The Malmö food study : The relative validity of a modified diet history method and an extensive food frequency questionnaire for measuring food intake
(1996) In European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50(3). p.143-151- Abstract
Objective: To assess the relative validity of two diet assessment methods, an extensive quantitative food frequency questionnaire (method A) and a novel shorter quantitative food frequency questionnaire with a 14 day food record (method B). Design: A randomized prospective cohort study. Setting: General community. Subjects: 206 residents of the town of Malmö, aged between 50-69 years, 101 men and 105 women who completed the methods during one year. Methods: Both diet methods were designed to cover the whole diet and portion sizes were estimated using a booklet with 120 photographs; method A comprised 250 items and method B combined a two-week food record measuring lunch and dinner meals and a shorter 130 item quantitative food frequency... (More)
Objective: To assess the relative validity of two diet assessment methods, an extensive quantitative food frequency questionnaire (method A) and a novel shorter quantitative food frequency questionnaire with a 14 day food record (method B). Design: A randomized prospective cohort study. Setting: General community. Subjects: 206 residents of the town of Malmö, aged between 50-69 years, 101 men and 105 women who completed the methods during one year. Methods: Both diet methods were designed to cover the whole diet and portion sizes were estimated using a booklet with 120 photographs; method A comprised 250 items and method B combined a two-week food record measuring lunch and dinner meals and a shorter 130 item quantitative food frequency questionnaire for average consumption of foods, snacks and beverages during the past year. An 18 day dietary record comprising six 3-day weighed records evenly distributed over one year served as a reference method. Results: Pearson's correlation coefficients varied from 0.25 for fat intake to 0.84 for milk products for method A and from 0.32 for fish to 0.88 for meat for method B. Correlations for most food groups ranged between 0.50-0.80, and were higher for method B. Only small changes were noted after adjustment for energy intake. On average for most food groups categorization of subjects into quartiles, 55% of subjects belonging to the lowest quartile, and 57-59% of those belonging to the highest quartile for method A and B were correctly classified. Conclusion: A combined food record with a quantitative food frequency questionnaire is a better tool for food assessment than an extensive food frequency questionnaire. Sponsorship: This study was supported by the Swedish Medical Research Council (K84-19X-7010-01) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Collaborative Research Agreement DEB/85/43).
(Less)
- author
- Elmståhl, S. LU ; Riboli, E. ; Lindgärde, F. LU ; Gullberg, B. LU and Saracci, R.
- organization
- publishing date
- 1996-03-01
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Assessment, Diet, Epidemiology, Food, Methods, Validity
- in
- European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
- volume
- 50
- issue
- 3
- pages
- 143 - 151
- publisher
- Nature Publishing Group
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:0029665683
- pmid:8654327
- ISSN
- 0954-3007
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 3cc4bebd-f5b3-4e67-bcc4-9f3deb0eca2e
- date added to LUP
- 2019-06-19 11:39:13
- date last changed
- 2024-04-02 08:46:00
@article{3cc4bebd-f5b3-4e67-bcc4-9f3deb0eca2e,
abstract = {{<p>Objective: To assess the relative validity of two diet assessment methods, an extensive quantitative food frequency questionnaire (method A) and a novel shorter quantitative food frequency questionnaire with a 14 day food record (method B). Design: A randomized prospective cohort study. Setting: General community. Subjects: 206 residents of the town of Malmö, aged between 50-69 years, 101 men and 105 women who completed the methods during one year. Methods: Both diet methods were designed to cover the whole diet and portion sizes were estimated using a booklet with 120 photographs; method A comprised 250 items and method B combined a two-week food record measuring lunch and dinner meals and a shorter 130 item quantitative food frequency questionnaire for average consumption of foods, snacks and beverages during the past year. An 18 day dietary record comprising six 3-day weighed records evenly distributed over one year served as a reference method. Results: Pearson's correlation coefficients varied from 0.25 for fat intake to 0.84 for milk products for method A and from 0.32 for fish to 0.88 for meat for method B. Correlations for most food groups ranged between 0.50-0.80, and were higher for method B. Only small changes were noted after adjustment for energy intake. On average for most food groups categorization of subjects into quartiles, 55% of subjects belonging to the lowest quartile, and 57-59% of those belonging to the highest quartile for method A and B were correctly classified. Conclusion: A combined food record with a quantitative food frequency questionnaire is a better tool for food assessment than an extensive food frequency questionnaire. Sponsorship: This study was supported by the Swedish Medical Research Council (K84-19X-7010-01) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Collaborative Research Agreement DEB/85/43).</p>}},
author = {{Elmståhl, S. and Riboli, E. and Lindgärde, F. and Gullberg, B. and Saracci, R.}},
issn = {{0954-3007}},
keywords = {{Assessment; Diet; Epidemiology; Food; Methods; Validity}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{03}},
number = {{3}},
pages = {{143--151}},
publisher = {{Nature Publishing Group}},
series = {{European Journal of Clinical Nutrition}},
title = {{The Malmö food study : The relative validity of a modified diet history method and an extensive food frequency questionnaire for measuring food intake}},
volume = {{50}},
year = {{1996}},
}