Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validity and reliability of the Block98 food-frequency questionnaire in a sample of Canadian women

Open access
Boucher, Beatrice, Cotterchio, Michelle, Kreiger, Nancy, Nadalin, Victoria, Block, Torin, Block, Gladys·2006·Public Health Nutrition

Abstract

Objective: To assess the validity and reliability of the most recent adaptation of Block's full-diet food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) among a sample of Canadian women. Design: Participants completed a self-administered FFQ (FFQ1), two unannounced 24-hour recalls (weekday and weekend) and a second FFQ (FFQ2) between October 2003 and February 2004. FFQs and recalls were analysed for 32 nutrients using Block Dietary Data Systems and the University of Minnesota's Nutrient Data System. Mean and median intakes were computed, along with crude and deattenuated Pearson correlation coefficients between FFQ1 and the average of two recalls (validity) and between FFQ1 and FFQ2 (reliability). Setting: Ontario, Canada. Subjects: A random population-based sample (n= 166) of women aged 25 to 74 years. Results: One hundred and fifteen (69%) women completed FFQ1, 96 completed FFQ1 and both recalls, and 93 completed both FFQs, about 56 days apart. Mean intakes were similar for most nutrients. FFQ reliability was high, with Pearson correlation coefficients having a median of 0.75, ranging from 0.57 to 0.90 (macronutrients) and from 0.65 to 0.88 (micronutrients from supplements and food). FFQ validity was moderate to high, with deattenuated Pearson correlation coefficients having a median of 0.59, ranging from 0.11 to 0.73 (macronutrients) and from 0.50 to 0.76 (micronutrients from supplements and food). Our micronutrient correlations were similar to or higher than those of other studies that included supplements. Two correlations <0.40 were associated with fats. Conclusions: The validity and reliability of this full-diet version of the Block FFQ were moderate to high, supporting its use in future studies among Canadian women.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1079/phn2005763

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
Boucher, B., Cotterchio, M., Kreiger, N., Nadalin, V., Block, T., & Block, G.
Venue
Public Health Nutrition
Published
2006-02
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
84-93
ISSN
  • 1368-9800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2727
OpenAlex
W2031513043
Cited by
334
References
5
FWCI
9.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

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.