Chinnock Anne
School of Nutrition, University of Costa Rica, Apartado Postal 28-2050, San Pedro Montes de Oca, San José, Costa Rica, Central America.
Public Health Nutr. 2008 Jan;11(1):65-75. doi: 10.1017/S1368980007000225. Epub 2007 May 22.
To validate a diet history questionnaire (DHQ) using a weighed food record (WFR) as the standard method in the estimation of food consumption and nutrient intake in a group of adults.
WFR: all foods consumed by subjects during 7 consecutive days were weighed and recorded by nutrition students. Two DHQ interviews were carried out on days 1 (first diet history questionnaire, DHQ1) and 28 (second diet history questionnaire, DHQ2).
Costa Rica.
Sixty adults: 30 men and 30 women; 30 living in urban and 30 in rural areas.
In comparison to the WFR, the DHQ1 gave statistically significant higher estimates of the mean intake of 19 nutrients for men and of three nutrients for women. The uncorrected correlation coefficients for nutrient intake according to both methods ranged from 0.40 to 0.83 for males and from 0.22 to 0.62 for females. Percentage of subjects classified in the same quartiles of nutrient intake according to each method ranged from 33.3% to 63.3% for males and from 23.3% to 53.3% for females. Misclassification in extreme quartiles ranged from 0% to 13.3% for both sexes. The mean food group consumption, according to the DHQ1, when compared with the WFR, gave statistically significant differences for three of the 18 food groups for men and for two groups in the case of women. The two applications of the DHQ gave similar results.
Validation of a DHQ using a WFR as the standard method gave results that compare favourably with those reported by other authors. This study found important differences in the response of men and women to the DHQ: among men, the estimates of mean nutrient intake from DHQ1 were significantly greater than those of the WFR, while in the case of women, the mean nutrient intake estimates from both methods were not significantly different. There was a higher degree of correlation between the DHQ1 and the WFR mean nutrient intakes among men than among women. The DHQ showed good reproducibility.
以称重食物记录（WFR）作为标准方法，验证饮食史问卷（DHQ）在评估一组成年人食物摄入量和营养摄入量方面的有效性。
WFR：营养专业学生对受试者连续7天摄入的所有食物进行称重和记录。在第1天（第一份饮食史问卷，DHQ1）和第28天（第二份饮食史问卷，DHQ2）进行两次DHQ访谈。
哥斯达黎加。
60名成年人，30名男性和30名女性，其中30名居住在城市，30名居住在农村。
与WFR相比，DHQ1对男性19种营养素的平均摄入量估计值在统计学上显著更高，对女性3种营养素的平均摄入量估计值在统计学上显著更高。两种方法的营养素摄入量未校正相关系数，男性为0.40至0.83，女性为0.22至0.62。根据每种方法分类在相同营养素摄入量四分位数中的受试者百分比，男性为33.3%至63.3%，女性为23.3%至53.3%。极端四分位数中的错误分类，男女均为0%至13.3%。与WFR相比，根据DHQ1得出的平均食物组消费量，男性18个食物组中有3个在统计学上有显著差异，女性有2个食物组在统计学上有显著差异。DHQ的两次应用结果相似。
以WFR作为标准方法对DHQ进行验证，所得结果与其他作者报告的结果相比具有优势。本研究发现男性和女性对DHQ的反应存在重要差异：男性中，DHQ1的平均营养素摄入量估计值显著高于WFR，而女性中，两种方法的平均营养素摄入量估计值无显著差异。男性中DHQ1与WFR平均营养素摄入量之间的相关性程度高于女性。DHQ显示出良好的可重复性。
