Validity and Reliability of a Short Diet Questionnaire to Estimate Dietary Intake in Older Adults in a Subsample of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed test-retest reliability and relative validity of the Short Diet Questionnaire (SDQ) and usability of an online 24 h recall among 232 participants (62 years ± 9.1; 49.6% female) from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA). Participants were asked to complete four 24 h dietary recalls (24HRs) using the Automated Self-Administered 24-h Dietary Assessment Tool (ASA24-Canada-2014), two SDQ administrations (prior to recalls one and four), and the System Usability Scale (SUS) for ASA24. For the SDQ administrations, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients ranged from 0.49 to 0.57 for nutrients and 0.35 to 0.72 for food groups. Mean intakes estimated from the SDQ were lower compared than those from the 24HRs. For nutrients, correlation coefficients were highest for fiber, calcium, and vitamin D (45–64 years: 0.59, 0.50, 0.51; >65 years: 0.29, 0.38, 0.49, p < 0.01); Kappas ranged from 0.14 to 0.37 in those 45–64 years and 0.17 to 0.32 in participants >65 years. Among the 70% who completed all recalls independently, the SUS indicated poor usability, though the majority reported feeling confident using ASA24. Overall, the SDQ captures intake with varying test-retest reliability and accuracy by nutrient and age. Further research is needed to inform use of a more comprehensive dietary measure in the CLSA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".