Validation of energy intake by 24-hour multiple pass recall: comparison with total energy expenditure in children aged 5–7 years

• Published in: British journal of nutrition Vol. 93; no. 5; pp. 671 - 676
• Main Authors: Montgomery, Colette, Reilly, John J., Jackson, Diane M., Kelly, Louise A., Slater, Christine, Paton, James Y., Grant, Stan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press 01-05-2005
• Subjects: accuracy; balance studies; Biological and medical sciences; Child; Child nutrition; Child, Preschool; Children; Deuterium; diet recall; Diet Records; Doubly labelled water method; Energy balance; Energy expenditure; Energy Intake; Energy Metabolism; Feeding. Feeding behavior; Female; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Humans; Indicator Dilution Techniques; Male; Mental Recall; methodology; nutrition assessment; Obesity; Oxygen Isotopes; Psychological Tests; Sensitivity and Specificity; validity; Vertebrates: anatomy and physiology, studies on body, several organs or systems; Child nutrition; Energy expenditure; Obesity; Diet records; Doubly labelled water method; Human; Water; Validation; Nutrition; Nutrition disorder; Feeding; Vertebrata; Diet records: Obesity: Child nutrition: Energy expenditure: Doubly labelled water method; Mammalia; Energy; Diet; Energetic cost; Child; Nutritional status; Comparative study
• ISSN: 0007-1145; 1475-2662
• DOI: 10.1079/BJN20051405

Accurate measurement of energy intake (EI) is essential in studies of energy balance in all age groups. Reported values for EI can be validated against total energy expenditure (TEE) measured using doubly labelled water (DLW). Our previous work has indicated that the use of the standardized 24 h multiple pass recall (24 h MPR) method produces slight overestimates of EI in pre-school children which are inaccurate at individual level but acceptable at group level. To extend this work, the current study validated EI by 24 h MPR against TEE by DLW in sixty-three (thirty-two boys) school-aged children (median age 6 years). In both boys and girls, reported EI was higher than TEE, although this difference was only significant in the girls (median difference 420 kJ/d, P=0·05). On analysis of agreement between TEE and EI, the group bias was an overestimation of EI by 250 kJ/d with wide limits of agreement (−2880, 2380 kJ/d). EI was over-reported relative to TEE by 7 % and 0·9 % in girls and boys, respectively. The bias in the current study was lower than in our previous study of pre-school children, suggesting that estimates of EI become less inaccurate as children age. However, the current study suggests that the 24 h MPR is inaccurate at the individual level.