Comparative Analysis Of The Cancer Council Of Victoria And The online Commonwealth Scientific And Industrial Research Organisation FFQ

Document Type

Journal Article

Publisher

Cambridge University Press

Faculty

Faculty of Health, Engineering and Science

School

School of Medical Sciences / Centre of Excellence for Alzheimer's Disease Research and Care

RAS ID

20145

Comments

Gardener, S. L., Rainey-Smith, S. R., Macaulay, S. L., Taddei, K., Rembach, A., Maruff, P., ... & Keogh, J. B. (2015). Comparative analysis of the Cancer Council of Victoria and the online Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ. British Journal of Nutrition, 114(10), 1683-1693. Available here

Abstract

FFQ are commonly used to examine the association between diet and disease. They are the most practical method for usual dietary data collection as they are relatively inexpensive and easy to administer. In Australia, the Cancer Council of Victoria FFQ (CCVFFQ) version 2 and the online Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ (CSIROFFQ) are used. The aim of our study was to establish the level of agreement between nutrient intakes captured using the online CSIROFFQ and the paper-based CCVFFQ. The CCVFFQ and the online CSIROFFQ were completed by 136 healthy participants. FFQ responses were analysed to give g per d intake of a range of nutrients. Agreement between twenty-six nutrient intakes common to both FFQ was measured by a variety of methods. Nutrient intake levels that were significantly correlated between the two FFQ were carbohydrates, total fat, Na and MUFA. When assessing ranking of nutrients into quintiles, on average, 56 % of the participants (for all nutrients) were classified into the same or adjacent quintiles in both FFQ, with the highest percentage agreement for sugar. On average, 21 % of participants were grossly misclassified by three or four quintiles, with the highest percentage misclassification for fibre and Fe. Quintile agreement was similar to that reported by other studies, and we concluded that both FFQ are suitable tools for dividing participants' nutrient intake levels into high- and low-consumption groups. Use of either FFQ was not appropriate for obtaining accurate estimates of absolute nutrient intakes.

DOI

10.1017/S0007114515003335

Access Rights

subscription content

Link to Full Text

Share

 
COinS