Scholarlink

<p>The aim of the present study was to development and to determine the validity and reproducibility of a self-developed caffeine food frequency questionnaire (CFFQ) for the Brazilian adult population. The questionnaire’s validity and reproducibility were measured by a combination of six statistical tests. The CFFQ presented good/moderate relative validity for four tests: SCC for validity (CFFFQ1: <i>r</i> = 0.69, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001; CFFQ2: <i>r</i> = 0.68; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001); cross-quartile classification (opposite tertile, CFFQ1 validity: 0%; CFFQ2 validity: 2%); weighted Kappa (CFFQ1 validity: 0.50; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001; CFFQ2 validity: 0.50; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), Wilcoxon test (CFFQ2 validity: <i>p</i> = 0.07). The CFFQ present good reproducibility for five tests: ICC (<i>r</i> = 0.84 [0.77 ;0.89]; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001); Cross-quartile classification (opposite tertile, reproducibility: 0%); weighted Kappa (reproducibility: 0.68; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), percentage mean difference (reproducibility: 10.50%), Wilcoxon test (reproducibility: <i>p</i> = 0.28); Bland-Altman analysis presented less than 95% of points outside the limits of agreement (mean ± 1.96 SD) for both validity and reproducibility. In conclusion, the CFFQ developed in this study showed moderate-to-good relative validity and good reproducibility, supporting its use in epidemiological and clinical research for assessing caffeine consumption in adults.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Validation of a new questionnaire for assessing caffeine intake in adults

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月25日

查看全文
  • Marianna Moura Monte,
  • Gabriel Soares Bádue,
  • Alisson Henrique Marinho,
  • Sandra Mary Lima Vasconcelos,
  • Adriano Eduardo Lima-Silva,
  • Thays Ataide-Silva,
  • Gustavo Gomes de Araujo

摘要

The aim of the present study was to development and to determine the validity and reproducibility of a self-developed caffeine food frequency questionnaire (CFFQ) for the Brazilian adult population. The questionnaire’s validity and reproducibility were measured by a combination of six statistical tests. The CFFQ presented good/moderate relative validity for four tests: SCC for validity (CFFFQ1: r = 0.69, p < 0.001; CFFQ2: r = 0.68; p < 0.001); cross-quartile classification (opposite tertile, CFFQ1 validity: 0%; CFFQ2 validity: 2%); weighted Kappa (CFFQ1 validity: 0.50; p < 0.001; CFFQ2 validity: 0.50; p < 0.001), Wilcoxon test (CFFQ2 validity: p = 0.07). The CFFQ present good reproducibility for five tests: ICC (r = 0.84 [0.77 ;0.89]; p < 0.001); Cross-quartile classification (opposite tertile, reproducibility: 0%); weighted Kappa (reproducibility: 0.68; p < 0.001), percentage mean difference (reproducibility: 10.50%), Wilcoxon test (reproducibility: p = 0.28); Bland-Altman analysis presented less than 95% of points outside the limits of agreement (mean ± 1.96 SD) for both validity and reproducibility. In conclusion, the CFFQ developed in this study showed moderate-to-good relative validity and good reproducibility, supporting its use in epidemiological and clinical research for assessing caffeine consumption in adults.