Skip to main content
×
Home

Misclassification associated with measurement error in the assessment of dietary intake

  • Carl de Moor (a1), Tom Baranowski (a2), Karen W Cullen (a2) and Theresa Nicklas (a2)
Abstract
AbstractObjective:

Dietary assessment has been used for certification to receive food supplements or other nutrition services and to provide feedback for educational purposes. The proportion of individuals correctly certified as eligible is a function of the amount of error that exists in the dietary measures and the level of dietary intake used to establish eligibility. Whether individuals are correctly counselled to increase or decrease the consumption of selected foods or nutrients is a function of the same factors. It is not clear, however, what percentage of individuals would be correctly classified under what circumstances. The objective of this study is to demonstrate the extent to which measurement error and eligibility criteria affect the accuracy of classification.

Design:

Hypothetical distributions of dietary intake were generated with varying degrees of measurement error. Different eligibility criteria were applied and the expected classification rates were determined using numerical methods.

Setting and subjects:

Simulation study.

Results:

Cut points of dietary intake at decreasing levels below the 50th percentile of true intake were associated with lower sensitivity and predictive value positive rates, but higher specificity and predictive value negative rates. The correct classification rates were lower when two cut points of dietary intake were used. Using a single cut point that was higher than the targeted true consumption resulted in higher sensitivity but lower predictive value positive, and lower specificity but higher predictive value negative.

Conclusions:

Current methods of dietary assessment may not be reliable enough to attain acceptable levels of correct classification. Policy-makers and educators must consider how much misclassification error they are willing to accept and determine whether more intensive methods are necessary.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Misclassification associated with measurement error in the assessment of dietary intake
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Misclassification associated with measurement error in the assessment of dietary intake
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Misclassification associated with measurement error in the assessment of dietary intake
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
*Corresponding author: Email cdemoor@mdanderson.org
References
Hide All
1Institute of Medicine. WIC Nutrition Risk Criteria: A Scientific Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996.
2Fox MK, Burstein N, Golay J, Price C. WIC Nutrition Education Assessment Study, Final Report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 1998.
3Di Clemente CC, Marinhilli AS, Singh M, Bellino LE. The role of feedback in the process of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Behavior 2001; 25: 217–27.
4Gersovitz M, Madden JP, Smiciklas-Wright H. Validity of the 24-hour dietary recall and seven day record for group comparison. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1978; 73: 4855.
5Block G, Thompson FE, Hartman AM, Larkin FA, Guire KE. Comparison of two dietary questionnaires validated against multiple dietary records collected during a 1-year period. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1992; 92: 686–93.
6Block G, Subar AF. Estimates of nutrient intake from a food frequency questionnaire: the 1987 National Health Interview Survey. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1992; 92: 969–77.
7Willett W. Nutritional Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
8Day NE, McKeown N, Wong MY, Welch A, Bingham S. Epidemiological assessment of diet: a comparison of a 7-day diary with a food frequency questionnaire using urinary markers of nitrogen, potassium and sodium. International Journal of Epidemiology 2001; 30: 309–17.
9Kipnis V, Carroll RJ, Freidman LS, Li L. Implications of a new dietary measurement error model for estimation of relative risk: application to four contribution studies. American Journal of Epidemiology 1999; 150: 642–51.
10Scholl TO, Hediger ML, Schall JI, Khoo CS, Fischer RL. Dietary and serum folate: their influence on the outcome of pregnancy. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1996; 63: 520–5.
11Troiano RP, Flegal KM, Kuczmarski RJ, Campbell SM, Johnson CL. Overweight prevalence and trends for children and adolescents: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1963–1991. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 1995; 149: 1085–91.
12Kipnis V, Midthune D, Freedman LS, Bingham S, Schatzkin A, Subar A, et al. Empirical evidence of correlated biases in dietary assessment instruments and its implications. American Journal of Epidemiology 2001; 152: 394403.
13Randall B, Bartlett S, Kennedy S. Study of WIC Participant and Program Characteristics, 1996. FNS 53-3198-3-026. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis and Evaluation, 1998.
14Humbleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991.
15Baxter SD, Thompson WO, Davis HC, Johnson MH. Impact of gender, ethnicity, meal component, and time interval between eating and reporting on accuracy of fourth-graders' self-reports of school lunch. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1997; 97: 1293–8.
16Munoz KA, Krebs-Smith SM, Ballard-Barbash R, Cleveland LE. Food intakes of US children and adolescents compared with recommendations. Pediatrics 1997; 100: 323–9.
17Walker AM, Blettner M. Comparing imperfect measures of exposure. American Journal of Epidemiology 1985; 121: 783–90.
18Kuhn DL, Risi L, Richart RM, Pollack A, Kostecki F, Wright TC. Two-stage cervical cancer screening: an alternative for resource-poor settings. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000; 183: 383–8.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Public Health Nutrition
  • ISSN: 1368-9800
  • EISSN: 1475-2727
  • URL: /core/journals/public-health-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 72 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 61 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.