Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2008 Apr;62(4):544-52. Epub 2007 Apr 11.

Identifying sources of reporting error using measured food intake.

Author information

1
Diet and Human Performance Laboratory, US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Beltsville, MD, USA. william.rumpler@ars.usda.gov

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the magnitude and relative contribution of different sources of measurement errors present in the estimation of food intake via the 24-h recall technique.

DESIGN:

We applied variance decomposition methods to the difference between data obtained from the USDA's Automated Multiple Pass Method (AMPM) 24-h recall technique and measured food intake (MFI) from a 16-week cafeteria-style feeding study. The average and the variance of biases, defined as the difference between AMPM and MFI, were analyzed by macronutrient content, subject and nine categories of foods.

SUBJECTS:

Twelve healthy, lean men (age, 39+/-9 year; weight, 79.9+/-8.3 kg; and BMI, 24.1+/-1.4 kg/m2).

RESULTS:

Mean food intakes for AMPM and MFI were not significantly different (no overall bias), but within-subject differences for energy (EI), protein, fat and carbohydrate intakes were 14, 18, 23 and 15% of daily intake, respectively. Mass (incorrect portion size) and deletion (subject did not report foods eaten) errors were each responsible for about one-third of the total error. Vegetables constituted 8% of EI but represented >25% of the error across macronutrients, whereas grains that contributed 32% of EI contributed only 12% of the error across macronutrients.

CONCLUSIONS:

Although the major sources of reporting error were mass and deletion errors, individual subjects differed widely in the magnitude and types of errors they made.

PMID:
17426745
DOI:
10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602742
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Nature Publishing Group
Loading ...
Support Center