Search

Accurately estimating portion sizes remains a challenge in dietary assessment. Digital images used in online 24-hour dietary recalls may be conducive to accuracy. The current analyses were conducted to examine the accuracy of portion size estimation by women with low incomes who completed 24-hour dietary recalls using the online Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment Tool (ASA24) in the Food and Eating Assessment Study II. True dietary intake was observed for 3 meals on 1 day through a controlled feeding study conducted from May through July 2016. The following day, participants completed an unannounced 24-hour dietary recall using ASA24, independently or with assistance in a small-group setting. Participants included 302 women aged 18 to 82 years living in the Washington, DC, area who met the income thresholds for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The accuracy of portion size estimation was assessed by comparing the weight truly consumed (observed) and the weight reported for predetermined categories of foods and beverages. The differences between observed and reported portions were examined and linear regression tested differences by recall condition. Analyses were conducted by condition and repeated with stratification by racial/ethnic identity, education, and body mass index. On average across foods and beverages, reported portion sizes were 7.4 g (95% CI, 4.3-10.5) and 6.4 g (95% CI, 2.8-10.0) higher than observed portion sizes in the independent and assisted conditions, respectively. Portion sizes were overestimated for small pieces and shaped foods in both conditions, as well as for amorphous/soft foods in the assisted condition and underestimated for single-unit foods in both conditions. Misestimation was fairly consistent by participants' race/ethnicity, education, and body mass index, to varying magnitudes. Women with low incomes overestimated the amounts of foods and beverages consumed across several categories using online 24-hour dietary recalls with digital images to support portion size estimation. Assistance with ASA24 had little impact on accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Recall (ASA24), a freely available Web-based tool, was developed to enhance the feasibility of collecting high-quality dietary intake data from large samples. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the criterion validity of ASA24 through a feeding study in which the true intake for 3 meals was known. Design: True intake and plate waste from 3 meals were ascertained for 81 adults by inconspicuously weighing foods and beverages offered at a buffet before and after each participant served him-or herself. Participants were randomly assigned to complete an ASA24 or an interviewer-administered Automated Multiple-Pass Method (AMPM) recall the following day. With the use of linear and Poisson regression analysis, we examined the associations between recall mode and 1) the proportions of items consumed for which a match was reported and that were excluded, 2) the number of intrusions (items reported but not consumed), and 3) differences between energy, nutrient, food group, and portion size estimates based on true and reported intakes. Results: Respondents completing ASA24 reported 80% of items truly consumed compared with 83% in AMPM (P = 0.07). For both ASA24 and AMPM, additions to or ingredients in multicomponent foods and drinks were more frequently omitted than were main foods or drinks. The number of intrusions was higher in ASA24 (P<0.01). Little evidence of differences by recall mode was found in the gap between true and reported energy, nutrient, and food group intakes or portion sizes. Conclusions: Although the interviewer-administered AMPM performed somewhat better relative to true intakes for matches, exclusions, and intrusions, ASA24 performed well. Given the substantial cost savings that ASA24 offers, it has the potential to make important contributions to research aimed at describing the diets of populations, assessing the effect of interventions on diet, and elucidating diet and health relations. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00978406. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The construct and predictive validity of the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) have been demonstrated, but how error in reported dietary intake may affect scores is unclear. These analyses examined concordance between HEI-2015 scores based on observed vs reported intake among adults. Data were from two feeding studies (Food and Eating Assessment STudy, or FEAST, I and II) in which true intake was observed for three meals on 1 day. The following day, participants completed an unannounced 24-hour dietary recall. FEAST I (2012) included 81 men and women, aged 20 to 70 years, living in the Washington, DC, area. FEAST II (2016) included 302 women, aged 18 years or older, with low household incomes and living in the Washington, DC, area. In FEAST I, recalls were completed independently using the Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment Tool (ASA24-2011) or interviewer-administered using the Automated Multiple-Pass Method. In FEAST II, recalls were completed using ASA24-2016, independently or in a small group setting with assistance. HEI-2015 scores were calculated using the population ratio method. T -tests determined whether differences between scores based on observed and reported intake were different from zero. FEAST I data were stratified by sex, and in FEAST II, analyses were repeated by education and body mass index (BMI). Differences in total HEI-2015 scores between observed and reported intake ranged from −1.3 to 5.8 points among those completing ASA24 independently in both studies, compared with −2.5 points in the small group setting. For interviewer-administered recalls, the differences were −1.1 for men and 2.3 for women. In FEAST II, total HEI-2015 scores derived from observed intake were lower than scores derived from reported intake among those who had completed high school or less (−3.2, SE 1.1, P <0.01) and those with BMI ≥ 30 (−2.8, SE 1.1, P = 0.01). HEI-2015 scores based on 24-hour dietary recall data are generally well estimated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]