A comparison of two screening methods to determine the validity of 24-h food and drink records in children and adolescents

Elliott, S.A., Davies, P.S.W., Nambiar, S., Truby, H. and Abbott, R.A. (2011) A comparison of two screening methods to determine the validity of 24-h food and drink records in children and adolescents. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 65 12: 1314-1320.


Author Elliott, S.A.
Davies, P.S.W.
Nambiar, S.
Truby, H.
Abbott, R.A.
Title A comparison of two screening methods to determine the validity of 24-h food and drink records in children and adolescents
Journal name European Journal of Clinical Nutrition   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0954-3007
Publication date 2011
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1038/ejcn.2011.126
Volume 65
Issue 12
Start page 1314
End page 1320
Total pages 7
Place of publication London, England, U.K.
Publisher Nature Publishing Group
Collection year 2012
Language eng
Formatted abstract Background/Objectives:Dietary assessment in humans is hampered by the phenomena of under and overreporting of energy intake, when food records are used to evaluate habitual dietary intake. Different methods to evaluate mis-reporting have been proposed using cut-offs derived from estimates of reported energy intake and basal metabolic rate, or, from predictions of total energy expenditure. This study compares the effect of using two different cut-off approaches to screen food records for validity, completed by a large cohort of Australian children (n=2460), from Grades 1, 5 and 10 (aged 5-17 years).Subjects/Methods:Energy intake was calculated from 24-h food and drink records for each child. These data were screened using the Goldberg and McCrory cut-offs. The effect of using these two cut-offs on the collected dataset was explored by considering the mean and standard deviation of energy intake in each year level before and after the cut-offs were applied. Results:The use of the Goldberg cut-off resulted in 9% of the total cohort being classified as underreporters, with 60% of these subjects being in Grade 10. The McCrory cut-offs revealed that overall, 22% of the total cohort underreported EI. 33.3% of Grade 1 children were classified as overreporters with this value falling to about 20% of Grade 10 children, while 10-15% of Grade 1 children underreported, with this figure rising to about 30% in Grade 10. Conclusions:Both the Goldberg and McCrory approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, and we suggest that consideration should be given to the reason for screening data before a particular approach is used, with recognition that these methods do differ in their aims and outcomes. The McCrory method consistently classified a greater number of children as underreporters.

© Copyright 2011 Elsevier B.V.
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Official 2012 Collection
School of Medicine Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 81 Abstract Views  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Wed, 10 Aug 2011, 09:17:37 EST by Matthew Lamb on behalf of School of Medicine