Conclusions about Children’s Reporting Accuracy for Energy and Macronutrients Over Multiple Interviews Depend on the Analytic Approach for Comparing Reported Information to Reference Information

Abstract

Objective-Validation-study data are used to illustrate that conclusions about children's reporting accuracy for energy and macronutrients over multiple interviews (ie, time) depend on the analytic approach for comparing reported and reference information-conventional, which disregards accuracy of reported items and amounts, or reporting-error-sensitive, which classifies reported items as matches (eaten) or intrusions (not eaten), and amounts as corresponding or overreported.Subjects and design-Children were observed eating school meals on one day (n = 12), or two (n = 13) or three (n = 79) nonconsecutive days separated by ≥25 days, and interviewed in the morning after each observation day about intake the previous day. Reference (observed) and reported information were transformed to energy and macronutrients (protein, carbohydrate, fat), and compared.Main outcome measures-For energy and each macronutrient: report rates (reported/reference), correspondence rates (genuine accuracy measures), inflation ratios (error measures). Statistical analyses-Mixed-model analyses.Results-Using the conventional approach for analyzing energy and macronutrients, report rates did not vary systematically over interviews (Ps > .61). Using the reporting-error-sensitive approach for analyzing energy and macronutrients, correspondence rates increased over interviews (Ps < .04), indicating that reporting accuracy improved over time; inflation ratios decreased, although not significantly, over interviews, also suggesting that reporting accuracy improved over time. Correspondence rates were lower than report rates, indicating that reporting accuracy was worse than implied by conventional measures.Conclusions-When analyzed using the reporting-error-sensitive approach, children's dietary reporting accuracy for energy and macronutrients improved over time, but the conventional approach masked improvements and overestimated accuracy.Applications-The reporting-error-sensitive approach is recommended when analyzing data from validation studies of dietary reporting accuracy for energy and macronutrients.

Causes of Increased Energy Intake Among Children in the U.S., 1977–2010

“…Finally, it is possible that children’s intakes were misreported, although it is difficult to speculate on its potential effect, as it may differ by the child’s weight status, 42–44 child’s age, 45 child’s method of dietary intake, 46,47 or analytic approach. 48 …”

Cognitive processes in children's dietary recalls: insight from methodological studies

“…In secondary analyses in Studies 10, 11, and 12 (Baxter et al , 2007b, 2007c; Smith et al , 2007b), conventional report rates for energy and each macronutrient overestimated reporting accuracy and masked the complexity of reporting errors. Specifically, report rates were higher than correspondence rates, indicating that reporting accuracy was overestimated by conventional report rates.…”

“…Studies 10, 11, and 12 (Baxter, Smith, Hardin & Nichols, 2007b, 2007c; Smith, Baxter, Hardin & Nichols, 2007b) consisted of secondary analyses to compare two approaches of analysing energy and macronutrients in dietary-reporting validation studies. The conventional approach disregards accuracy of reported items and reported amounts by transforming reference information, and reported information, to kilojoules and macronutrients for each subject, and then calculating report rate for energy and each macronutrient.…”

Effectiveness of Prompts on Fourth-Grade Children–s Dietary Recall Accuracy Depends on Retention Interval and Varies by Gender

“…For each reported item, the NDSR database was used to obtain kilocalories for a standard school-meal portion. ChildrenÕs accuracy for reporting energy (kilocalorie) intake was assessed as in past studies (23,25,(48)(49)(50)(51). For each match, either 1) the reported amount corresponded exactly to the observed amount, 2) the reported amount corresponded to part of the observed amount and the rest of the observed amount was unreported, or 3) part of the reported amount corresponded to the observed amount and the rest was over-reported.…”