Comparative analysis of the Cancer Council of Victoria and the online Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ. Issue 10 (18th September 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gardener, Samantha L.; Rainey-Smith, Stephanie R.; Macaulay, S. Lance; Taddei, Kevin; Rembach, Alan; Maruff, Paul; Ellis, Kathryn A.; Masters, Colin L.; Rowe, Christopher C.; Ames, David; Keogh, Jennifer B.; Martins, Ralph N.
• Is Part Of: British journal of nutrition. Volume 114:Issue 10(2015)
• Page Start: 1683
• Page End: 1693
• Publication Date: 2015-09-18
• Subjects: Cancer Council of Victoria FFQ, -- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ, -- Comparative, -- analysis, -- FFQ; Nutrition -- Periodicals; 572.4
• DOI: 10.1017/S0007114515003335
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0007-1145

Abstract

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.