC, Thompson, FE, Kipnis, V, et al. Evaluation of alternative approaches to assign nutrient values to food groups in food frequency questionnaires. American Journal of Epidemiology 2000; 152: 279–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Freedman, LS, Carroll, RJ, Wax, Y. Estimating the relation between dietary intake obtained from a food frequency questionnaire and true average intake. American Journal of Epidemiology 1991; 134: 310–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Block, G, Clifford, C, Naughton, MD, Henderson, M, McAdams, M. A brief dietary screen for high fat intake. Journal of Nutrition Education 1989; 21: 199207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Kristal, AR, Shattuck, AL, Henry, HG. Patterns of dietary behavior associated with selecting diets low in fat: reliability and validity of a behavioral approach to dietary assessment. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1990; 90: 214–20.Google ScholarPubMed
16Smith-Warner, SA, Elmer, PJ, Tharp, TM, Fosdick, L, Randall, B, Gross, M, et al. Increasing vegetable and fruit intake: randomized intervention and monitoring in an at-risk population. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2000; 9: 307–17.Google Scholar
17Serdula, M, Coates, R, Byers, T, Mokdad, A, Jewell, S, Chavez, N, et al. Evaluation of a brief telephone questionnaire to estimate fruit and vegetable consumption in diverse study populations. Epidemiology 1993; 4: 455–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Field, AE, Colditz, GA, Fox, MK, Byers, T, Serdula, M, Bosch, RJ, et al. Comparison of 4 questionnaires for assessment of fruit and vegetable intake. American Journal of Public Health 1998; 88: 1216–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Campbell, MK, Demark-Wahnefried, W, Symons, M, Kalsbeek, WD, Dodds, J, Cowan, A, et al. Fruit and vegetable consumption and prevention of cancer: The Black Churches United for Better Health Project. American Journal of Public Health 1999; 89: 1390–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Smith-Warner, SA, Elmer, PJ, Fosdick, L, Tharp, TM, Randall, B. Reliability and comparability of three dietary assessment methods for estimating fruit and vegetable intakes. Epidemiology 1997; 8: 196201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Thompson, FE, Kipnis, V, Subar, AF, Krebs-Smith, SM, Kahle, LL, Midthune, D, et al. Evaluation of 2 brief instruments and a food-frequency questionnaire to estimate daily number of servings of fruit and vegetables. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2000; 71: 1503–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Plesko, M, Cotugna, N, Aljadir, L. Usefulness of a brief fruit and vegetable FFQ in a college population. American Journal of Health Behavior 2000; 24: 201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Block, G, Gillespie, C, Rosenbaum, EH, Jenson, C. A rapid food screener to assess fat and fruit and vegetable intake. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2000; 18: 284–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Yaroch, AL, Resnicow, K, Khan, LK. Validity and reliability of qualitative dietary fat index questionnaires: a review. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2000; 100: 240–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Shannon, J, Kristal, AR, Curry, SJ, Beresford, SA. Application of a behavioral approach to measuring dietary change: the fat- and fiber-related diet behavior questionnaire. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 1997; 6: 355–61.Google ScholarPubMed
26Johnson, RK, Soultanakis, RP, Matthews, DE. Literacy and body fatness are associated with underreporting of energy intake in US low-income women using the multiple-pass 24-h recall: a doubly labeled water study. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1998; 98: 1136–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Kroke, A, Klipstein-Grobusch, K, Voss, S, Mosender, J, Thielecke, F, Noack, R, et al. Validation of a self-administered food-frequency questionnaire administered in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Study: comparison of energy, protein, and macronutrient intakes estimated with the doubly labeled water, urinary nitrogen, and repeated 24-h dietary recall methods. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1999; 70: 439–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Bathalon, GP, Tucker, KL, Hays, NP, Vinken, AG, Greenberg, AS, McCrory, MA, et al. Psychological measures of eating behavior and the accuracy of 3 common dietary assessment methods in healthy postmenopausal women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2000; 71: 739–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Tran, KM, Johnson, RK, Soultanakis, RP, Matthews, DE. In-person vs telephone-administered multiple-pass 24-hour recalls in women: validation with doubly labeled water. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2000; 100: 777–80, 783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Krebs-Smith, SM, Graubard, BI, Kahle, LL, Subar, AF, Cleveland, LE, Ballard-Barbash, R. Low energy reporters vs others: a comparison of reported food intakes. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2000; 54: 281–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Freedman, LS, Midthune, D, Carroll, RJ, Krebs-Smith, S, Subar, AF, Troiano, RP, et al. Adjustments to improve the estimation of usual dietary intake distributions in the population. Journal of Nutrition 2004; 134: 1836–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 852 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access
Hostname: page-component-77fc7d77f9-94bw7 Total loading time: 0.533 Render date: 2021-01-18T17:59:21.184Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "1", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Mon Jan 18 2021 17:54:29 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": true, "languageSwitch": true, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true }

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.

Performance of a short tool to assess dietary intakes of fruits and vegetables, percentage energy from fat and fibre
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.

Performance of a short tool to assess dietary intakes of fruits and vegetables, percentage energy from fat and fibre
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.

Performance of a short tool to assess dietary intakes of fruits and vegetables, percentage energy from fat and fibre
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *