Objective: To explore the speci®city and sensitivity of the Goldberg cut-off for EI : BMR for identifying diet reports of poor validity as compared with the direct comparison of energy intake with energy expenditure measured by doubly-labelled water. Design: Twenty-two studies with measurements of total energy expenditure by doubly-labelled water (EE), basal metabolic rate (BMR) and energy intake (EI) provided the database (n 429). The ratio EI : EE provided the baseline de®nition of under-(UR), acceptable-(AR) and over-reporters (OR), respectively EI : EE`0.76, 0.76 ± 1.24 and b 1.24. Four strategies for identifying under-and over-reporters using the Goldberg cut-off were explored. Sensitivity of the cut-off was calculated as the proportion of UR correctly identi®ed and speci®city as the proportion of non-UR correctly identi®ed. Results: UR, AR and OR (by EI : EE) were 34, 62 and 4% respectively of all subjects. When a single Goldberg cut-off for the physical activity level (PAL) of 1.55 was used, for men and women respectively the sensitivity was 0.50 and 0.52 and the speci®city 1.00 and 0.99. Using a cut-off for higher PAL traded speci®city for sensitivity. Using the cut-off for a PAL of 1.95, sensitivity was 0.76 and 0.85 and the speci®city 0.87 and 0.78 for men and women respectively. Using cut-offs for mean age ± sex speci®c PAL did not improve sensitivity. When subjects were assigned to low, medium and high activity levels and cut-offs for three different PALs used, sensitivity improved to 0.74 and 0.67 without loss of speci®city (0.97 and 0.98), for men and women respectively. If activity levels for men were applied to the womens' data, sensitivity improved to 0.72. Conclusion: To identify diet reports of poor validity using the Goldberg cut-off for EI : BMR, information is needed on each subject's activity level.