Abstract
Citation
Garcia-Dominic O, Wray LA, Ledikwe JH, Mitchell DC, Ventura AK, Hernandez AE, Yin Z, Trevino RP, Ulbrecht JS. Accuracy of self-reported energy intakes in low-income urban 4th grade minority children. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2010 Nov;18(11):2220-6. Epub 2010 Jun 10.
Abstract
We examined the accuracy of self-reported energy intake (rEI) in low-income, urban minority school-aged children at risk for obesity and associated diabetes utilizing a relatively new, simple previously published prediction equation for identifying inaccurate reports of dietary energy intake. Participants included 614 nine-year-old boys (51%) and girls (49%). Three 24-h dietary recalls were collected. Children's height, weight (used to calculate BMI), and percent body fat (%BF) were measured. Physical fitness, reported family history of diabetes, and ethnicity were also collected. A previously published prediction equation was used to determine the validity of rEIs in these children to identify under-, plausible-, and over-reporters. Additionally, we examined the question of whether there is a difference in reporting by sex, ethnicity, BMI, and %BF. On average, 18% of the children were at risk of being overweight, 43% were already overweight at baseline, yet these children reported consuming fewer calories on average than recommended guidelines. Additionally, reported caloric intake in this cohort was negatively associated with BMI and %BF. Using the previously described methods, 49% of participants were identified as under-reporters, whereas 39 and 12% were identified as plausible- and over-reporters, respectively. On average, children reported caloric intakes that were almost 100% of predicted energy requirement (pER) when the sedentary category was assigned. Inactivity and excessive energy intake are important contributors to obesity. With the rising rates of obesity and diabetes in children, accurate measures of energy intake are needed for better understanding of the relationship between energy intake and health outcomes.
Full Text
The full text is available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/oby.2010.144
At A Glance
Individual Dietary Behavior Variables
| Intake |
|---|
| Total Energy/Energy Density |
Domain(s)
Individual Dietary Behavior
Measure Type
24-hour dietary recall
Measure Availability
Not reported
Number of Items
Not reported
Study location
Metro/Urban
San Antonio, Texas, USA
Languages
English
Spanish
Information about Development of Measure
Nothing to add
Study Design
Study Participants
Age
6 - 11 Years
Sex
Female
Male
Race/Ethnicity
Hispanic
Black/African American
Asian
Predominantly Low-income/Low-SES
Yes
Sample Size
614
Study Design
Design Type
Validation/Reliability
Health Outcomes Assessed
Obesity
Physical activity/inactivity
Obesity Measures
BMI for age
BMI for age (Proportion with BMI for age at or above 85th percentile)
BMI for age (Proportion with BMI for age at or above 95th percentile)
Percent Body Fat
BMI Measured or Self-reported
Measured height
Measured weight
Covariates
Not reported
Data Reported on Race/Ethnicity
Quantitative data on study sample
Data Reported on SES
Quantitative data on study sample
SES-related Variables
Education
Employment/Unemployment
Program Participation (e.g., WIC, Free/Reduced School Meals)
How To Use
Administration
Who Administered
Researcher-administered
How Administered
In-person
Time Required
Not reported
Training Required
Yes, time not reported
Instructions on Use
Not reported
Data Analysis
Data Collection/Analysis Costs
Not available
Data Collection/Protocol
Not available
Instructions on Data Analysis
Not reported
Validity (1)
| Type of validity | Construct/subscale assessed | Criterion measure used | Test/statistic used | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion | Under-, Plausible-, and Under-reporting of Total Energy Intake | Predicted energy requirement (see paper for details). | Relative energy intake (rEI) as a percentage of predicted energy requirement (pER): (rEI/pEI)x100 | Using +/- 1 standard deviation cutpoints, 49% of participants were identified as under-reporters, whereas 39% and 12% were identified as plausible- and over-reporters. |
Reliability (0)
There are no reliability tests reported for this measure.