4.3 Article

Relative validity of a 3 d estimated food record in German toddlers

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 645-652

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980012003230

关键词

Toddlers; Estimated food record; Weighed dietary record; Dietary intakes; Validation

资金

  1. Nestle Nutrition GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the relative validity of a 3 d estimated food record (EFR) used to assess energy and nutrient intakes in toddlers, using a 3 d weighed food record (WDR) as the reference method. Design: Parents reported the food and beverage intakes of their children using an EFR concurrently with a WDR over three consecutive days. Estimation of mean differences, Spearman correlation coefficients, cross-classifications and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the agreement between the intakes of energy and fourteen nutrients obtained from the EFR and the WDR. Setting: Data obtained from a representative sample of infants or toddlers in Germany. Subjects: Sixty-seven toddlers aged 10-36 months who had completed an EFR for a 3 d recording period that corresponded to the WDR were included in the present analysis. Results: Energy and nutrient intakes did not differ between the EFR and the WDR, except for linoleic acid and retinol. For all dietary intakes, Spearman rank correlation coefficients between the EFR and the WDR ranged from 0.35 to 0.80 (P <= 0.004). The proportion of participants correctly classified into quartiles ranged from 75% for ascorbic acid intake to 96% for Fe intake, and the percentage of misclassification was 9% or less. The weighed kappa values ranking the participants ranged from 0.23 for ascorbic acid intake to 0.59 for Fe intake. The Bland-Altman plots indicated a good agreement for all dietary intakes estimated from the EFR. Conclusions: Our study suggests that this EFR is a valid assessment instrument for estimating the energy and nutrient intakes among toddlers at the group level.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据