Baxter Suzanne D, Guinn Caroline H, Smith Albert F, Hitchcock David B, Royer Julie A, Puryear Megan P, Collins Kathleen L, Smith Alyssa L
1Institute for Families in Society,College of Social Work,University of South Carolina,1600 Hampton Street,Suite 507,Columbia,SC 29208,USA.
2Department of Psychology,Cleveland State University,Cleveland,OH 44114,USA.
Br J Nutr. 2016 Apr 14;115(7):1301-15. doi: 10.1017/S0007114515005413. Epub 2016 Feb 11.
Validation-study data were analysed to investigate retention interval (RI) and prompt effects on the accuracy of fourth-grade children's reports of school-breakfast and school-lunch (in 24-h recalls), and the accuracy of school-breakfast reports by breakfast location (classroom; cafeteria). Randomly selected fourth-grade children at ten schools in four districts were observed eating school-provided breakfast and lunch, and were interviewed under one of eight conditions created by crossing two RIs ('short'--prior-24-hour recall obtained in the afternoon and 'long'--previous-day recall obtained in the morning) with four prompts ('forward'--distant to recent, 'meal name'--breakfast, etc., 'open'--no instructions, and 'reverse'--recent to distant). Each condition had sixty children (half were girls). Of 480 children, 355 and 409 reported meals satisfying criteria for reports of school-breakfast and school-lunch, respectively. For breakfast and lunch separately, a conventional measure--report rate--and reporting-error-sensitive measures--correspondence rate and inflation ratio--were calculated for energy per meal-reporting child. Correspondence rate and inflation ratio--but not report rate--showed better accuracy for school-breakfast and school-lunch reports with the short RI than with the long RI; this pattern was not found for some prompts for each sex. Correspondence rate and inflation ratio showed better school-breakfast report accuracy for the classroom than for cafeteria location for each prompt, but report rate showed the opposite. For each RI, correspondence rate and inflation ratio showed better accuracy for lunch than for breakfast, but report rate showed the opposite. When choosing RI and prompts for recalls, researchers and practitioners should select a short RI to maximise accuracy. Recommendations for prompt selections are less clear. As report rates distort validation-study accuracy conclusions, reporting-error-sensitive measures are recommended.
对验证研究数据进行分析，以调查保留间隔（RI）和提示对四年级儿童关于学校早餐和学校午餐报告（24小时回忆法）准确性的影响，以及按早餐地点（教室；自助餐厅）划分的学校早餐报告的准确性。在四个区的十所学校中随机挑选四年级儿童，观察他们食用学校提供的早餐和午餐的情况，并在通过交叉两种保留间隔（“短”——下午获得前24小时回忆和“长”——上午获得前一天回忆）与四种提示（“正向”——从远到近、“餐名”——早餐等、“无提示”——无指示、“反向”——从近到远）创建的八种条件之一进行访谈。每种条件下有60名儿童（一半是女孩）。在480名儿童中，分别有355名和409名报告的餐食符合学校早餐和学校午餐报告的标准。分别针对早餐和午餐，计算了每个报告餐食的儿童每餐能量的常规指标——报告率，以及对报告误差敏感的指标——符合率和虚报率。符合率和虚报率——而非报告率——显示，短保留间隔的学校早餐和学校午餐报告比长保留间隔的报告准确性更高；每种性别的某些提示未发现这种模式。对于每种提示，符合率和虚报率显示教室的学校早餐报告准确性高于自助餐厅地点，但报告率则相反。对于每种保留间隔，符合率和虚报率显示午餐报告的准确性高于早餐，但报告率则相反。在为回忆选择保留间隔和提示时，研究人员和从业者应选择短保留间隔以最大化准确性。关于提示选择的建议不太明确。由于报告率会扭曲验证研究的准确性结论，因此建议采用对报告误差敏感的指标。
