The test–retest reliability and validity of food photography and food diary analyses
Authors: Curtis, C., Hills, S.P., Arjomandkhah, N., Cooke, C., Ranchordas, M.K. and Russell, M.
Journal: Nutrition and Dietetics
eISSN: 1747-0080
ISSN: 1446-6368
DOI: 10.1111/1747-0080.12901
Abstract:Aims: To assess test–retest reliability of both food photography and food diary methods and validity of these data against known values derived from food labels. Methods: Test–retest reliability analyses of food diary and food photography were compared using single foodstuffs using intra-class correlation coefficients, coefficients of variation, and limits of agreement. For food diaries, 24-h test–retest reliability was also examined. Validity was assessed against weighed analyses. As part of habitual intake, a single foodstuff (randomly allocated from 14 common foods) was consumed by 26 participants over 24-h. On two occasions (14 days apart), single-blind dietary analyses allowed estimation of foodstuff-specific energy and macronutrient content and 24-h intakes. Results: For food diaries, test–retest reliability was acceptable (weight, energy, carbohydrate, protein, and fat: all intra-class correlation coefficients: >0.990, coefficient of variation percentage: <0.1%, limits of agreements: <0.1 to <0.1, p > 0.05, and effect size: <0.01). For food photography, test–retest reliability was acceptable for weight, energy, carbohydrate, and protein (all intra-class correlation coefficients: >0.898, coefficient of variation percentage: 3.6%–6.2%, limits of agreements: 1.1 to – 44.9, and effect size: 0.01–0.12). Food photography validity was worse than food diaries for all variables (percentage difference: 8.8%–15.3%, coefficient of variation percentage: 7.5%–13.8%, all p ≤ 0.05, and effect size: 0.001–0.11). Conclusions: Greater reliability and validity occurred in food diaries versus food photography. These findings suggest that using food photography may lead to an underestimation of energy and macronutrient content, which may have implications for dietary interventions and nutritional strategies.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/40228/
Source: Scopus
The test-retest reliability and validity of food photography and food diary analyses.
Authors: Curtis, C., Hills, S.P., Arjomandkhah, N., Cooke, C., Ranchordas, M.K. and Russell, M.
Journal: Nutr Diet
Volume: 81
Issue: 5
Pages: 563-572
eISSN: 1747-0080
DOI: 10.1111/1747-0080.12901
Abstract:AIMS: To assess test-retest reliability of both food photography and food diary methods and validity of these data against known values derived from food labels. METHODS: Test-retest reliability analyses of food diary and food photography were compared using single foodstuffs using intra-class correlation coefficients, coefficients of variation, and limits of agreement. For food diaries, 24-h test-retest reliability was also examined. Validity was assessed against weighed analyses. As part of habitual intake, a single foodstuff (randomly allocated from 14 common foods) was consumed by 26 participants over 24-h. On two occasions (14 days apart), single-blind dietary analyses allowed estimation of foodstuff-specific energy and macronutrient content and 24-h intakes. RESULTS: For food diaries, test-retest reliability was acceptable (weight, energy, carbohydrate, protein, and fat: all intra-class correlation coefficients: >0.990, coefficient of variation percentage: <0.1%, limits of agreements: <0.1 to <0.1, p > 0.05, and effect size: <0.01). For food photography, test-retest reliability was acceptable for weight, energy, carbohydrate, and protein (all intra-class correlation coefficients: >0.898, coefficient of variation percentage: 3.6%-6.2%, limits of agreements: 1.1 to - 44.9, and effect size: 0.01-0.12). Food photography validity was worse than food diaries for all variables (percentage difference: 8.8%-15.3%, coefficient of variation percentage: 7.5%-13.8%, all p ≤ 0.05, and effect size: 0.001-0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Greater reliability and validity occurred in food diaries versus food photography. These findings suggest that using food photography may lead to an underestimation of energy and macronutrient content, which may have implications for dietary interventions and nutritional strategies.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/40228/
Source: PubMed
The test-retest reliability and validity of food photography and food diary analyses
Authors: Curtis, C., Hills, S.P., Arjomandkhah, N., Cooke, C., Ranchordas, M.K. and Russell, M.
Journal: NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Volume: 81
Issue: 5
Pages: 563-572
eISSN: 1747-0080
ISSN: 1446-6368
DOI: 10.1111/1747-0080.12901
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/40228/
Source: Web of Science (Lite)
The test-retest reliability and validity of food photography and food diary analyses
Authors: Curtis, C., Hills, S., Arjomandkhah, N., Cooke, C., Ranchordas, M. and Russell, M.
Journal: Nutrition and Dietetics
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
ISSN: 1032-1322
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/40228/
Source: Manual
The test-retest reliability and validity of food photography and food diary analyses.
Authors: Curtis, C., Hills, S.P., Arjomandkhah, N., Cooke, C., Ranchordas, M.K. and Russell, M.
Journal: Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia
Volume: 81
Issue: 5
Pages: 563-572
eISSN: 1747-0080
ISSN: 1446-6368
DOI: 10.1111/1747-0080.12901
Abstract:Aims
To assess test-retest reliability of both food photography and food diary methods and validity of these data against known values derived from food labels.Methods
Test-retest reliability analyses of food diary and food photography were compared using single foodstuffs using intra-class correlation coefficients, coefficients of variation, and limits of agreement. For food diaries, 24-h test-retest reliability was also examined. Validity was assessed against weighed analyses. As part of habitual intake, a single foodstuff (randomly allocated from 14 common foods) was consumed by 26 participants over 24-h. On two occasions (14 days apart), single-blind dietary analyses allowed estimation of foodstuff-specific energy and macronutrient content and 24-h intakes.Results
For food diaries, test-retest reliability was acceptable (weight, energy, carbohydrate, protein, and fat: all intra-class correlation coefficients: >0.990, coefficient of variation percentage: <0.1%, limits of agreements: <0.1 to <0.1, p > 0.05, and effect size: <0.01). For food photography, test-retest reliability was acceptable for weight, energy, carbohydrate, and protein (all intra-class correlation coefficients: >0.898, coefficient of variation percentage: 3.6%-6.2%, limits of agreements: 1.1 to - 44.9, and effect size: 0.01-0.12). Food photography validity was worse than food diaries for all variables (percentage difference: 8.8%-15.3%, coefficient of variation percentage: 7.5%-13.8%, all p ≤ 0.05, and effect size: 0.001-0.11).Conclusions
Greater reliability and validity occurred in food diaries versus food photography. These findings suggest that using food photography may lead to an underestimation of energy and macronutrient content, which may have implications for dietary interventions and nutritional strategies.https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/40228/
Source: Europe PubMed Central
The test-retest reliability and validity of food photography and food diary analyses
Authors: Curtis, C., Hills, S.P., Arjomandkhah, N., Cooke, C., Ranchordas, M.K. and Russell, M.
Journal: Nutrition and Dietetics
Volume: 81
Issue: 5
Pages: 563-572
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
ISSN: 1032-1322
Abstract:Aims: To assess test-retest reliability of both food photography and food diary methods and validity of these data against known values derived from food labels.
Methods: Test-retest reliability analyses of food diary and food photography were compared using single foodstuffs using intra-class correlation coefficients, coefficients of variation and limits of agreement. For food diaries, 24-h test-retest reliability was also examined. Validity was assessed against weighed analyses. As part of habitual intake, a single foodstuff (randomly allocated from 14 common foods) were consumed by 26 participants over 24-h. On two occasions (14 days apart), single-blind dietary analyses allowed estimation of foodstuff-specific energy and macronutrient content, and 24-h intakes.
Results: For food diaries, test-retest reliability was acceptable (weight, energy, carbohydrate, protein, fat: all intraclass correlation coefficients >0.990, coefficient of variation percentage: <0.1%, limits of agreements: <0.1 to <0.1, p>0.05, effect size: <0.01). For food photography, test-retest reliability was acceptable for weight, energy, carbohydrate, and protein (all intraclass correlation coefficients >0.898, coefficient of variation percentage: 3.6% - 6.2%, limits of agreements: 1.1 to – 44.9, effect size: 0.01 – 0.12). Food photography validity was worse than food diaries for all variables (percentage difference: 8.8% - 15.3%, coefficient of variation percentage: 7.5% - 13.8%, all; p≤0.05, effect size: 0.001 – 0.11).
Conclusions: Greater reliability and validity occurred in food diaries versus food photography; findings which may suggest that using food photography may lead to an under-estimation of energy and macronutrient content, which may have implications for dietary interventions and nutritional strategies.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/40228/
Source: BURO EPrints