CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,197Nutritional Studies and DietNutrition and Health StudiesStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Validation of a self-administered diet history questionnaire using multiple diet records

Block, Gladys, Woods, Margo, Potosky, Arnold, Clifford, Carolyn·1990·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90099-b
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The validity of a self-administered diet history questionnaire has been estimated using as the reference data the mean of three 4-day diet records collected over the year prior to the administration of the questionnaire, in 1985-1986. Subjects were women ages 45-70 years, participants in the Women's Health Trial Feasibility Study, a multi-center clinical trial in which some women were randomized to be taught to adopt and maintain a low-fat diet, while others maintained their usual diet. The questionnaire produced group mean nutrient estimates closely approximating the values obtained by three 4-day records, e.g. in the usual-diet group, 37.7% of calories from fat by both food records and by questionnaire, and in the low-fat group, 21.3% of calories from fat by food records and 23.7% of calories from fat by questionnaire. Correlations between questionnaire and diet records for per cent of calories from fat were 0.67 and 0.65 respectively in the two groups; most correlations were in the 0.5-0.6 range, and were similar to those achievable by a single 4-day food record.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90099-b

Cites

21 of 21 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?

  • The Block Food Frequency Questionnaire estimates customary intake of diverse nutrients and food groups, with item content developed from NHANES 1999-2002 dietary recall data.

    “This instrument estimates customary intake of diverse nutrients and food groups, with item content developed from the NHANES 1999 -2002 dietary recall data (37,38).”

    From Social jetlag, chronotype, and cardiometabolic risk (2015) · cites this paper as [38]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Block, G., Woods, M., Potosky, A., & Clifford, C.
Affiliations
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • Tufts University (US)
Corresponding author
Block, Gladys
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1990-01
Volume
43
Issue
12
Pages
1327-1335
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0895-4356(90)90099-b
OpenAlex
W2035632881
Cited by
1,197
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 57 · 2012: 50
FWCI
15.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutrition and Health Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
diet history questionnaire, questionnaire validation, dietary records, dietary assessment, nutrient intake estimation, dietary fat intake, women, low-fat diet
MeSH terms
Aged, Energy Intake, Diet Surveys, Dietary Fats, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Nutrition Assessment, 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