Abstract

Citation

Garcia-Dominic O, Wray LA, Ledikwe JH, Mitchell DC, Ventura AK, Hernandez AE, Yin Z, Trevino RP, Ulbrecht JS. Accuracy of self-reported energy intakes in low-income urban 4th grade minority children. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2010 Nov;18(11):2220-6. Epub 2010 Jun 10.

Abstract

We examined the accuracy of self-reported energy intake (rEI) in low-income, urban minority school-aged children at risk for obesity and associated diabetes utilizing a relatively new, simple previously published prediction equation for identifying inaccurate reports of dietary energy intake. Participants included 614 nine-year-old boys (51%) and girls (49%). Three 24-h dietary recalls were collected. Children's height, weight (used to calculate BMI), and percent body fat (%BF) were measured. Physical fitness, reported family history of diabetes, and ethnicity were also collected. A previously published prediction equation was used to determine the validity of rEIs in these children to identify under-, plausible-, and over-reporters. Additionally, we examined the question of whether there is a difference in reporting by sex, ethnicity, BMI, and %BF. On average, 18% of the children were at risk of being overweight, 43% were already overweight at baseline, yet these children reported consuming fewer calories on average than recommended guidelines. Additionally, reported caloric intake in this cohort was negatively associated with BMI and %BF. Using the previously described methods, 49% of participants were identified as under-reporters, whereas 39 and 12% were identified as plausible- and over-reporters, respectively. On average, children reported caloric intakes that were almost 100% of predicted energy requirement (pER) when the sedentary category was assigned. Inactivity and excessive energy intake are important contributors to obesity. With the rising rates of obesity and diabetes in children, accurate measures of energy intake are needed for better understanding of the relationship between energy intake and health outcomes.

Full Text

The full text is available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/oby.2010.144

At A Glance

Individual Dietary Behavior Variables

Intake
Total Energy/Energy Density

Domain(s)

Individual Dietary Behavior

Measure Type

24-hour dietary recall

Measure Availability

Not reported

Number of Items

Not reported

Study location

Metro/Urban

San Antonio, Texas, USA

Languages

English

Spanish

Information about Development of Measure

Nothing to add

Study Design

Study Participants

Age

6 - 11 Years

Sex

Female

Male

Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic

Black/African American

Asian

Predominantly Low-income/Low-SES

Yes

Sample Size

614

Study Design

Design Type

Validation/Reliability

Health Outcomes Assessed

Obesity

Physical activity/inactivity

Obesity Measures

BMI for age

BMI for age (Proportion with BMI for age at or above 85th percentile)

BMI for age (Proportion with BMI for age at or above 95th percentile)

Percent Body Fat

BMI Measured or Self-reported

Measured height

Measured weight

Covariates

Not reported

Data Reported on Race/Ethnicity

Quantitative data on study sample

Data Reported on SES

Quantitative data on study sample

SES-related Variables

Education

Employment/Unemployment

Program Participation (e.g., WIC, Free/Reduced School Meals)

How To Use

Administration

Who Administered

Researcher-administered

How Administered

In-person

Time Required

Not reported

Training Required

Yes, time not reported

Instructions on Use

Not reported

Data Analysis

Data Collection/Analysis Costs

Not available

Data Collection/Protocol

Not available

Instructions on Data Analysis

Not reported

Validity (1)

Type of validity Construct/subscale assessed Criterion measure used Test/statistic used Result
Criterion Under-, Plausible-, and Under-reporting of Total Energy Intake Predicted energy requirement (see paper for details). Relative energy intake (rEI) as a percentage of predicted energy requirement (pER): (rEI/pEI)x100 Using +/- 1 standard deviation cutpoints, 49% of participants were identified as under-reporters, whereas 39% and 12% were identified as plausible- and over-reporters.

Reliability (0)

There are no reliability tests reported for this measure.