Cited by 1,423Nutritional Studies and DietStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyHealth Education and Validation

Development, validation and utilisation of food-frequency questionnaires – a review

Open access
Cade, Janet, Thompson, Rachel, Burley, Victoria, Warm, Daniel·2002·Public Health Nutrition

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this review is to provide guidance on the development, validation and use of food-frequency questionnaires (FFQs) for different study designs. It does not include any recommendations about the most appropriate method for dietary assessment (e.g. food-frequency questionnaire versus weighed record). Methods: A comprehensive search of electronic databases was carried out for publications from 1980 to 1999. Findings from the review were then commented upon and added to by a group of international experts. Results: Recommendations have been developed to aid in the design, validation and use of FFQs. Specific details of each of these areas are discussed in the text. Conclusions: FFQs are being used in a variety of ways and different study designs. There is no gold standard for directly assessing the validity of FFQs. Nevertheless, the outcome of this review should help those wishing to develop or adapt an FFQ to validate it for its intended use.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1079/phn2001318

Cites

187 of 187 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Margetts BM, Nelson M. Design Concepts in Nutrition Epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
  2. International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). Present Knowledge in Nutrition. Washington, DC: ILSI Press, 1996.
  3. Willett WC. Block vs Willett: a debate on the validity of food frequency questionnaires [letter]. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1994; 94: 16-9.
  4. Sempos CT. Some limitations of semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1992; 135: 1127 -32.
  5. Rogalska-Niedzwiedz M, Charzewska J, Wajszcyk B, Lachowtiz A, Gorajec M, van Erp-Baart MA. Comparison of food frequency questionnaire and a 3 day record in estimating sources of calcium intake in Polish girls and women. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1998; 52: S56.
  6. Brants HAM, Bouman M, van Erp-Baart MA, Goldbohm RA. FOFREX: a computerized system to develop food frequency questionnaires. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1998; 52: S66.
  7. Conn JA, Rutishauser IHE, Wheeler CE. Portion size data for foods consumed by a randomly selected sample of Geelong adults. Aust. J. Nutr. Diet. 1994; 51: 58 -65.
  8. Lanham SA, Bolton-Smith C. Development of food frequency questionnaire [abstract]. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 1993; 52: 330A. 109
  9. O'Brien E, Petrie J, Littler W, de Swiet M, Padfield PL, Altman DG, et al. The British Hypertension Society protocol for the evaluation of blood pressure measuring devices. J. Hypertens. 1993; 11: S43 -62. 124
  10. Wheeler CE, Rutishauser IHE, O'Dea K. Comparison of nutrient intake data from two food frequency question- naires and weighed records. Aust. J. Nutr. Diet. 1995; 52: 140 -8. 128
  11. Bingham SA. The dietary assessment of individuals; methods, accuracy, new techniques and recommendations. Nutr. Abstr. Rev., A (Hum. Exp.) 1987; 57: 705 -42. 140
  12. Schofield WN, Schofield C, James WPT. Basal metabolic rate -review and prediction. Hum. Nutr. Clin. Nutr. 1985; 39: 1 -96. 148
  13. Wong MY, Day NE, Wareham NJ. Measurement error in epidemiology: the design of validation studies II: bivariate situation. Statist. Med. 1999; 18: 2831 -45. 152
  14. Franceschi S, Favero A, La Vecchia C, Negri E, Conti E, Montella M, et al. Food groups and risk of colorectal cancer in Italy. Int. J. Cancer 1997; 72: 56-61. 157

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cade, J., Thompson, R., Burley, V., & Warm, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Southampton General Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Cade, Janet
Venue
Public Health Nutrition
Published
2002-08
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
567-587
ISSN
  • 1368-9800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2727
OpenAlex
W2024433326
Cited by
1,423
References
187
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 97 · 2023: 87 · 2022: 94 · 2021: 109 · 2020: 98 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 75 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 67 · 2015: 65 · 2014: 65 · 2013: 77 · 2012: 56
FWCI
1.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Public Health Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
food frequency questionnaire, questionnaire development, questionnaire validation, dietary assessment, research design
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Diet Surveys, Humans, 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