Cited by 151Nutrition, Health and Food BehaviorNutritional Studies and DietObesity, Physical Activity, Diet

The estimation of food portion sizes: a comparison between using descriptions of portion sizes and a photographic food atlas by children and adults

Frobisher, C., Maxwell, S. M.·2003·Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics

Abstract

Background Food Photographs and standard portion sizes have been used with adults to assess portion size when recording dietary intake. The effectiveness of these methods may be reduced when memory/recall is required and children may have problems using these techniques. Methods Adults (47) and children (37) were recruited from amongst university personnel, their children and children's friends to assess portion sizes of nine self‐served amounts of selected food items using food photographs and standard descriptions of portion sizes. Portion sizes were estimated directly after self‐serving and three – 4 days later. Results Substantial differences in the estimate of portion sizes were observed for most foods regardless of the method used or the age of the subjects, median difference range: −52–100%. For children there were greater errors using both methods than for adults. Significant differences were found between the two methods of estimating weight. The food atlas provided higher median estimated weights for the majority of the food items. There were very few differences in the estimation of portion sizes between the two testing periods. Conclusion The findings would suggest that either an alternative method or a modification of the methods used here for estimating portion sizes in young subjects, for example standard food portion sizes for children of different ages such as those that are being developed by the Food Standards Agency, would be more appropriate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-277x.2003.00434.x

Cites

13 of 13 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
Frobisher, C., & Maxwell, S. M.
Affiliations
Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
Corresponding author
Maxwell, S. M.
Venue
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-05-12
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
181-188
ISSN
  • 0952-3871 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-277X
OpenAlex
W2018294107
Cited by
151
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 11
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Keywords
food portion size estimation, children, adults, dietary assessment, food weight estimation, age differences
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Food, Humans, Middle Aged, Photography, Mental Recall, Size Perception, Weights and Measures, Reproducibility of Results, 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