Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

A comparison of two screening methods to determine the validity of 24-h food and drink records in children and adolescents

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 65, pages 1314–1320 (2011)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background/Objectives:

Dietary assessment in humans is hampered by the phenomena of under and overreporting of energy intake, when food records are used to evaluate habitual dietary intake. Different methods to evaluate mis-reporting have been proposed using cut-offs derived from estimates of reported energy intake and basal metabolic rate, or, from predictions of total energy expenditure. This study compares the effect of using two different cut-off approaches to screen food records for validity, completed by a large cohort of Australian children (n=2460), from Grades 1, 5 and 10 (aged 5–17 years).

Subjects/Methods:

Energy intake was calculated from 24-h food and drink records for each child. These data were screened using the Goldberg and McCrory cut-offs. The effect of using these two cut-offs on the collected dataset was explored by considering the mean and standard deviation of energy intake in each year level before and after the cut-offs were applied.

Results:

The use of the Goldberg cut-off resulted in 9% of the total cohort being classified as underreporters, with 60% of these subjects being in Grade 10. The McCrory cut-offs revealed that overall, 22% of the total cohort underreported EI. 33.3% of Grade 1 children were classified as overreporters with this value falling to about 20% of Grade 10 children, while 10–15% of Grade 1 children underreported, with this figure rising to about 30% in Grade 10.

Conclusions:

Both the Goldberg and McCrory approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, and we suggest that consideration should be given to the reason for screening data before a particular approach is used, with recognition that these methods do differ in their aims and outcomes. The McCrory method consistently classified a greater number of children as underreporters.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott RA, Macdonald D, Stubbs CO, Lee A, Harper C, Davies PSW (2007). Healthy Kids Queensland Survey 2006—Summary Report: Queensland Health; Brisbane, Australia.

  • Black AE (2000). Critical evaluation of energy intake using the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake:basal metabolic rate. A practical guide to its calculation, use and limitations. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 24, 1119–1130.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Black AE, Bingham SA, Johansson G, Coward WA (1997). Validation of dietary intakes of protein and energy against 24 h urinary N and DLW energy expenditure in middle-aged women, retired men and post-obese subjects: comparisons with validation against presumed energy requirements. Eur J Clin Nutr 51, 405–413.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bratteby LE, Sandhagen B, Fan H, Enghardt H, Samuelson G (1998). Total energy expenditure and physical activity as assessed by the doubly labeled water method in Swedish adolescents in whom energy intake was underestimated by 7-d diet records. Am J Clin Nutr 67, 905–911.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Champagne CM, Baker NB, DeLany JP, Harsha DW, Bray GA (1998). Assessment of energy intake underreporting by doubly labeled water and observations on reported nutrient intakes in children. J Am Diet Assoc 98, 426–433.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davies PSW, Coward WA, Gregory J, White A, Mills A (1994). Total energy expenditure and energy intake in the pre-school child: a comparison. Br J Nutr 72, 13–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davies PSW, Roodveldt R, Marks GC (2001). Standard Methods for the Collection and Collation of Anthropometric Data in Children/Prepared by Peter SW Davies, Rebecca Roodveldt and Geoff Marks. Departmetn of Health and Aged Care: Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg GR, Black AE, Jebb SA, Cole TJ, Murgatroyd PR, Coward WA et al. (1991). Critical evaluation of energy intake data using fundamental principles of energy physiology: derivation of cut-off to identify under-recording. Eur J Clin Nutr 45, 569–581.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goris AH, Westerterp-Plantenga MS, Westerterp KR (2000). Undereating and underrecording of habitual food intake in obese men: selective underreporting of fat intake. Am J Clin Nutr 71, 130–134.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haggarty P, McGaw BA, Maughan RJ, Fenn C (1988). Energy expenditure of elite female athletes measured by the doubly labelled water method. Proc Nutr Soc 47, 35A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill RJ, Davies PS (1999). The validity of a four day weighed food record for measuring energy intake in female classical ballet dancers. Eur J Clin Nutr 53, 752–753.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hill RJ, Davies PSW (2001). The validity of self reported energy intake as determined using the doubly labelled water technique. Br J Nutr 85, 415–430.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huang TT, Howarth NC, Lin B-H, Roberts SB, McCrory MA (2004). Energy intake and meal portions: associations with BMI percentile in US Children. Obes Res 21, 1875–1885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine (2002). Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids, Part 1. National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC.

  • Livingstone MB, Black AE (2003). Markers of the validity of reported energy intake. J Nutr 133 (Suppl 3), 895S–920S.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone MB, Prentice AM, Strain JJ, Coward WA, Black AE, Barker ME et al. (1990). Accuracy of weighed dietary records in studies of diet and health. Br Med J 300, 708–712.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCrory M, Hajduk C, Roberts S (2002). Procedures for screening out inaccurate reports of dietary energy intake. Public Health Nutr 5 (6A), 873–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prentice AM, Black AE, Coward WA, Davies HL, Goldberg GR, Murgatroyd PR et al. (1986). High levels of energy expenditure in obese women. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 292, 983–987.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie KL, Coward A, Jebb SA (2007). Estimating under-reporting of energy intake in dietary surveys using an individualised method. Br J Nutr 97, 1169–1176.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schofield WN (1985). Predicting basal metabolic rate, new standards and review of previous work. Hum Nutr Clin Nutr 39c (Suppl 1), 5–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ventura AK, Loken E, Mitchell DC, Smiciklas-Wright H, Birch LL (2006). Understanding reporting bias in the dietary recall data of 11-year-old girls. Obesity 14, 1073–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Queensland Health commissioned and funded the Healthy Kids Queensland Survey. A Steering Committee including representation from Queensland Health, Education Queensland, Independent Schools Queensland, the Queensland Catholic Education Commission and the Queensland Department of Local Government Sport and Recreation provided advice, guidance and support regarding the survey.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Children's Nutrition Research Centre, Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, The University of Queensland, Royal Children's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia

    S A Elliott, P S W Davies, S Nambiar & H Truby

  2. School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    R A Abbott

Authors
  1. S A Elliott
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P S W Davies
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S Nambiar
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H Truby
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R A Abbott
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S A Elliott.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Elliott, S., Davies, P., Nambiar, S. et al. A comparison of two screening methods to determine the validity of 24-h food and drink records in children and adolescents. Eur J Clin Nutr 65, 1314–1320 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2011.126

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2011.126

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links