The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of two dietary questionnaires validated against multiple dietary records collected during a 1-year period
Abstract
The validity of two dietary history questionnaires was examined, one the Health Habits and History Questionnaire (HHHQ) developed by Block et al and the other a questionnaire developed by investigators at the University of Michigan (UM). The reference data consisted of the mean of four 4-day dietary records and recalls collected for 1 year before administration of the questionnaires. The sample of 85 persons included black and white men and women aged 25 to 50 years. The HHHQ was entirely self-administered; the UM questionnaire had both self- and interviewer-administered components. The HHHQ group means were similar to food record estimates for energy and most nutrients, whereas the UM questionnaire produced overestimates for energy and all nutrients examined. Correlations ranged from .31 to .60 (median = .48) for the UM questionnaire and from .42 to .68 (median = .57) for the HHHQ. Use of respondent-reported portion sizes with the HHHQ produced higher correlations than use of investigator-determined "standard" portion sizes (median r = .43 vs .57). Food frequency questionnaires can provide useful nutrient data for individuals as well as groups.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reproducibility and validity of a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire
WILLETT, W. C., SAMPSON, L., STAMPFER, M. J., ROSNER, B., BAIN, C., WITSCHI, J., HENNEKENS, C. H., & SPEIZER, F. E. (1985) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114086 · Cited by 4,274
Validation of a self-administered diet history questionnaire using multiple diet records
Block, G., Woods, M., Potosky, A., & Clifford, C. (1990) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(90)90099-b · Cited by 1,197
A REVIEW OF VALIDATIONS OF DIETARY ASSESSMENT METHODS
BLOCK, G. (1982) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113331 · Cited by 823
Self-citation
Cited by
Social Ties and Susceptibility to the Common Cold
Cohen, S. (1997) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540480040036 · Cited by 1,238
Church, T. S., Blair, S. N., Cocreham, S., Johannsen, N., Johnson, W., Kramer, K., Mikus, C. R., Myers, V., Nauta, M., Rodarte, R. Q., et al. (2010) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1710 · Cited by 944
Food-frequency questionnaires: a review of their design, validation and utilisation
Cade, J. E., Burley, V. J., Warm, D. L., Thompson, R. L., & Margetts, B. M. (2004) · Nutrition Research Reviews · doi:10.1079/nrr200370 · Cited by 518
Proximity of supermarkets is positively associated with diet quality index for pregnancy
LARAIA, B. (2004) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.03.018 · Cited by 441
Reproducibility and comparative validity of a food frequency questionnaire for Australian adults
Collins, C. E., Boggess, M. M., Watson, J. F., Guest, M., Duncanson, K., Pezdirc, K., Rollo, M., Hutchesson, M. J., & Burrows, T. L. (2014) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2013.09.015 · Cited by 269
Metadata
- Authors
- BLOCK, G., THOMPSON, F. E., HARTMAN, A. M., LARKIN, F., & GUIRE, K. E.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Dietetic Association
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1992-06
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 686-693
- ISSN
- 0002-8223 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1782392064
- Cited by
- 506
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 12.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of two dietary questionnaires validated against multiple dietary records collected during a 1-year period. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0002-8223(21)00707-0
- The paper
- BLOCK, G., THOMPSON, F. E., HARTMAN, A. M., LARKIN, F., & GUIRE, K. E. (1992). Comparison of two dietary questionnaires validated against multiple dietary records collected during a 1-year period. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-8223(21)00707-0
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
