Document Detail

Validation of three food frequency questionnaires to assess dietary calcium intake in adults.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  17467370     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of three self-administered food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) to measure dietary calcium intake in healthy adults.
DESIGN: Estimates of dietary calcium intake from one previously validated and two recently developed FFQs were compared with those from 7-day food records.
SUBJECTS/SETTING: Healthy adults enrolled in an outpatient study of calcium supplementation completed the 36-page Dietary History Questionnaire (DHQ), a 3-page Calcium Questionnaire, and a 1-page Short Calcium Questionnaire. Subjects then completed a 7-day food record.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences between calcium intake reported on FFQs and calcium intake from food records were compared.
STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Spearman correlations were used to measure associations among variables; Bland-Altman pairwise comparisons were conducted to assess systematic and magnitude biases.
RESULTS: We studied 341 subjects, 74.5% female, mean (+/-standard deviation) age of 38+/-11 years and body mass index (calculated as kg/m(2)) of 31.8+/-7.1. Mean (+/-standard deviation) food record calcium intake was 896+/-380 mg/day; data from all three FFQs were positively related to food record calcium intake, but accounted for <40% of the variance in food record dietary calcium intake (DHQ: r(2)=0.21; Calcium Questionnaire: r(2)=0.33; Short Calcium Questionnaire: r(2)=0.37; all P<0.001). The DHQ underestimated daily calcium intake (systematic bias: -94 mg/day, P<0.001; magnitude bias r=-0.40; P<0.001), whereas the Calcium Questionnaire overestimated calcium intake (systematic bias +177 mg/day, P<0.001), but had no significant magnitude bias (r=-0.09; P=0.11). The Short Calcium Questionnaire showed minimal systematic bias (+34 mg/day, P=0.09), but had magnitude bias (r=-0.33; P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: All three FFQs performed reasonably well at estimating dietary calcium intake compared to food records; each may be appropriate for use in select clinical and research settings.
Nancy G Sebring; Blakeley I Denkinger; Carolyn M Menzie; Lisa B Yanoff; Shamik J Parikh; Jack A Yanovski
Publication Detail:
Type:  Comparative Study; Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., Intramural; Validation Studies    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Journal of the American Dietetic Association     Volume:  107     ISSN:  0002-8223     ISO Abbreviation:  J Am Diet Assoc     Publication Date:  2007 May 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2007-04-30     Completed Date:  2007-06-14     Revised Date:  2012-03-07    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  7503061     Medline TA:  J Am Diet Assoc     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  752-9     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Clinical Nutrition Services, Unit on Growth and Obesity, Developmental Endocrinology Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-1103, USA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Body Mass Index
Calcium, Dietary / administration & dosage*
Diet Records
Middle Aged
Nutrition Assessment*
Nutrition Surveys
Questionnaires / standards*
Reproducibility of Results
Self Disclosure*
Sensitivity and Specificity
Social Class
Statistics, Nonparametric
Grant Support
Reg. No./Substance:
0/Calcium, Dietary

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Where do we stand on vitamin D?
Next Document:  Development and evaluation of a short instrument to estimate usual dietary intake of percentage ener...