Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-dwt4q Total loading time: 0.236 Render date: 2021-06-16T00:04:10.127Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Reproducibility of a short semi-quantitative food group questionnaire and its performance in estimating nutrient intake compared with a 7-day diet diary in the Million Women Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Andrew W Roddam
Affiliation:
Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK
Elizabeth Spencer
Affiliation:
Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK
Emily Banks
Affiliation:
National Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Valerie Beral
Affiliation:
Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK
Gillian Reeves
Affiliation:
Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK
Paul Appleby
Affiliation:
Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK
Isobel Barnes
Affiliation:
School of Applied Statistics, University of Reading, Reading, UK
David C Whiteman
Affiliation:
Division of Population Studies and Human Genetics, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Brisbane, Australia
Timothy J Keyal
Affiliation:
Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK
Corresponding
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the short- and long-term reproducibility of a short food group questionnaire, and to compare its performance for estimating nutrient intakes in comparison with a 7-day diet diary.

Design

Participants for the reproducibility study completed the food group questionnaire at two time points, up to 2 years apart. Participants for the performance study completed both the food group questionnaire and a 7-day diet diary a few months apart. Reproducibility was assessed by kappa statistics and percentage change between the two questionnaires; performance was assessed by kappa statistics, rank correlations and percentages of participants classified into the same and opposite thirds of intake.

Setting

A random sample of participants in the Million Women Study, a population-based prospective study in the UK.

Subjects

In total, 12 221 women aged 50–64 years.

Results

In the reproducibility study, 75% of the food group items showed at least moderate agreement for all four time-point comparisons. Items showing fair agreement or worse tended to be those where few respondents reported eating them more than once a week, those consumed in small amounts and those relating to types of fat consumed. Compared with the diet diary, the food group questionnaire showed consistently reasonable performance for the nutrients carbohydrate, saturated fat, cholesterol, total sugars, alcohol, fibre, calcium, riboflavin, folate and vitamin C.

Conclusions

The short food group questionnaire used in this study has been shown to be reproducible over time and to perform reasonably well for the assessment of a number of dietary nutrients.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2005

References

1Bingham, SA, Day, NE. Using biochemical markers to assess the validity of prospective dietary assessment methods and the effect of energy adjustment. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1997; 65: 1130S–7S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Willett, W. Nutritional Epidemiology, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Brunner, E, Stallone, D, Juneja, M, Bingham, SA, Marmot, M. Dietary assessment in Whitehall II: comparison of 7 d diet diary and food-frequency questionnaire and validity against biomarkers. British Journal of Nutrition 2001; 86: 405–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4The Million Women Study Collaborative Group. The Million Women Study: design and characteristics of the study population. Breast Cancer Research 1999; 1: 7380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Townsend, P, Phillimore, P, Beattie, A. Health and Deprivation: Inequality and the North. London: Croom Helm, 1988.Google Scholar
6Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Food Portion Sizes, 2nd ed. London: HMSO, 1993.Google Scholar
7Holland, B, Welch, AA, Unwin, ID, Buss, DH, Paul, AA, Southgate, DAT. McCance & Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 5th ed. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemisty and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1991.Google Scholar
8Holland, B, Unwin, ID, Buss, DH. Fruit and Nuts. First Supplement to McCance & Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 5th ed. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 1992.Google Scholar
9Holland, B, Welch, AA, Buss, DH. Vegetable Dishes. Second Supplement to McCance & Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 5th ed. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 1992.Google Scholar
10Holland, B, Brown, J, Buss, DH. Fish and Fish Products. Third Supplement to McCance & Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 5th ed. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 1993.Google Scholar
11Holland, B, Welch, AA, Buss, DH. Miscellaneous Foods. Fourth Supplement to McCance & Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 5th ed. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 1994.Google Scholar
12Chan, W, Brown, J, Lee, SM, Buss, DH. Meat, Poultry and Game. Fifth Supplement to McCance & Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 5th ed. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 1995.Google Scholar
13Chan, W, Brown, J, Church, SM, Buss, DH. Meat Products and Dishes. Sixth Supplement to McCance & Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 5th ed. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 1996.Google Scholar
14Holland, B, Unwin, ID, Buss, DH. Cereals and Cereal Products. Third Supplement to McCance & Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 4th ed. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 1988.Google Scholar
15Holland, B, Unwin, ID, Buss, DH. Milk Products and Eggs. Fourth Supplement to McCance & Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 4th ed. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 1989.Google Scholar
16Holland, B, Unwin, ID, Buss, DH. Vegetables, Herbs and Spices. Fifth Supplement to McCance & Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 4th ed. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 1991.Google Scholar
17Davey, GK, Spencer, EA, Appleby, PN, Allen, NE, Knox, KH, Key, TJ. EPIC–Oxford: lifestyle characteristics and nutrient intakes in a cohort of 33 883 meat-eaters and 31 546 non meat-eaters in the UK. Public Health Nutrition 2003; 6: 259–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Tinuviel Software. WISP Version 2.0. Warrington, UK: Tinuviel Software, 2002.Google Scholar
19Department of Health. Dietary Reference Values for Food Energy and Nutrients for the United Kingdom. Report of the Panel on Dietary Reference Values of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. London: The Stationery Office, 1991.Google Scholar
20Altman, DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991; 404–9.Google Scholar
21Fleiss, JL, Cohen, J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1973; 33: 613–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2003.Google Scholar
23Slimani, N, Bingham, SA, Runswick, S, Ferrari, P, Day, NE, Welch, AA, et al. Group level validation of protein intakes estimated by 24-hour diet recall and dietary questionnaires against 24-hour urinary nitrogen in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) calibration study. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2003; 12: 784–95.Google ScholarPubMed
24Subar, AF, Kipnis, V, Toriano, RP, Midthune, D, Schoeller, DA, Bingham, SA, et al. Using intake biomarkers to evaluate the extent of dietary misreporting in a large sample of adults: The OPEN study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 158: 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Kipnis, V, Midthune, D, Freedman, L, Bingham, S, Day, NE, Riboli, E, et al. Bias in dietary-report instruments and its implications for nutritional epidemiology. Public Health Nutrition 2002; 5: 915–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26McKeown-Eyssen, GC, Tibshirani, R. Implications of measurement error in exposure for the sample sizes of case–control studies. American Journal of Epidemiology 1994; 139: 415–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Bohlscheid-Thomas, S, Hoting, I, Boeing, H, Wahrendorf, J. Reproducibility and relative validity of food group intake in a food frequency questionnaire developed for the German part of the EPIC project. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. International Journal of Epidemiology 1997; 26(Suppl. 1): S59S70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Ocke, MC, Bueno-de-Mesquita, HB, Goddijn, HE, Jansen, A, Pols, MA, van Staveren, WA, et al. The Dutch EPIC food frequency questionnaire. I. Description of the questionnaire, and relative validity and reproducibility for food groups. International Journal of Epidemiology 1997; 26(Suppl. 1): S37S48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Pietinen, P, Hartman, AM, Haapa, E, Rasanen, L, Haapakoski, J, Palmgren, J, et al. Reproducibility and validity of dietary assessment instruments. II. A qualitative food frequency questionnaire. American Journal of Epidemiology 1988; 128: 667–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Willett, WC, Sampson, L, Stampfer, MJ, Rosner, B, Bain, C, Witschi, J, et al. Reproducibility and validity of a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. American Journal of Epidemiology 1985; 122: 5165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
You have Access
42
Cited by

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.

Reproducibility of a short semi-quantitative food group questionnaire and its performance in estimating nutrient intake compared with a 7-day diet diary in the Million Women Study
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.

Reproducibility of a short semi-quantitative food group questionnaire and its performance in estimating nutrient intake compared with a 7-day diet diary in the Million Women Study
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.

Reproducibility of a short semi-quantitative food group questionnaire and its performance in estimating nutrient intake compared with a 7-day diet diary in the Million Women Study
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? *