CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 249Nutritional Studies and DietNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biased Over- Or Under-Reporting is Characteristic of Individuals Whether Over Time or by Different Assessment Methods

BLACK, ALISON E., COLE, TIMOTHY J.·2001·Journal of the American Dietetic Association
DOI 10.1016/s0002-8223(01)00018-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Seven studies with repeated measurements of energy intake and/or nitrogen intake were examined to determine whether misreporting is characteristic of some persons or occurs randomly. Four of the studies were validated by doubly labeled water measurements of energy expenditure. Reporting validity was expressed as the ratio of energy intake to energy expenditure. Ratios were consistently below the expected value of 1.0 for some subjects and consistently above 1.0 for others, indicating characteristic reporting validity within subjects. Two year-long studies provided 4 to 12 measurements and a total number of days sufficient to measure individual habitual intake. Subjects mean energy intake to basal metabolic rate (BMR) ratios were < 1.35 in 45% and 47% and < 1.35 at every measurement in 25% of subjects. This indicated persistent underreporting over time, because 1.35 x BMR is the minimum energy expenditure compatible with a normally active lifestyle. Three of the studies used more than 1 assessment method (validated by doubly labeled water and/or urinary nitrogen excretion). There was a tendency for persons determined to be underreporters by 1 method to be also underreporters when tested by other methods. We conclude that biased over- or underreporting is characteristic of some persons. Thus, repeat measurements do not necessarily provide valid measures of individual intake, extreme intakes may reflect under- and overreporting rather than true low or high intakes, and subjects most prone to reporting bias may be repeatedly misclassified in quantiles of the distribution. This presents a challenge to dietitians nutritionists, and statisticians both for the design of surveys and the handling of flawed data.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0002-8223(01)00018-9

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Black, 1991, Critical evaluation of energy intake data using fundamental principles of energy physiology, Eur J Ciin Nutr., 45, 583
  2. Black, 1984, The NACNE Report, Comparisons with the dietary patterns of dietitians. Hum Nutr Appl Nutr., 38A, 165
  3. Black AE. Critical evaluation of energy intake using the Goldberg cut-off for EI:BMR. A practical guide to its calculation, use and limitations. Int J Obes. In press.
  4. Black, 1996, Human energy expenditure in affluent societies, Eur J Clin Nutr., 50, 72

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 249

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
BLACK, A. E., & COLE, T. J.
Affiliations
Medical Research Council (GB)
Corresponding author
BLACK, ALISON E.
Venue
Journal of the American Dietetic Association
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-01
Volume
101
Issue
1
Pages
70-80
ISSN
0002-8223 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0002-8223(01)00018-9
OpenAlex
W2033856806
Cited by
249
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 13
FWCI
18.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of the American Dietetic Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (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
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
energy intake, energy expenditure, underreporting, overreporting, reporting bias, doubly labeled water, urinary nitrogen excretion, basal metabolic rate, misclassification
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Basal Metabolism, Energy Intake, Child, Energy Metabolism, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nitrogen, Pregnancy, Reproducibility of Results, Diet Records, Bias

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