Progress 09/15/01 to 09/30/05
Outputs
Respondents of various ethnic groups and both genders (n=150) used one of three descriptive scales to report the size of 18 different foods. After using the scales, the respondent was interviewed regarding the scale and the use of it. There were no significant differences between the responses of those persons using the three different scales in study one. All scales were reported as easy to use, adequate in length, easy to understand, and appropriate for use with most foods. However, the responses for each food were more consistent when using the three and five point scales than when using the 10 point scale, where responses were scattered across the range of choices in several cases. Respondents were asked whether they preferred using the word scale to reporting the size by another method such as cups, ounces, or inches. Following study one, the researchers decided that the three point scale did not provide an adequate number of terms and the 10 point scale resulted
in inconsistent data. Therefore, the five point scale from study one, and a new seven point scale were used for study two. Since meat contributes a large proportion of the calories and protein to the diet, and misestimations are likely, different types of meat of varying sizes were used for this study. Using a randomized order for the meat and the reporting method, 120 participants viewed a piece of meat, and then reported the size using two descriptive term scales and a ruler. The respondents reported that the five and seven term scales were both easy to use, and could be used for almost all foods. A larger percentage found the ruler to be more difficult to use. In addition, the size data obtained by using the ruler varied a lot, and the reported measures were inaccurate. Thus, the use of a descriptive size term for portions of meat does appear to be a consistent choice when obtaining dietary records and recalls. Study three investigated the perception of the size of a portion of
food by persons of varying body weights. Body mass index was calculated from self-reported height and weight, and respondents were divided into two categories: healthy weight or overweight. Significant differences were not found between the descriptive portion sizes reported by the overweight or healthy weight subjects in the third study, nor were there any differences in the distribution of what they said was a normal portion size for them. The few differences that were found actually showed that the overweight individuals thought the amount shown was a larger portion size than did healthy weight persons.
Impacts
The use of descriptive scales would substantially decrease the number of PSEAs required, reduce the time to collect data, and increase the ease of using telephone interviews for data collection. This project will help to determine the methods that dietary surveys use to assess portion size. Data from those dietary surveys is used to determine nutritional health, dietary exposure to pesticides, to target nutrition education programs, and determine government expenditures for areas such as food stamps and elderly nutrition programs. Consumers liked using the word scales and preferred doing that to reporting amounts consumed by more traditional methods i.e. cups, ounces, ruler, etc. Thus using scales does appear to be a viable method that can be used with some consistency in reporting dietary intakes. Improved efficiency and accuracy in dietary assessment could reduce the burden of recalling amounts eaten on both the client and the interviewer. Information regarding the
relationship between obesity and portion size perception is important to nutritionists who counsel patients because it suggests that differences in perception of portion size are probably not the problem, thus other factors must be addressed and emphasized. More total foods, more eating occasions, a sedentary lifestyle, or a cognitive disconnect between actual portion size eaten and perceived portion size may be more important issues in the obesity epidemic.
Publications
- Godwin, S., Chambers, E. IV, Cleveland, L. and Ingwersen, L. 2006. A new portion size estimation aid for wedge shaped foods. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. In press.
- Darst, J., and Godwin, S. 2002. Comparison of hydration knowledge and reported fluid consumption of young competitive figure skaters. J.Amer. Dietet. Assoc. 102(9):A19.
- Godwin, S., and Chambers, E. IV. 2002. Alternative portion size estimation tools may be necessary for increasing accuracy in dietary studies with elderly respondents. J. Amer. Dietet. Assoc.102(9):A18.
- Godwin S, McGuire B, Chambers E. IV, McDowell M, Cleveland L, Edwards-Perry, E. and Ingwersen L. 2001. Evaluation of portion size estimation aids used for meat in dietary surveys. Nutr. Res. 21(9):1217-1233.
- McGuire, B., Chambers, E. IV, Godwin, S. and Brenner, S. 2001. Size categories are most effective for estimating portion size of muffins. J. Amer. Dietet. Assoc. 101(4):470-472.
|
Progress 01/01/04 to 12/31/04
Outputs
Limited resource respondents of various ethnic groups and both genders used one of three descriptive scales to report the size of 18 different foods. Scales included were 3-point word scale (small, medium, large), 5-point word scale (very small to very large), and a 10 point scale anchored at each end with the words very small and very large). Foods selected represented solids, liquids, and mounding foods, and included foods that are frequently hard to report amounts consumed on dietary recalls. After using the scales, the respondent was interviewed regarding the scale and the use of it. There were no significant differences between the responses of those persons using the three different scales. All scales were reported as easy to use, adequate in length, easy to understand, and appropriate for use with most foods. However, the responses for each food were more consistent when using the three and five point scales than when using the 10 point scale, where responses
were scattered across the range of choices in several cases. When using the three word scale responses clustered around the medium choice. Respondents were also asked whether they preferred using the word scale to reporting the size by another method such as cups, ounces, or inches. The overwhelming majority (98 percent) preferred using the scale. Thus, respondents preferred using word scales over reporting portion sizes using traditional methods. They did not have a preference for the length of the scale or the words that were used. However, the terms used to report the size of the various foods were more consistent when using the three and five word scales.
Impacts
The use of descriptive scales would substantially decrease the number of PSEAs required, reduce the time to collect data, and increase the ease of using telephone interviews for data collection. This project will help to determine the methods that dietary surveys use to assess portion size. Data from those dietary surveys is used to determine nutritional health, dietary exposure to pesticides, to target nutrition education programs, and determine government expenditures for areas such as food stamps and elderly nutrition programs.
Publications
- Godwin, S., Chambers, E. IV, and Cleveland, L. 2004. Accuracy of reporting dietary intake using various portion-size aids in-person and via telephone. J. Amer. Dietet. Assoc. 104(4): 585-594.
|
Progress 01/01/03 to 12/31/03
Outputs
Portion size of foods eaten can be difficult to estimate, especially when one was not aware that they would be asked for this information. It appears to be particularly difficult for those with limited cognitive skills. The goal of this project is to determine if a size category scale can be used to report the amount of food eaten, and if there is consistency in the use of the scale for various types of foods. Three scales: three points, five points, and 10 points were tested on two food products, cereal and margarine. Six portions of each food (1/2 tsp. to 4 Tbsp. of margarine and 1/2 cup to 4 cups of corn flake cereal) were tested in order to evaluate the consistency of use of each scale. The tests were conducted with a total of 100 people from two locations (Kansas and Tennessee) evaluating the portion size of each sample. Data showed that the 3 point scale is inadequate to accurately describe differences in portion sizes. The extremely limited number of categories
appears to force consumers to place numerous portion sizes in each category, which results in estimation inaccuracies. In a follow-up study 180 persons used one of the three scales to assess single serving sizes of 17 foods of various types, i.e. solids, liquids, and mounding foods. They were interviewed following the use of the scales regarding their opinions of the scales and their potential use with a variety of foods. The 3 point scale was noted by the respondents to be too limited for effective use. The 5 point scale was used slightly more consistently than the 10 point scale, which appeared to be somewhat problematic. Use of the 5 point scale resulted in a wider range of but consistent responses, whereas the responses using the 10 point scale were inconsistent. Further research is being conducted using a variety of foods with these and other scales.
Impacts
The use of descriptive scales would substantially decrease the number of PSEAs required, reduce the time to collect data, and increase the ease of using telephone interviews for data collection. This project will help to determine the methods that dietary surveys use to assess portion size. Data from those dietary surveys is used to determine nutritional health, dietary exposure to pesticides, to target nutrition education programs, and determine government expenditures for areas such as food stamps and elderly nutrition programs.
Publications
- S.L. Godwin and Chambers, E. IV. 2003. Estimation of portion sizes by elderly respondents. Family Economics and Nutrition Reviews 15(1):58-66.
|
Progress 01/01/02 to 12/31/02
Outputs
Focus groups were conducted with limited resource individuals representing various population sub-groups, i.e. low-income whites, blacks, hispanics and the elderly. Following the introductory, ice-breaker questions, participants discussed ways in which one could describe how much they ate of something the next day when they did not know they were going to be asked to report on their intake. Using foods from a list the group reported they ate the previous day, each person was asked to describe how much they ate of the food. Responses were compared to see if there was consistency in use of terms. Various word scales and number scales were assessed for use with a wide range of food products. The five- and seven point number and word scales were chosen as the most feasible for use with multiple foods. A follow-up study is in progress where 50 individuals use the four different scales with 30 food samples of various sizes to validate consistency of descriptive size
term/number usage. Protocols for an additional study using only two scales have been developed. During this study 100 persons will be asked to use the scales with a wide variety of foods of various shapes and sizes. They will discuss their opinions of the scales and express the problems they see, if any, with their use for the foods presented.
Impacts
National dietary surveys currently use a three point scale i.e. small, medium, large, for estimating the portion size of some hard-to-report foods. Participants in the focus groups did not believe the three word scale was adequate to report the intake of so many different amounts of foods. Thus, after further study, results of this research may change the scales that are currently being used in the nationwide studies, and hopefully make the portion size amounts used when assessing nutrient intake more accurate.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
Progress 09/15/01 to 12/31/01
Outputs
Reporting what and how much one ate the day before when it was not known that this information would be asked is a cognitively challenging task; thus, it needs to be simplified as much as possible to make the task quick and easy. This is especially important for assessment in disadvantaged populations where contact time is limited. However, the technique must be validated for accuracy. The overall goal of this project is to determine if a single descriptive size category scale: (1) can be used as effectively as or more effectively than standard 2- or 3-dimensional portion size estimation aids(PSEAs) in dietary assessment studies, (2) can be used across many food categories, and (3) is appropriate for various demographic subgroups? This research will be conducted in two phases. Phase I objective is to determine ease of use and understanding of various forms of descriptive size category scales by disadvantaged populations. Focus groups will be conducted with various
population subgroups of adults age 18-65. Many different size category scales varying in length, and with numbers vs. word anchors will be evaluated by participants in each group. The focus group moderator's guide for Phase I was developed, reviewed by collaborators and pretested with an actual focus group. Necessary revisions were made; the guide was reviewed again by the collaborators and was completed. Focus groups are in progress.
Impacts
This research may result in more effective methods for accurately estimating dietary intake, which will lead to improved understanding of the impact and interrelationships of foods, food components including nutrients, and health. Determining that descriptive size category scales for portion size estimation could replace some PSEAs would make data collection much easier and result in improved dietary data for disadvantaged populations. Also, such a procedure could improve the ease of collecting follow-up dietary intake data using telephone interviews.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
|