Validity and reliability of an online self-report 24-h dietary recall method (Intake24): a doubly labelled water study and repeated-measures analysis

Abstract

Online self-reported 24-h dietary recall systems promise increased feasibility of dietary assessment. Comparison against interviewer-led recalls established their convergent validity; however, reliability and criterion-validity information is lacking. The validity of energy intakes (EI) reported using Intake24, an online 24-h recall system, was assessed against concurrent measurement of total energy expenditure (TEE) using doubly labelled water in ninety-eight UK adults (40–65 years). Accuracy and precision of EI were assessed using correlation and Bland–Altman analysis. Test–retest reliability of energy and nutrient intakes was assessed using data from three further UK studies where participants (11–88 years) completed Intake24 at least four times; reliability was assessed using intra-class correlations (ICC). Compared with TEE, participants under-reported EI by 25 % (95 % limits of agreement −73 % to +68 %) in the first recall, 22 % (−61 % to +41 %) for average of first two, and 25 % (−60 % to +28 %) for first three recalls. Correlations between EI and TEE were 0·31 (first), 0·47 (first two) and 0·39 (first three recalls), respectively. ICC for a single recall was 0·35 for EI and ranged from 0·31 for Fe to 0·43 for non-milk extrinsic sugars (NMES). Considering pairs of recalls (first two v. third and fourth recalls), ICC was 0·52 for EI and ranged from 0·37 for fat to 0·63 for NMES. EI reported with Intake24 was moderately correlated with objectively measured TEE and underestimated on average to the same extent as seen with interviewer-led 24-h recalls and estimated weight food diaries. Online 24-h recall systems may offer low-cost, low-burden alternatives for collecting dietary information.

Descriptive epidemiology of energy expenditure in the UK: findings from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey 2008–15

“…Finally, some misclassification of the habitual diet cannot be ruled out, owing to only sampling 4 days of intake and using estimated portion sizes, rather than weighed quantities, but the method provides similar estimates of intake as the commonly used repeat 24-hour recall method, both of which compare reasonably well with biomarkers, particularly when normalized for energy intake as we have done here. 17 , 49 , 50 …”

Effect of diurnal intermittent fasting during Ramadan on ghrelin, leptin, melatonin, and cortisol levels among overweight and obese subjects: A prospective observational study

“…Dietary caloric and macronutrient intakes were estimated using The Food Processor software, version 10.6 (ESHA Research, Salem, OR, USA). Validity and reliability of 24-hour recall in assessing dietary and caloric intake are reported elsewhere [ 35 – 37 ].…”

Trajectories of Dietary Patterns, Sleep Duration, and Body Mass Index in China: A Population-Based Longitudinal Study from China Nutrition and Health Survey, 1991–2009

“…Individuals were asked to report all foods and beverages (measured in grams) consumed at home and away from home on a 24-h recall basis [23]. The dietary assessment method used in the study has been previously validated against double-labeled water for energy intake [24]. At the household level, dietary intake was weighed via a food inventory over the same three-day period.…”