Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-s82fj Total loading time: 0.359 Render date: 2022-09-30T01:38:46.245Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Comparison of two frequency questionnaires for quantifying fruit and vegetable intake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2007

Soumela Amanatidis
Affiliation:
Central Sydney Area Health Service, Division of Population Health, Camperdown, N.S.W. 2050, Australia Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Sydney, N.S.W. 2006, Australia
Dorothy Mackerras*
Affiliation:
Menzies School of Health Research, Darwin, N.T. 0811, Australia
Judy M Simpson
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Sydney, N.S.W. 2006, Australia
*
*Corresponding author: Email dorothy@menzies.edu.au
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective

The effect on individual rankings and total intakes of nutrients of correcting total fruit and vegetable frequencies from a long food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) using the responses to two summary questions was examined in a group of women.

Methods

The performance of a self-administered FFQ in ranking individual levels of intake and estimating absolute levels of nutrient and energy intake was compared with the performance of the questionnaire when it was corrected for fruit and vegetable intake reported using the Block summary questions.

Subjects

The study population included 123 women, aged between 18 and 54 years, who were recruited from the Family Planning Association Colposcopy Clinic in Sydney.

Results

Substantial and significant differences (P<0.001) were found in fruit and vegetable intakes between the FFQ and the summary questions. Intake frequency by the FFQ was more than double that by the summary questions. When the FFQ was corrected for fruit and vegetable intakes using the summary questions, the intakes of beta-carotene, vitamins A and C, and dietary fibre were more than 20% lower (P<0.001) than the uncorrected results. However, this had little effect on ranking individuals. This study also examined seasonal differences in vegetable intakes and differences in nutrient intakes when either summer or winter vegetable consumption was substituted for seasonal vegetable intake in the FFQ. Although there were seasonal differences for some foods, the substitution had little effect on intake of nutrients.

Conclusion

These results indicate that important differences in intakes are observed when two methods, which appear to yield the same results, are used. Further work is needed to determine which, if either, of the two methods yields intakes that can be compared quantitatively with national references for assessing the adequacy of population intakes.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © CABI Publishing 2001

References

1Pietinen, P, Hartman, AM, Haapa, E, et al. Reproducibility and validity of dietary assessment instruments: I. A self-administered food use questionnaire with a portion size picture booklet. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1988; 28: 655–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Salvini, S, Hunter, DJ, Sampson, L, et al. Food-based validation of dietary questionnaire: the effects of week-to-week variation in food consumption. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1989; 18: 858–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Serdula, M, Coates, R, Byers, T, et al. Evaluation of a brief telephone questionnaire to estimate fruit and vegetable consumption in diverse populations. Epidemiology 1993; 4: 455–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Hebert, JR, Clemow, L, Pbert, L, Ockene, IS, Ockene, JK. Social desirability bias in dietary self-report may compromise the validity of dietary intake measures. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1995; 24: 389–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Baghurst, KI, Baghurst, PA. The measurement of usual dietary intake in individuals and groups. Trans. Menzies Found. 1981; 3: 139–60.Google Scholar
6Potter, JD, McMichael, AJ. Diet and cancer of the colon and rectum: a case–control study. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1986; 76: 557–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Rohan, TE, McMichael, AJ, Baghurst, PA. A population-based case–control study of diet and breast cancer in Australia. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1988; 128: 478–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Baghurst, PA, McMichael, AJ, Slavotinek, AH, Baghurst, KI, Boyle, P, Walker, AM. A case–control study of diet and cancer of the pancreas. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1991; 134: 167–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Barratt, A, Reznik, R, Irwig, L, et al. Worksite cholesterol screening and dietary intervention: the Staff Healthy Heart Project. Am. J. Public Health 1994; 84: 779–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Baghurst, KI, Record, SJ, Baghurst, PA, Syrette, JA, Crawford, D, Worsley, A.Sociodemographic determinants in Australia of the intake of food and nutrients implicated in cancer aetiology. Med. J. Aust. 1990; 153: 444–52.Google ScholarPubMed
11CSIRO Division of Human Nutrition. What are Australians Eating?: Results from the 1985 and 1990 Victorian Nutrition Surveys. Adelaide: CSIRO, 1993.Google Scholar
12Block, G, Woods, M, Potosky, A, Clifford, C.Validation of a self-administered diet history questionnaire using multiple diet records. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1990; 43: 1327–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Mackerras, D, Irwig, L, Simpson, JM, et al. Randomised double-blind trial of beta-carotene and vitamin C in women with minor cervical abnormalities. Br. J. Cancer 1999; 79: 1448–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Simmonds, A. Evaluation of a food frequency questionnaire for assessing dietary intake of beta-carotene. MPH treatise, University of Sydney, 1993.Google Scholar
15Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. NUTTAB 95 Nutrient Data Table for Use in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995.Google Scholar
16Commonwealth Department of Health. National Dietary Survey of Adults: 1983, No. 1, Food Intakes. Canberra: Australian Publishing Service, 1987.Google Scholar
17Subar, AF, Heimendinger, J, Patterson, BH, Krebs-Smith, SM, Pivonka, E, Kessler, R.Fruit and vegetable intake in the United States: the baseline survey of the five a day for better health program. Am. J. Health Promotion 1995; 9: 352–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Schofield, WN, Schofield, C, James, WPT. Basal metabolic rate. Hum. Nutr. Clin. Nutr. 1985; 39C(Suppl. 1): 196.Google Scholar
19Goldberg, GR, Black, AE, Jebb, SA, et al. Critical evaluation of energy intake data using fundamental principles of energy physiology: 1. Derivation of cut-off limits to identity under-reporting. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1991; 45: 569–81.Google Scholar
20Willet, WC, Stampfer, MJ. Total energy intake: implications for epidemiologic analysis. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1986; 124: 1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21NH&MRC. Recommended Dietary Intakes for Use in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1991.Google Scholar
22Commonwealth Department of Health. Towards Better Nutrition for Australians. Report of the Nutrition Taskforce of the Better Health Commission. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1987.Google Scholar
23Krebs-Smith, S, Heimendinger, J, Subar, AF, Patterson, GH, Pivonka, E.Using food frequency questionnaires to estimate fruit and vegetable intake: association between number of questions and total intakes. J. Nutr. Ed. 1995; 27: 80–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Australian Bureau of Statistics and Department of Health and Aged Care. National Nutrition Survey. Nutrient Intakes and Physical Measurements, Australia 1995. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1998.Google Scholar
25Mackerras, D, Caffin, NA, Fenn, AM, Comparison of fruit and vegetables questionnaires used in three statewide surveys. Proc. Nutr. Soc. Aust. 1995; 19: 204.Google Scholar
You have Access
32
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Comparison of two frequency questionnaires for quantifying fruit and vegetable intake
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Comparison of two frequency questionnaires for quantifying fruit and vegetable intake
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Comparison of two frequency questionnaires for quantifying fruit and vegetable intake
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *