Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:38:26.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does nutritionist review of a self-administered food frequency questionnaire improve data quality?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Bette J Caan ,
Elaine Lanza ,
Arthur Schatzkin ,
Ashley O Coates ,
Brenda K Brewer ,
Martha L Slattery ,
James R Marshall  and
Abby Bloch
Bette J Caan*
Affiliation:
Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program of Northern California, Division of Research, 3505 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94611, USA
Elaine Lanza
Affiliation:
National Cancer Institute, Cancer Prevention Studies Branch, 6006 Executive Blvd, Suite 311, Rockville, MD 20852, USA
Arthur Schatzkin
Affiliation:
National Cancer Institute, Nutrition Epidemiology Branch, 6130 Executive Blvd, Room 211, Rockville, MD 20852, USA
Ashley O Coates
Affiliation:
Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program of Northern California, Division of Research, 3505 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94611, USA
Brenda K Brewer
Affiliation:
Westat, 1650 Research Blvd, Rockville, MD 20850-3129, USA
Martha L Slattery
Affiliation:
School of Medicine, Division of Public Health Sciences, University of Utah, 546 Chipeta Way, Suite 1100, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA
James R Marshall
Affiliation:
Arizona Cancer Center, 1515 Campbell Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA
Abby Bloch
Affiliation:
340 East 64th Street, New York, NY 10021, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Email bjc@dor.kaiser.org
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are 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:

This study sought to evaluate the benefit of utilizing a nutritionist review of a self-administered food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), to determine whether accuracy could be improved beyond that produced by the self-administered questionnaire alone.

Design:

Participants randomized into a dietary intervention trial completed both a FFQ and a 4-day food record (FR) at baseline before entry into the intervention. The FFQ was self-administered, photocopied and then reviewed by a nutritionist who used additional probes to help complete the questionnaire. Both the versions – before nutritionist review and after nutritionist review – were individually compared on specific nutrients to the FR by means, correlations and per cent agreement into quintiles.

Settings and subjects:

Three hundred and twenty-four people, a subset of participants from the Polyp Prevention Trial – a randomized controlled trial examining the effect of a low-fat, high-fibre, high fruit and vegetable dietary pattern on the recurrence of adenomatous polyps – were recruited from clinical centres at the University of Utah, University of Buffalo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York and Kaiser Permanente Medical Program in Oakland.

Results:

Reviewing the FFQ increased correlations with the FR for every nutrient, and per cent agreement into quintiles for all nutrients except calcium. Energy was underestimated in both versions of the FFQ but to a lesser degree in the version with review.

Conclusions:

One must further evaluate whether the increases seen with nutritionist review of the FFQ will enhance our ability to predict diet–disease relationships and whether it is cost-effective when participant burden and money spent utilizing trained personnel are considered.

Keywords

Food frequencyDiet methodsValidationDietary intake
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , April 1999 , pp. 565 - 569
Copyright
Copyright © CABI Publishing 1999

References

1: US Department of Health and Human Services. The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health. Publication No. 88-50210. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1988.Google Scholar
2: Thompson, FE, Moler, JE, Freedman, LS, Clifford, CK, Stables, GJ, Willett, WC. Register of dietary assessment calibration-validation studies: a status report. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1997; 65 (Suppl. 4): S1142–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3: Martin, LJ, Lockwood, GA, Kristal, AR, et al. Assessment of a food frequency questionnaire as a screening tool for low fat intakes. Controlled Clin. Trials 1997; 18(3): 241–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4: Friis, S, Kruger, Kjaer S, Stripp, C, Overvad, K. Reproducibility and relative validity of a self-administered semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire applied to younger women. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1997; 50(3): 303–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5: Pisani, P, Faggiano, F, Krogh, V, Palli, D, Vineis, P, Berrino, F. Relative validity and reproducibility of a food frequency dietary questionnaire for use in the Italian EPIC centres. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1997; 26(Suppl.1): S152–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6: Van Lierre, MJ, Lucas, F, Clavel, F, Slimani, N, Villeminot, S. Relative validity and reproducibility of a French diet history questionnaire. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1997; 26(Suppl.1): S128–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7: Boering, H, Bohlscheid-Thomas, S, Voss, S, Schneeweiss, S, Wahrendorf, J. The relative validity of vitamin intakes derived from a food frequency questionnaire compared to 24-hour recalls and biological measurements: results from the EPIC pilot study in Germany. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1997; 26(Suppl. 1): S82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8: Barrett-Connor, E. Nutrition epidemiology: how do we know what they ate? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1991; 54: S182–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9: Morgan, KJ, Johnson, SR, Rizek, RL, Reese, R, Stampley, GL. Collection of food intake data: an evaluation of methods. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1987; 87(7): 888–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10: Hankin, JH, Wilkens, LR, Kolonel, LN, Yoshizawa, CN. Validation of a quantitative diet history method in Hawaii. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1991; 133(6): 616–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11: Kemppainen, T, Rosendahl, A, Nuutinen, O, Ebeling, T, Pietinen, P, Uusitupa, M. Validation of a short dietary questionnaire and a qualitative fat index for the assessment of fat intake. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1993; 47(11): 765–75.Google Scholar
12: Van Assema, P, Brug, J, Kok, G, Brants, H. The reliability and validity of a Dutch questionnaire on fat consumption as a means to rank subjects according to individual fat intake. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 1992; 1(5): 375–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13: Sobell, J, Block, G, Koslowe, P, Tobin, J, Andres, R. Validation of a retrospective questionnaire assessing diet 10–15 years ago. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1989; 130(1): 173–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14: Jain, MG, Howe, GR, Rohan, T. Dietary assessment in epidemiology: comparison of a food frequency and a diet history questionnaire with a 7-day food record. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1996; 143(8): 953–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15: Leighton, J, Neugut, A, Block, G. A comparison of face-to-face food frequency interviews with telephone interviews and self-administered questionnaires. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1988; 128(4): 891.Google Scholar
16: Block, G, Hartman, AM, Dresser, CM, Caroll, MD, Gannon, J, Gardner, L. A data-based approach to diet questionnaire design and testing. A. J. Epidemiol. 1986; 124: 453–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17: Willett, W. Energy-adjusted method. In: MacMahon, B, ed. Nutritional Epidemiology, Vol. 15. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990; 261–3.Google Scholar
18: Freedman, L. Challenges in statistical approaches to dietary assessment. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1998; 52(2): S6.Google Scholar
19: Caan, B, Hiatt, BA, Owen, AM. Mailed dietary surveys: response rates, error rates, and the effect of omitted food items on nutrient values. Epidemiology 1991; 2(6): 430–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed