Hebert James R, Hurley Thomas G, Peterson Karen E, Resnicow Ken, Thompson Frances E, Yaroch Amy L, Ehlers Margaret, Midthune Doug, Williams Geoffrey C, Greene Geoffrey W, Nebeling Linda
South Carolina Statewide Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.
J Nutr. 2008 Jan;138(1):226S-234S. doi: 10.1093/jn/138.1.226S.
Data collected at 4 Behavioral Change Consortium sites were used to assess social desirability bias in self-reports derived from a dietary fat screener (PFat), a dietary fruit and vegetable screener (FVS), and a 1-item question on fruit and vegetable intake. Comparisons were made with mean intakes derived from up to 3 24-h recall interviews at baseline and follow-up (at 12 mo in 3 sites, 6 mo in the fourth). A social-desirability-related underestimate in fat intake on the PFat relative to the 24HR (percentage energy as fat) was evident in women [baseline b = -0.56 (P = 0.005); follow-up b = -0.62 (P < 0.001)]. There was an overestimate in FVS-derived fruit and vegetable consumption (servings/week) in men enrolled in any intervention at follow-up (b = 0.39, P = 0.05) vs. baseline (b = 0.04, P = 0.75). The 1-item fruit and vegetable question was associated with an overestimate at baseline in men according to SD score (b = 0.14, P = 0.02), especially men with less than college education (b = 0.23, P = 0.01). Women with less than college education expressed a similar bias at follow-up (b = 0.13, P = 0.02). Differences in the magnitude of bias according to gender, type of instrument used, and randomization condition are comparable to what has been seen for other instruments and have important implications for both measuring change in studies of diet and health outcomes and for developing methods to control for such biases.
行为改变联盟4个站点收集的数据用于评估从膳食脂肪筛查工具(PFat)、膳食水果和蔬菜筛查工具(FVS)以及一个关于水果和蔬菜摄入量的单项问题得出的自我报告中的社会期望偏差。将这些数据与基线和随访时(3个站点为12个月,第4个站点为6个月)多达3次24小时回顾性访谈得出的平均摄入量进行比较。相对于24小时回顾法(脂肪能量百分比),PFat得出的女性脂肪摄入量存在与社会期望相关的低估现象[基线b = -0.56(P = 0.005);随访b = -0.62(P < 0.001)]。在随访时,参与任何干预措施的男性中,FVS得出的水果和蔬菜消费量(份/周)相对于基线时存在高估现象(b = 0.39,P = 从0.05)(基线b = 0.04,P = 0.75)。根据社会期望得分,单项水果和蔬菜问题在基线时与男性的高估现象相关(b = 0.14,P = 0.02),尤其是未受过大学教育的男性(b = 0.23,P = 0.01)。未受过大学教育的女性在随访时也表现出类似的偏差(b = 0.13,P = 0.02)。根据性别、所用工具类型和随机分组情况的偏差程度差异与其他工具所见相当,这对于测量饮食和健康结果研究中的变化以及开发控制此类偏差的方法都具有重要意义。