Allman-Farinelli 2014 ). Methodologies include electronic food diaries with image
capabilities such as My Meal Mate (Carter et al. 2013 ), the application of digital
images to aid in recall and analysis with a dietitian (Hongu et al. 2011 ), the use of
photos that may be joined with voice recording for later review with a healthcare
professional such as with the Nutricam dietary assessment method (Rollo et al.
2011 ), andfinally, mobile technologies which may be combined with video where a
short video segment is used through automated image segmentation to estimate
dietary intake (to include volume) with the DietCam (Kong and Tan 2012 ).
Additionally, applications such as MyFitnessPal, Weight Watchers, and
SparkPeople are available to the general population for download onto personal
devices to electronically track food intake. Although these technologies may lower
participant burden, limitations commonly associated with traditional recall methods
such as portion size estimates or omission of food still exist (Sharp and
Allman-Farinelli 2014 ).
Misreporting
Misreporting of dietary intake is a well-known limitation to self-reported dietary intake
assessments (Poslusna et al. 2009 ). A review conducted in 2002 evaluated the
available studies comparing self-reported energy intake to that ascertained through the
gold standard biomarker approach—doubly labeled water (Westerterp and Goris
2002 ). Results suggested that underreporting of dietary intake is common and sources
of error are varied, ranging from elimination of socially less acceptable food or
beverages to underestimation of portion size to lack of detail on menu item ingredients
and/or preparation method, to change in food selections resulting from the act of
recording/reporting intake. Overall, there was no clear indication of gender differences
in energy misreporting. However, obesity had a major influence on underreporting
with an average 41% underestimation of energy intake as compared to an average
16% in normal-weight individuals. Surrogate reporting (i.e., parent report of children’s
intake) did not demonstrate reporting error. Overestimation of energy intake was more
common in surrogate reports from caregivers of disabled children (Stallings et al.
1996 ) and from caregivers of elderly people residing in assisted living facilities
(Kayser-Jones et al. 1998 ). Of importance to research studies, self-report of intake
seems to be reduced with each subsequent report over the course of a study, regardless
of the diet intervention applied.
The impact of misreporting energy intake on diet–disease association studies is
significant. A clear example is the rise in obesity despite a lower overall reported
energy intake in US adults (although physical inactivity likely also plays a role)
(Heini and Weinsier 1997 ). To illustrate the impact of misreporting, investigators in
the Women’s Health Initiative completed an assessment of doubly labeled water for
estimation of true energy intake on a subsample of women and then used the energy
calibration equations derived from a comparison of measured versus self-report
energy intake to test the hypothesis that energy intake was associated with
176 T.E. Crane and C.A. Thomson