Children's dietary recalls from three validation studies: types of intrusion vary with retention interval

Abstract

SUMMARYUsing previously collected data of fourth-grade children observed eating school meals and then interviewed, we categorized intrusions (food items reported but not observed eaten) as stretches (on the child's tray) or confabulations (not on the child's tray). We investigated intrusions, confabulations, and stretches, and the role of liking, at different retention intervals (morning interviews about the previous day's intake; evening interviews about that day's intake) and under different reporting-order prompts (forward; reverse). As retention interval between consumption and report increased, the likelihood 1) increased that reported items were intrusions, that reported items were confabulations, and that intrusions were confabulations; and 2) was constant that reported items were stretches. Results concerning reporting-order prompts were inconclusive. Liking ratings were higher for matches (reports of items observed eaten) than stretches, for confabulations than stretches, and for matches than omissions (unreported items observed eaten), but did not vary by retention interval or reporting-order prompts. Keywords children; dietary recalls; types of intrusion; retention interval; reporting-order prompts Accurate assessment of dietary intake is challenging, especially among children Frank, 1991). It is difficult for parents to accurately report their children's intake (Eck, Klesges, & Hanson, 1989), especially after children begin attending school (Emmons & Hayes, 1973). Thus, it is necessary to obtain dietary-intake information from children themselves.A common method for collecting information about intake is the 24-hour dietary recall (24hDR), for which an interviewer asks a respondent about his or her intake for a 24-hour target period. Although data collection and processing are costly, 24hDRs do not require that respondents be literate, and the procedure is unlikely to alter intake (Buzzard, 1998).Children have provided 24hDRs for national surveys (e.g., Gleason & Suitor, 2001;Moshfegh, Goldman, & Cleveland, 2005) and research studies (e.g., Luepker et al., 1996;Nicklas, Webber, Srinivasan, & Berenson, 1993;Weber et al., 2004). Children's 24hDRs have also been used to evaluate nutrition-education interventions (Contento, Randell, & Basch, 2002), and multiple *Correspondence to: Suzanne Domel Baxter, PhD, RD, FADA, Institute for Families in Society, University of South Carolina, 1600 Hampton Street Suite 507, Columbia, SC 29208; Tel: (803) 777-1824 ext 12; Fax: (803) NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript 24hDRs by children have been used to assess the relative validity of food frequency questionnaires (e.g., Field et al., 1999;Jensen et al., 2004). Validation of dietary recallsIn validation studies, dietary reporting accuracy is assessed by comparing reported information (e.g., 24hDRs) to reference information (e.g., meal observation) (Baxter, Smith, Hardin, & Nichols, 2007). (In relative validation studies, reference information consists of another selfreport m...

Origins of intrusions in children’s dietary recalls: data from a validation study concerning retention interval and information from school food-service production records

“…As anticipated(7), stretches accounted for a larger percentage of intrusions for interviews about the 24TP than PDTP. Not anticipated were the findings concerning smaller mean amounts reported eaten (in servings) for stretches than internal confabulations and external confabulations at breakfast, and for stretches than internal confabulations at lunch.…”

“…Given the variety of types of intrusion, a model was fit to investigate each type— (2) the likelihood that a reported item was a stretch, (3) the likelihood that a reported item was an internal confabulation, and (4) the likelihood that a reported item was an external confabulation. Finally, models were fit to investigate the likelihood that an intrusion was one of the three types — (5) the likelihood that an intrusion was a stretch, (6) the likelihood that an intrusion was an internal confabulation, and (7) the likelihood that an intrusion was an external confabulation. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to describe significant results from the seven models for breakfast and from the seven models for lunch.…”

“…A fourth source is all other items (e.g., from other school meals and non-school meals); when children fail to filter out this source, external confabulations occur. The number of stretches should decrease and the number of external confabulations should increase as the retention interval (time between when the event[s] happen[s] and the report occurs) increases(7). …”

WebDASC: a web‐based dietary assessment software for 8–11‐year‐old Danish children

“…, 2008). To minimise misreporting and intrusions, it is best if the reporting is done in the evening of the day of consumption (Baxter et al. , 2004, 2008, 2009).…”

Intrusions in Children's Dietary Recalls: The Roles of BMI, Sex, Race, Interview Protocol, and Social Desirability

“…A fourth source is all other items (e.g., from preceding, intervening, and/or future school meals; from nonschool meals); external confabulations occur when children fail to filter out this source. As the retention interval increases between eating and reporting, the likelihood of stretches should decrease, and the likelihood of external confabulations should increase (4).…”