Comparison of dietary assessment methods in nutritional epidemiology weighed records v. 24 h recalls, food-frequency questionnaires and estimated-diet records

S. A. Bingham, C. Gill, A. Welch, K. Day, A. Cassidy, K. T. Khaw, M. J. Sneyd, T. J.A. Key, L. Roe, N. E. Day

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

591 Scopus citations

Abstract

Women (n 160) aged 50 to 65 years were asked to weigh their food for 4 d on four occasions over the period of 1 year, using the PETRA (Portable Electronic Tape Recorded Automatic) scales. Throughout the year, they were asked to complete seven other dietary assessment methods: a simple 24 h recall, a structured 24 h recall with portion size assessments using photographs, two food-frequency questionnaires, a 7 d estimated record or open-ended food diary, a structured food-frequency (menu) record, and a structured food-frequency (menu) record with portion sizes assessed using photographs. Comparisons between the average of the 16 d weighed records and the first presentation of each method indicated that food-frequency questionnaires were not appreciably better at placing individuals in the distribution of habitual diet than 24 h recalls, due partly to inaccuracies in the estimation of frequency of food consumption. With a 7 d estimated record or open-ended food diary, however, individual values of nutrients were most closely associated with those obtained from 16 d weighed records, and there were no significant differences in average food or nutrient intakes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)619-643
Number of pages25
JournalBritish Journal of Nutrition
Volume72
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1994

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Nutrition and Dietetics

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of dietary assessment methods in nutritional epidemiology weighed records v. 24 h recalls, food-frequency questionnaires and estimated-diet records'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this