Relative validity of the Children's Eating Habits Questionnaire–food frequency section among young European children: the IDEFICS Study

Abstract

Objective: To compare, specifically by age group, proxy-reported food group estimates obtained from the food frequency section of the Children's Eating Habits questionnaire (CEHQ-FFQ) against the estimates of two non-consecutive 24 h dietary recalls (24-HDR). Design: Estimates of food group intakes assessed via the forty-three-food-group CEHQ-FFQ were compared with those obtained by a computerized 24-HDR. Agreement on frequencies of intakes (equal to the number of portions per recall period) between the two instruments was examined using crude and de-attenuated Pearson's correlation coefficients, cross-classification analyses, weighted kappa statistics (k w ) and Bland-Altman analysis. Setting: Kindergartens/schools from eight European countries participating in the IDEFICS (Identification and prevention of Dietary-and lifestyle-induced health EFfects In Children and infantS) Study cross-sectional survey (2007)(2008). Subjects: Children aged 2-9 years (n 2508, 50?4 % boys). Results: The CEHQ-FFQ provided higher intake estimates for most of the food groups than the 24-HDR. De-attenuated Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from 0?01 (sweetened fruit) to 0?48 (sweetened milk) in children aged 2-,6 years (mean 5 0?25) and from 0?01 (milled cereal) to 0?44 (water) in children aged 6-9 years (mean 5 0?23). An average of 32 % and 31 % of food group intakes were assigned to the same quartile in younger and older children, respectively, and classification into extreme opposite quartiles was #12 % for all food groups in both age groups. Mean k w was 0?20 for 2-,6-year-olds and 0?17 for 6-9-year-olds. Conclusions: The strength of association estimates assessed by the CEHQ-FFQ and the 24-HDR varied by food group and by age group. Observed level of agreement and CEHQ-FFQ ability to rank children according to intakes of food groups were considered to be low.

Validation of ‘POIBA-How do we eat?’ questionnaire in 9-10 years old schoolchildren

“…Other authors have also reported that responses on portions and servings may differ between FFQ and recall and that this mismatch could influence correlations [26]. Other reasons cited were related to the difficulty of 24-h recalls in capturing infrequently consumed products [27,28]. …”

“…However, overall specificity was low except for pasta, fried potatoes, sweets and chips, and half of the items showed high NPV. The FFQ did not accurately detect non-consumers for most of the items, but the children classified as non-consumers were probably not misclassified [23,28]. …”

“…We were unable to measure the reliability of the FFQ for feasibility reasons, and, finally, some bias could have been introduced during the analysis because the recall time differs between the two methods used (the POIBA-HDWE FFQ asks about normal food intake in the last month, while the YANA-C asks about the day before). Nevertheless, other studies have shown good results using the same recording tools [28]. …”

A systematic review of methods to assess intake of sugar-sweetened beverages among healthy European adults and children: a DEDIPAC (DEterminants of DIet and Physical Activity) study

“…From these forty-eight articles, sixteen articles were selected which best described the background to the project or the method used; one to three articles were typically selected per project, with the exception of the ToyBox study where articles obtained from authors were used in favour of the sourced article. Reviewing the reference lists yielded eighteen further articles in which the methods were described (29,(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55) .…”

“…Dietary history method using questionnaire X (40) 100 subjects from various participating centres were evaluated using the 3 d diet diary (two weekdays and a Sunday) in order to test the questionnaire for validity No data on SSB…”