Cited by 269Nutritional Studies and DietNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Reproducibility and comparative validity of a food frequency questionnaire for Australian adults

Collins, Clare E., Boggess, May M., Watson, Jane F., Guest, Maya, Duncanson, Kerith, Pezdirc, Kristine, Rollo, Megan, Hutchesson, Melinda J. +1 more·2014·Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background Food frequency questionnaires (FFQ) are used in epidemiological studies to investigate the relationship between diet and disease. There is a need for a valid and reliable adult FFQ with a contemporary food list in Australia.Aims To evaluate the reproducibility and comparative validity of the Australian Eating Survey (AES) FFQ in adults compared to weighed food records (WFRs).Methods Two rounds of AES and three-day WFRs were conducted in 97 adults (31 males, median age and BMI for males of 44.9 years, 26.2 kg/m(2), females 41.3 years, 24.0 kg/m(2). Reproducibility was assessed over six months using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and comparative validity was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) estimated by fitting a mixed effects model for each nutrient to account for age, sex and BMI to allow estimation of between and within person variance.Results Reproducibility was found to be good for both WFR and FFQ since there were no significant differences between round 1 and 2 administrations. For comparative validity, FFQ ICCs were at least as large as those for WFR. The ICC of the WFR-FFQ difference for total energy intake was 0.6 (95% CI 0.43, 0.77) and the median ICC for all nutrients was 0.47, with all ICCs between 0.15 (%E from saturated fat) and 0.7 (g/day sugars).Conclusions Compared to WFR the AES FFQ is suitable for reliably estimating the dietary intakes of Australian adults across a wide range of nutrients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clnu.2013.09.015

Cites

31 of 31 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
Collins, C. E., Boggess, M. M., Watson, J. F., Guest, M., Duncanson, K., Pezdirc, K., Rollo, M., Hutchesson, M. J., & Burrows, T. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Venue
Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
33
Issue
5
Pages
906-914
ISSN
0261-5614 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1968549322
Cited by
269
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 1
FWCI
13.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
food frequency questionnaire, reproducibility, validity, weighed food records, dietary assessment, nutrient intake, energy intake, Australian adults, mixed models
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Australia, Energy Intake, Carbohydrates, Dietary Carbohydrates, Dietary Fats, Dietary Fiber, Dietary Proteins, Feeding Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nutrition Surveys, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Nutrition Assessment, Diet Records, Body Mass Index, Linear Models, Micronutrients

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