Cited by 1,070Nutritional Studies and DietStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Reproducibility and validity of food intake measurements from a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire

Feskanich, Diane, Rimm, Eric B, Giovannucci, Edward L, Colditz, Graham A, Stampfer, Meir J, Litin, Lisa B, Willett, Walter C·1993·Journal of the American Dietetic Association

Abstract

Few food frequency questionnaires have been evaluated for their ability to assess intakes of individual foods that may be related to disease independently of their nutrient content. The reproducibility and validity of food intake measurements by a 131-item semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire were evaluated in a sample of 127 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, a large longitudinal study of diet and disease. Each subject completed two questionnaires 1 year apart and two 1-week diet records 6 months apart during the intervening year. Pearson correlations assessing reproducibility between food intakes from the two questionnaires ranged from .31 for pie to .92 for coffee (mean = .59). Validity was measured by comparing food intakes from the second questionnaire with those from the diet records. Pearson correlations corrected for within-person weekly variation in diet record data ranged from .17 for other nuts to .95 for bananas (mean = .63). Large within-person variation precluded the calculation of accurate validity correlations for 29 foods. As we previously observed in women, the foods most often overreported were fruits and vegetables, and meats and dairy products were most often underreported. With few exceptions, reasonable levels of reproducibility and validity were observed for intake of individual foods in this extensive food frequency questionnaire.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0002-8223(93)91754-e

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Feskanich, D., Rimm, E. B., Giovannucci, E. L., Colditz, G. A., Stampfer, M. J., Litin, L. B., & Willett, W. C.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Feskanich, Diane
Venue
Journal of the American Dietetic Association
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1993-07
Volume
93
Issue
7
Pages
790-796
ISSN
0002-8223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068629868
Cited by
1,070
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 52
FWCI
11.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Dietetic Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL035464, HL35464)
  • National Cancer Institute (CA-55075)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
food frequency questionnaire, reproducibility, validity, food intake measurement, dietary records, within-person variability, Health Professionals Follow-up Study, diet and disease
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Eating, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies, Diet Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review