Children’s School-Breakfast Reports and School-Lunch Reports (in 24-hour Dietary Recalls): Conventional and Reporting-Error-Sensitive Measures Show Inconsistent Accuracy Results for Retention Interval and for Breakfast Location

摘要

Validation-study data were analyzed to investigate retention interval (RI) and prompt effects on accuracy of fourth-grade children’s reports of school-breakfast and school-lunch (in 24-hour recalls), and accuracy of school-breakfast reports by breakfast location (classroom; cafeteria). Randomly-selected fourth-grade children at 10 schools in four districts were observed eating school-provided breakfast and lunch, and interviewed under one of eight conditions (two RIs [short (prior-24-hour recall obtained in afternoon); long (previous-day recall obtained in morning)] crossed with four prompts [forward (distant-to-recent), meal-name (breakfast, etc.), open (no instructions), reverse (recent-to-distant)]). Each condition had 60 children (half girls). Of 480 children, 355 and 409 reported meals satisfying criteria for reports of school-breakfast and school-lunch, respectively. For breakfast and lunch separately, a conventional measure—report rate—and reporting-error-sensitive measures—correspondence rate and inflation ratio—were calculated for energy per meal-reporting child. Correspondence rate and inflation ratio—but not report rate—showed better accuracy for school-breakfast and school-lunch reports with the short than long RI; this pattern was not found for some prompts for each sex. Correspondence rate and inflation ratio showed better school-breakfast report accuracy for the classroom than cafeteria location for each prompt, but report rate showed the opposite. For each RI, correspondence rate and inflation ratio showed better accuracy for lunch than breakfast, but report rate showed the opposite. When choosing RI and prompts for recalls, researchers and practitioners should select short RIs to maximize accuracy. Recommendations for prompt selections are less clear. As report rates distort validation-study accuracy conclusions, reporting-error-sensitive measures are recommended.