Limits...
Two new meal- and web-based interactive food frequency questionnaires: validation of energy and macronutrient intake.

Christensen SE, Möller E, Bonn SE, Ploner A, Wright A, Sjölander A, Bälter O, Lissner L, Bälter K - J. Med. Internet Res. (2013)

Bottom Line: The questionnaire was compared to 7-day weighed food records (WFR; n=163), for energy and macronutrient intake, and to doubly labeled water (DLW; n=39), for total energy expenditure.Meal-Q and MiniMeal-Q are easy to use and have short answering times.The ranking agreement is good for most of the nutrients for both questionnaires and Meal-Q shows fair reproducibility.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Karolinska Institutet, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Stockholm, Sweden. sara.christensen@ki.se

ABSTRACT

Background: Meal-Q and its shorter version, MiniMeal-Q, are 2 new Web-based food frequency questionnaires. Their meal-based and interactive format was designed to promote ease of use and to minimize answering time, desirable improvements in large epidemiological studies.

Objective: We evaluated the validity of energy and macronutrient intake assessed with Meal-Q and MiniMeal-Q as well as the reproducibility of Meal-Q.

Methods: Healthy volunteers aged 20-63 years recruited from Stockholm County filled out the 174-item Meal-Q. The questionnaire was compared to 7-day weighed food records (WFR; n=163), for energy and macronutrient intake, and to doubly labeled water (DLW; n=39), for total energy expenditure. In addition, the 126-item MiniMeal-Q was evaluated in a simulated validation using truncated Meal-Q data. We also assessed the answering time and ease of use of both questionnaires.

Results: Bland-Altman plots showed a varying bias within the intake range for all validity comparisons. Cross-classification of quartiles placed 70%-86% in the same/adjacent quartile with WFR and 77% with DLW. Deattenuated and energy-adjusted Pearson correlation coefficients with the WFR ranged from r=0.33-0.74 for macronutrients and was r=0.18 for energy. Correlations with DLW were r=0.42 for Meal-Q and r=0.38 for MiniMeal-Q. Intraclass correlations for Meal-Q ranged from r=0.57-0.90. Median answering time was 17 minutes for Meal-Q and 7 minutes for MiniMeal-Q, and participants rated both questionnaires as easy to use.

Conclusions: Meal-Q and MiniMeal-Q are easy to use and have short answering times. The ranking agreement is good for most of the nutrients for both questionnaires and Meal-Q shows fair reproducibility.

Show MeSH
The 3-week study scheme of the VALMA study.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3713929&req=5

figure1: The 3-week study scheme of the VALMA study.

Mentions: After recruitment, the participants were divided into 3 age- and gender-balanced groups: group 1 (n=87), group 2 (n=53), and group 3 (n=40). Each group followed a 3-week study scheme shown in Figure 1.


Two new meal- and web-based interactive food frequency questionnaires: validation of energy and macronutrient intake.

Christensen SE, Möller E, Bonn SE, Ploner A, Wright A, Sjölander A, Bälter O, Lissner L, Bälter K - J. Med. Internet Res. (2013)

The 3-week study scheme of the VALMA study.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3713929&req=5

figure1: The 3-week study scheme of the VALMA study.
Mentions: After recruitment, the participants were divided into 3 age- and gender-balanced groups: group 1 (n=87), group 2 (n=53), and group 3 (n=40). Each group followed a 3-week study scheme shown in Figure 1.

Bottom Line: The questionnaire was compared to 7-day weighed food records (WFR; n=163), for energy and macronutrient intake, and to doubly labeled water (DLW; n=39), for total energy expenditure.Meal-Q and MiniMeal-Q are easy to use and have short answering times.The ranking agreement is good for most of the nutrients for both questionnaires and Meal-Q shows fair reproducibility.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Karolinska Institutet, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Stockholm, Sweden. sara.christensen@ki.se

ABSTRACT

Background: Meal-Q and its shorter version, MiniMeal-Q, are 2 new Web-based food frequency questionnaires. Their meal-based and interactive format was designed to promote ease of use and to minimize answering time, desirable improvements in large epidemiological studies.

Objective: We evaluated the validity of energy and macronutrient intake assessed with Meal-Q and MiniMeal-Q as well as the reproducibility of Meal-Q.

Methods: Healthy volunteers aged 20-63 years recruited from Stockholm County filled out the 174-item Meal-Q. The questionnaire was compared to 7-day weighed food records (WFR; n=163), for energy and macronutrient intake, and to doubly labeled water (DLW; n=39), for total energy expenditure. In addition, the 126-item MiniMeal-Q was evaluated in a simulated validation using truncated Meal-Q data. We also assessed the answering time and ease of use of both questionnaires.

Results: Bland-Altman plots showed a varying bias within the intake range for all validity comparisons. Cross-classification of quartiles placed 70%-86% in the same/adjacent quartile with WFR and 77% with DLW. Deattenuated and energy-adjusted Pearson correlation coefficients with the WFR ranged from r=0.33-0.74 for macronutrients and was r=0.18 for energy. Correlations with DLW were r=0.42 for Meal-Q and r=0.38 for MiniMeal-Q. Intraclass correlations for Meal-Q ranged from r=0.57-0.90. Median answering time was 17 minutes for Meal-Q and 7 minutes for MiniMeal-Q, and participants rated both questionnaires as easy to use.

Conclusions: Meal-Q and MiniMeal-Q are easy to use and have short answering times. The ranking agreement is good for most of the nutrients for both questionnaires and Meal-Q shows fair reproducibility.

Show MeSH