Validity and reliability of an online self-report 24-h dietary recall method (Intake24): a doubly labelled water study and repeated-measures analysis
Online self-reported 24-h dietary recall systems promise increased feasibility of dietary assessment. Comparison against interviewer-led recalls established their convergent validity; however, reliability and criterion-validity information is lacking. The validity of energy intakes (EI) reported usi...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2019-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Nutritional Science |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S204867901900020X/type/journal_article |
| _version_ | 1811155948418367488 |
|---|---|
| author | Emma Foster Clement Lee Fumiaki Imamura Stefanie E. Hollidge Kate L. Westgate Michelle C. Venables Ivan Poliakov Maisie K. Rowland Timur Osadchiy Jennifer C. Bradley Emma L. Simpson Ashley J. Adamson Patrick Olivier Nick Wareham Nita G. Forouhi Soren Brage |
| author_facet | Emma Foster Clement Lee Fumiaki Imamura Stefanie E. Hollidge Kate L. Westgate Michelle C. Venables Ivan Poliakov Maisie K. Rowland Timur Osadchiy Jennifer C. Bradley Emma L. Simpson Ashley J. Adamson Patrick Olivier Nick Wareham Nita G. Forouhi Soren Brage |
| author_sort | Emma Foster |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Online self-reported 24-h dietary recall systems promise increased feasibility of dietary assessment. Comparison against interviewer-led recalls established their convergent validity; however, reliability and criterion-validity information is lacking. The validity of energy intakes (EI) reported using Intake24, an online 24-h recall system, was assessed against concurrent measurement of total energy expenditure (TEE) using doubly labelled water in ninety-eight UK adults (40–65 years). Accuracy and precision of EI were assessed using correlation and Bland–Altman analysis. Test–retest reliability of energy and nutrient intakes was assessed using data from three further UK studies where participants (11–88 years) completed Intake24 at least four times; reliability was assessed using intra-class correlations (ICC). Compared with TEE, participants under-reported EI by 25 % (95 % limits of agreement −73 % to +68 %) in the first recall, 22 % (−61 % to +41 %) for average of first two, and 25 % (−60 % to +28 %) for first three recalls. Correlations between EI and TEE were 0·31 (first), 0·47 (first two) and 0·39 (first three recalls), respectively. ICC for a single recall was 0·35 for EI and ranged from 0·31 for Fe to 0·43 for non-milk extrinsic sugars (NMES). Considering pairs of recalls (first two v. third and fourth recalls), ICC was 0·52 for EI and ranged from 0·37 for fat to 0·63 for NMES. EI reported with Intake24 was moderately correlated with objectively measured TEE and underestimated on average to the same extent as seen with interviewer-led 24-h recalls and estimated weight food diaries. Online 24-h recall systems may offer low-cost, low-burden alternatives for collecting dietary information. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T04:42:18Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-db186c91da2f4e48a8ef1cf33fb1171e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2048-6790 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T04:42:18Z |
| publishDate | 2019-01-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Nutritional Science |
| spelling | doaj.art-db186c91da2f4e48a8ef1cf33fb1171e2023-03-09T12:39:08ZengCambridge University PressJournal of Nutritional Science2048-67902019-01-01810.1017/jns.2019.20Validity and reliability of an online self-report 24-h dietary recall method (Intake24): a doubly labelled water study and repeated-measures analysisEmma Foster0Clement Lee1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1785-8671Fumiaki Imamura2Stefanie E. Hollidge3Kate L. Westgate4Michelle C. Venables5Ivan Poliakov6Maisie K. Rowland7Timur Osadchiy8Jennifer C. Bradley9https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7461-9074Emma L. Simpson10Ashley J. Adamson11Patrick Olivier12Nick Wareham13Nita G. Forouhi14Soren Brage15Human Nutrition Research Centre, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKSchool of Mathematics, Statistics and Physics, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UKMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKMRC Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Cambridge, UKOpen Lab, School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKHuman Nutrition Research Centre, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKOpen Lab, School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKHuman Nutrition Research Centre, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKOpen Lab, School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKHuman Nutrition Research Centre, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKFaculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, AustraliaMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKOnline self-reported 24-h dietary recall systems promise increased feasibility of dietary assessment. Comparison against interviewer-led recalls established their convergent validity; however, reliability and criterion-validity information is lacking. The validity of energy intakes (EI) reported using Intake24, an online 24-h recall system, was assessed against concurrent measurement of total energy expenditure (TEE) using doubly labelled water in ninety-eight UK adults (40–65 years). Accuracy and precision of EI were assessed using correlation and Bland–Altman analysis. Test–retest reliability of energy and nutrient intakes was assessed using data from three further UK studies where participants (11–88 years) completed Intake24 at least four times; reliability was assessed using intra-class correlations (ICC). Compared with TEE, participants under-reported EI by 25 % (95 % limits of agreement −73 % to +68 %) in the first recall, 22 % (−61 % to +41 %) for average of first two, and 25 % (−60 % to +28 %) for first three recalls. Correlations between EI and TEE were 0·31 (first), 0·47 (first two) and 0·39 (first three recalls), respectively. ICC for a single recall was 0·35 for EI and ranged from 0·31 for Fe to 0·43 for non-milk extrinsic sugars (NMES). Considering pairs of recalls (first two v. third and fourth recalls), ICC was 0·52 for EI and ranged from 0·37 for fat to 0·63 for NMES. EI reported with Intake24 was moderately correlated with objectively measured TEE and underestimated on average to the same extent as seen with interviewer-led 24-h recalls and estimated weight food diaries. Online 24-h recall systems may offer low-cost, low-burden alternatives for collecting dietary information.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S204867901900020X/type/journal_articleDietary assessmentOnline 24-h dietary recallDoubly labelled waterValidationRepeatabilityReliabilityUK adults |
| spellingShingle | Emma Foster Clement Lee Fumiaki Imamura Stefanie E. Hollidge Kate L. Westgate Michelle C. Venables Ivan Poliakov Maisie K. Rowland Timur Osadchiy Jennifer C. Bradley Emma L. Simpson Ashley J. Adamson Patrick Olivier Nick Wareham Nita G. Forouhi Soren Brage Validity and reliability of an online self-report 24-h dietary recall method (Intake24): a doubly labelled water study and repeated-measures analysis Journal of Nutritional Science Dietary assessment Online 24-h dietary recall Doubly labelled water Validation Repeatability Reliability UK adults |
| title | Validity and reliability of an online self-report 24-h dietary recall method (Intake24): a doubly labelled water study and repeated-measures analysis |
| title_full | Validity and reliability of an online self-report 24-h dietary recall method (Intake24): a doubly labelled water study and repeated-measures analysis |
| title_fullStr | Validity and reliability of an online self-report 24-h dietary recall method (Intake24): a doubly labelled water study and repeated-measures analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Validity and reliability of an online self-report 24-h dietary recall method (Intake24): a doubly labelled water study and repeated-measures analysis |
| title_short | Validity and reliability of an online self-report 24-h dietary recall method (Intake24): a doubly labelled water study and repeated-measures analysis |
| title_sort | validity and reliability of an online self report 24 h dietary recall method intake24 a doubly labelled water study and repeated measures analysis |
| topic | Dietary assessment Online 24-h dietary recall Doubly labelled water Validation Repeatability Reliability UK adults |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S204867901900020X/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT emmafoster validityandreliabilityofanonlineselfreport24hdietaryrecallmethodintake24adoublylabelledwaterstudyandrepeatedmeasuresanalysis AT clementlee validityandreliabilityofanonlineselfreport24hdietaryrecallmethodintake24adoublylabelledwaterstudyandrepeatedmeasuresanalysis AT fumiakiimamura validityandreliabilityofanonlineselfreport24hdietaryrecallmethodintake24adoublylabelledwaterstudyandrepeatedmeasuresanalysis AT stefanieehollidge validityandreliabilityofanonlineselfreport24hdietaryrecallmethodintake24adoublylabelledwaterstudyandrepeatedmeasuresanalysis AT katelwestgate validityandreliabilityofanonlineselfreport24hdietaryrecallmethodintake24adoublylabelledwaterstudyandrepeatedmeasuresanalysis AT michellecvenables validityandreliabilityofanonlineselfreport24hdietaryrecallmethodintake24adoublylabelledwaterstudyandrepeatedmeasuresanalysis AT ivanpoliakov validityandreliabilityofanonlineselfreport24hdietaryrecallmethodintake24adoublylabelledwaterstudyandrepeatedmeasuresanalysis AT maisiekrowland validityandreliabilityofanonlineselfreport24hdietaryrecallmethodintake24adoublylabelledwaterstudyandrepeatedmeasuresanalysis AT timurosadchiy validityandreliabilityofanonlineselfreport24hdietaryrecallmethodintake24adoublylabelledwaterstudyandrepeatedmeasuresanalysis AT jennifercbradley validityandreliabilityofanonlineselfreport24hdietaryrecallmethodintake24adoublylabelledwaterstudyandrepeatedmeasuresanalysis AT emmalsimpson validityandreliabilityofanonlineselfreport24hdietaryrecallmethodintake24adoublylabelledwaterstudyandrepeatedmeasuresanalysis AT ashleyjadamson validityandreliabilityofanonlineselfreport24hdietaryrecallmethodintake24adoublylabelledwaterstudyandrepeatedmeasuresanalysis AT patrickolivier validityandreliabilityofanonlineselfreport24hdietaryrecallmethodintake24adoublylabelledwaterstudyandrepeatedmeasuresanalysis AT nickwareham validityandreliabilityofanonlineselfreport24hdietaryrecallmethodintake24adoublylabelledwaterstudyandrepeatedmeasuresanalysis AT nitagforouhi validityandreliabilityofanonlineselfreport24hdietaryrecallmethodintake24adoublylabelledwaterstudyandrepeatedmeasuresanalysis AT sorenbrage validityandreliabilityofanonlineselfreport24hdietaryrecallmethodintake24adoublylabelledwaterstudyandrepeatedmeasuresanalysis |