The European Food Safety Authority has suggested that EU countries implement the 2 × 24 h diet recall (2 × 24 h DR) method and physical activity (PA) measurements for national dietary surveys. Since 2000, Denmark has used 7 d food diaries (7 d FD) with PA questionnaires and measurements. The accuracy of the reported energy intakes (EI) from the two diet methods, pedometer-determined step counts and self-reported time spent in moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) were compared with total energy expenditure measured by the doubly labelled water (TEEDLW) technique and with PA energy expenditure (PAEE), respectively. The study involved fifty-two male and sixty-eight female volunteers aged 18–60 years who were randomly assigned to start with either the 24 h DR or the web-based 7 d FD, and wore a pedometer for the first 7 d and filled in a step diary. The mean TEEDLW (11·5 MJ/d) was greater than the mean reported EI for the 7 d FD (9·5 MJ/d (P < 0·01)) but the same as the 2 × 24 h DR (11·5 MJ/d). The proportion of under-reporters was 34 % (7 d FD) and 4 % (2 × 24 h DR). Most participants preferred the 7 d DR as it was more flexible, despite altering their eating habits. Pearson’s correlation between steps corrected for cycling and PAEE was r = 0·44, P < 0·01. Spearman’s correlation for self-reported hours spent in MVPA and PAEE was r = 0·58, P < 0·01. The 2 × 24 h DR performs better than the existing 7 d FD method. Pedometer-determined steps and self-reported MVPA are good predictors of PAEE in adult Danes.

We investigate tax fraud in a major export-promotion program in India – the Duty Drawback scheme – which enables exporting firms to claim a cash rebate proportional to the value of their exports, at a product-specific drawback rate. We detect fraud based on two approaches. First, we show that bilateral trade asymmetries between reported exports by India and reported imports by trading partners of the same trade flows are systematically correlated with the rate of drawback, suggesting that exporting firms over-report exports to unduly gain duty drawback. Second, we find evidence of excess bunching in the distribution of unit values reported by India at kinks in the per-unit drawback schedule, relative to the distribution of unit values reported by importing countries. Our results suggest that fraud currently detected by customs represents only 3.8%–6% of actual fraud.

Improving dietary reporting among people living with obesity is challenging as many factors influence reporting accuracy. Reactive Reporting may occur in response to dietary recording, but little is known about how image-based methods influence this process. Using a 4-d image-based mobile food record (mFRTM), this study aimed to identify demographic and psychosocial correlates of measurement error and reactivity bias, among adults with BMI 25–40 kg/m2. Participants (n 155, aged 18–65 years) completed psychosocial questionnaires and kept a 4-d mFRTM. Energy expenditure (EE) was estimated using ≥ 4 d of hip-worn accelerometer data, and energy intake (EI) was measured using mFRTM. EI:EE ratios were calculated, and participants in the highest tertile were considered to have Plausible Intakes. Negative changes in EI according to regression slopes indicated Reactive Reporting. Mean EI was 72 % (sd = 21) of estimated EE. Among participants with Plausible Intakes, mean EI was 96 % (sd = 13) of estimated EE. Higher BMI (OR 0·81, 95 % CI 0·72, 0·92) and greater need for social approval (OR 0·31, 95 % CI 0·10, 0·96) were associated with lower likelihood of Plausible Intakes. Estimated EI decreased by 3 % per d of recording (interquartile range − 14 %,6 %) among all participants. The EI of Reactive Reporters (n 52) decreased by 17 %/d (interquartile range − 23 %,–13 %). A history of weight loss (> 10 kg) (OR 3·4, 95 % CI 1·5, 7·8) and higher percentage of daily energy from protein (OR 1·1, 95 % CI 1·0, 1·2) were associated with greater odds of Reactive Reporting. Identification of reactivity to measurement, as well as Plausible Intakes, is recommended in community-dwelling studies to highlight and address sources of bias.

The limitations of self-report measures of dietary intake are well-known. Novel, technology-based measures of dietary intake may provide a more accurate, less burdensome alternative to existing tools. The first objective of this study was to compare participant burden for two technology-based measures of dietary intake among school-age children: the Automated-Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment Tool-2018 (ASA24-2018) and the Remote Food Photography Method (RFPM). The second objective was to compare reported energy intake for each method to the Estimated Energy Requirement for each child, as a benchmark for actual intake. Forty parent–child dyads participated in two, 3-d dietary assessments: a parent proxy-reported version of the ASA24 and the RFPM. A parent survey was subsequently administered to compare satisfaction, ease of use and burden with each method. A linear mixed model examined differences in total daily energy intake between assessments, and between each assessment method and the Estimated Energy Requirement (EER). Reported energy intake was 379 kcal higher with the ASA24 than the RFPM (P = 0·0002). Reported energy intake with the ASA24 was 231 kcal higher than the EER (P = 0·008). Reported energy intake with the RFPM did not differ significantly from the EER (difference in predicted means = −148 kcal, P = 0·09). Median satisfaction and ease of use scores were five out of six for both methods. A higher proportion of parents reported that the ASA24 was more time-consuming than the RFPM (74·4 % v. 25·6 %, P = 0·002). Utilisation of both methods is warranted given their high satisfaction among parents.

To reduce strategic misreporting on sensitive topics, survey researchers increasingly use list experiments rather than direct questions. However, the complexity of list experiments may increase nonstrategic misreporting. We provide the first empirical assessment of this trade-off between strategic and nonstrategic misreporting. We field list experiments on election turnout in two different countries, collecting measures of respondents’ true turnout. We detail and apply a partition validation method which uses true scores to distinguish true and false positives and negatives for list experiments, thus allowing detection of nonstrategic reporting errors. For both list experiments, partition validation reveals nonstrategic misreporting that is: undetected by standard diagnostics or validation; greater than assumed in extant simulation studies; and severe enough that direct turnout questions subject to strategic misreporting exhibit lower overall reporting error. We discuss how our results can inform the choice between list experiment and direct question for other topics and survey contexts.

Errors inherent in self-reported measures of energy intake (EI) are substantial and well documented, but correlates of misreporting remain unclear. Therefore, potential predictors of misreporting were examined. In Study One, fifty-nine individuals (BMI = 26·1 (sd 3·8) kg/m2, age = 42·7 (sd 13·6) years, females = 29) completed a 14-d stay in a residential feeding behaviour suite where eating behaviour was continuously monitored. In Study Two, 182 individuals (BMI = 25·7 (sd 3·9) kg/m2, age = 42·4 (sd 12·2) years, females = 96) completed two consecutive days in a residential feeding suite and five consecutive days at home. Misreporting was directly quantified by comparing covertly measured laboratory weighed intakes (LWI) with self-reported EI (weighed dietary record (WDR), 24-h recall, 7-d diet history, FFQ). Personal (age, sex and %body fat) and psychological traits (personality, social desirability, body image, intelligence quotient and eating behaviour) were used as predictors of misreporting. In Study One, those with lower psychoticism (P = 0·009), openness to experience (P = 0·006) and higher agreeableness (P = 0·038) reduced EI on days participants knew EI was being measured to a greater extent than on covert days. Isolated associations existed between personality traits (psychoticism and openness to experience), eating behaviour (emotional eating) and differences between the LWI and self-reported EI, but these were inconsistent between dietary assessment techniques and typically became non-significant after accounting for multiplicity of comparisons. In Study Two, sex was associated with differences between LWI and the WDR (P = 0·009), 24-h recall (P = 0·002) and diet history (P = 0·050) in the laboratory, but not home environment. Personal and psychological correlates of misreporting identified displayed no clear pattern across studies or dietary assessment techniques and had little utility in predicting misreporting.

Women tend to under-report or misreport their abortion experiences, mainly because abortion is considered a sensitive issue for cultural, religious, political or other reasons in many countries across the world. Turkey, where induced abortion is an increasingly sensitive issue due to intense statements against induced abortion on religious grounds by influential politicians, and a hidden agenda to prohibit the practice, especially in public health facilities, in recent years, is no exception. This study focused on the increase in level of misreporting of induced abortion in Turkey and its link to social desirability bias using pooled data from 1993 and 2013 Turkish Demographic and Health Surveys. A probabilistic classification model was used to classify women’s reported abortions. The findings confirmed that the level of misreporting of induced abortions has increased from 18% to 53% among all terminated pregnancies over the period 1993–2013 in Turkey. This marked increase, especially among women in the lower socioeconomic sections of society, may be largely associated with the prevailing political environment, and increase in social stigmatization against induced abortion in Turkey over recent decades.

The item count technique (ICT-MLE) regression model for survey list experiments depends on assumptions about responses at the extremes (choosing no or all items on the list). Existing list experiment best practices aim to minimize strategic misrepresentation in ways that virtually guarantee that a tiny number of respondents appear in the extrema. Under such conditions both the “no liars” identification assumption and the computational strategy used to estimate the ICT-MLE become difficult to sustain. I report the results of Monte Carlo experiments examining the sensitivity of the ICT-MLE and simple difference-in-means estimators to survey design choices and small amounts of non-strategic respondent error. I show that, compared to the difference in means, the performance of the ICT-MLE depends on list design. Both estimators are sensitive to measurement error, but the problems are more severe for the ICT-MLE as a direct consequence of the no liars assumption. These problems become extreme as the number of treatment-group respondents choosing all the items on the list decreases. I document that such problems can arise in real-world applications, provide guidance for applied work, and suggest directions for further research.

This study examined the correlates of dietary energy under-reporting (UR) and over-reporting (OV) in European adolescents. Two self-administered computerised 24-h dietary recalls and physical activity data using accelerometry were collected from 1512 adolescents aged 12·5–17·5 years from eight European countries. Objective measurements of height and weight were obtained. BMI was categorised according to Cole/International Obesity Task Force (IOTF) cut-off points. Diet-related attitudes were assessed via self-administered questionnaires. Reported energy intake (EI) was compared with predicted total energy expenditure to identify UR and OV using individual physical activity objective measures. Associations between misreporting and covariates were examined by multilevel logistic regression analyses. Among all, 33·3 % of the adolescents were UR and 15·6 % were OV when considering mean EI. Overweight (OR 3·25; 95 % CI 2·01, 5·27) and obese (OR 4·31; 95 % CI 1·92, 9·65) adolescents had higher odds for UR, whereas underweight individuals were more likely to over-report (OR 1·67; 95 % CI 1·01, 2·76). Being content with their own figures (OR 0·61; 95 % CI 0·41, 0·89) decreased the odds for UR, whereas frequently skipping breakfast (OR 2·14; 95 % CI 1·53, 2·99) was linked with higher odds for UR. Those being worried about gaining weight (OR 0·55; 95 % CI 0·33, 0·92) were less likely to OV. Weight status and psychosocial weight-related factors were found to be the major correlates of misreporting. Misreporting may reflect socially desirable answers and low ability to report own dietary intakes, but also may reflect real under-eating in an attempt to lose weight or real over-eating to reflect higher intakes due to growth spurts. Factors influencing misreporting should be identified in youths to clarify or better understand diet–disease associations.

Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003–2012, we investigated the prevalence and characteristics of under- and over-reporting of energy intake (EI) among 14 044 US children and adolescents aged 2–19 years. For the assessment of EI, two 24-h dietary recalls were conducted with the use of the US Department of Agriculture Automated Multiple-Pass Method. Under-, plausible and over-reporters of EI were identified using two methods: based on the 95 % confidence limits (1) for agreement between the ratio of EI:BMR and a physical activity level for sedentary lifestyle (1·55) and (2) of the expected ratio of EI:estimated energy requirement (EER) of 1·0. BMR was calculated using Schofield’s equations. EER was calculated using equations from the US Dietary Reference Intakes, assuming ‘low active’ level of physical activity. The risk of being an under- or over-reporter compared with a plausible reporter was analysed using multiple logistic regression. Percentages of under-, plausible and over-reporters were 13·1, 81·5 and 5·4 %, respectively, based on EI:BMR and 18·8, 72·3 and 8·8 %, respectively, based on EI:EER. Under-reporting was associated with older age, non-Hispanic blacks (compared with non-Hispanic whites) and overweight and obesity (compared with normal weight). Over-reporting was associated with younger age, lower family poverty income ratio, normal weight and the first survey cycle. Similar findings were obtained when analysing only the first 24-h recall data from NHANES 1999–2012 (n 22 949). In conclusion, we found that EI misreporting remains prevalent and differential in US children and adolescents.

Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003–2012, we investigated the prevalence and characteristics of under-reporting and over-reporting of energy intake (EI) among 19 693 US adults ≥20 years of age. For the assessment of EI, two 24-h dietary recalls were conducted using the US Department of Agriculture Automated Multiple-Pass Method. Under-reporters, acceptable reporters and over-reporters of EI were identified by two methods based on the 95 % confidence limits: (1) for agreement between the ratio of EI to BMR and a physical activity level for sedentary lifestyle (1·55) and (2) of the expected ratio of EI to estimated energy requirement (EER) of 1·0. BMR was calculated using Schofield’s equations. EER was calculated using equations from the US Dietary Reference Intakes, assuming ‘low active’ level of physical activity. The risk of being an under-reporter or over-reporter compared with an acceptable reporter was analysed using multiple logistic regression. Percentages of under-reporters, acceptable reporters and over-reporters were 25·1, 73·5 and 1·4 %, respectively, based on EI:BMR, and 25·7, 71·8 and 2·5 %, respectively, based on EI:EER. Under-reporting was associated with female sex, older age, non-Hispanic blacks (compared with non-Hispanic whites), lower education, lower family poverty income ratio and overweight and obesity. Over-reporting was associated with male sex, younger age, lower family poverty income ratio, current smoking (compared with never smoking) and underweight. Similar findings were obtained when analysing only the first 24-h recall data from NHANES 1999–2012 (n 28 794). In conclusion, we found that misreporting of EI, particularly under-reporting, remains prevalent and differential in US adults.

To date, no study has directly and simultaneously measured the discrepancy between what people actually eat and what they report eating under observation in the context of energy balance (EB). The present study aimed to objectively measure the ‘extent’ and ‘nature’ of misreporting of dietary intakes under conditions in which EB and feeding behaviour were continuously monitored. For this purpose, a total of fifty-nine adults were recruited for 12 d, involving two 3 d overt phases and two 3 d covert phases of food intake measurement in a randomised cross-over design. Subjects had ad libitum access to a variety of familiar foods. Food intake was covertly measured using a feeding behaviour suite to establish actual energy and nutrient intakes. During the overt phases, subjects were instructed to self-report food intake using widely accepted methods. Misreporting comprised two separate and synchronous phenomena. Subjects decreased energy intake (EI) when asked to record their food intake (observation effect). The effect was significant in women ( − 8 %, P< 0·001) but not in men ( − 3 %, P< 0·277). The reported EI was 5 to 21 % lower (reporting effect) than the actual intake, depending on the reporting method used. Semi-quantitative techniques gave larger discrepancies. These discrepancies were identical in men and women and non-macronutrient specific. The ‘observation’ and ‘reporting’ effects combined to constitute total misreporting, which ranged from 10 to 25 %, depending on the intake measurement assessed. When studied in a laboratory environment and EB was closely monitored, subjects under-reported their food intake and decreased the actual intake when they were aware that their intake was being monitored.

Under-reporting of energy intake (EI) is a well-known problem when measuring dietary intake in free-living populations. The present study aimed at quantifying misreporting by comparing EI estimated from the Danish pre-coded food diary against energy expenditure (EE) measured with a validated position-and-motion instrument (ActiReg®). Further, the influence of recording length on EI:BMR, percentage consumers, the number of meal occasions and recorded food items per meal was examined. A total of 138 Danish volunteers aged 20–59 years wore the ActiReg® and recorded their food intake for 7 consecutive days. Data for 2504 participants from the National Dietary Survey 2000–2 were used for comparison of characteristics and recording length. The results showed that EI was underestimated by 12 % on average compared with EE measured by ActiReg® (PreMed AS, Oslo, Norway). The 95 % limits of agreement for EI and EE were − 6·29 and 3·09 MJ/d. Of the participants, 73 % were classified as acceptable reporters, 26 % as under-reporters and 1 % as over-reporters. EI:BMR was significantly lower on 1–3 consecutive recording days compared with 4–7 recording days (P < 0·03). Percentage consumers of selected food items increased with number of recording days. When recording length was 7 d, the number of reported food items per meal differed between acceptable reporters and under-reporters. EI:BMR was the same on 4 and 7 consecutive recording days. This was, however, a result of under-reporting in the beginning and the end of the 7 d reporting. Together, the results indicate that EI was underestimated at group level and that a 7 d recording is preferable to a 4 d recording period.

In order to assess nutritional adequacy, valid estimates of nutrient intake are required. One of the main errors in dietary assessment is misreporting. The objective was to review the extent, nature and determinants of misreporting in dietary assessment, how this affects reported intakes of micronutrients and how this is identified and measured, and to identify the best ways of dealing with misreporting when interpreting results. A systematic literature search was conducted for studies of misreporting of dietary intake in adults by 24 hour recalls or by estimated or weighed food records, published up to March 2008. Thirty-seven relevant studies were identified. Possible causes of misreporting were identified. Methods most used to identify misreporting were the Goldberg cut-off (46 % studies) and the doubly labelled water technique (24 % studies). The magnitude of misreporting of energy intake was similar in all three dietary assessment methods. The percentage of under-reporters was about 30 % and energy intake was underestimated by approximately 15 %. Seven papers presented usable data for micronutrient intake. Absolute intakes of Fe, Ca and vitamin C (the three micronutrients addressed in all papers) were on average 30 % lower in low-energy reporters (LER) than that in non-LER and, although results were not consistent, there was a tendency for micronutrient density to be higher in LER. Excluding underreporters or using energy adjustment methods for micronutrient intakes is discussed. Residual method of energy adjustment seems to be a good tool for practice to decrease an influence of misreporting when interpreting results of studies based on food records and 24 hour recalls.