We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To examine the utility of using external estimates of within-person variation to adjust usual nutrient intake distributions.
Design
Analyses of the prevalence of inadequate intake of an example nutrient by the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) cut-point method using three different methods of statistical adjustment of the usual intake distribution of a single 24-hour recall in Russian children in 1996, using the Iowa State University method for adjustment of the distribution. First, adjusting the usual intake distribution with day 2 recalls from the same 1996 sample (the correct method) second, adjusting the distribution using external variance estimates derived from US children in 1996; and third, adjusting the distribution using external estimates derived from Russian children of the same age in 2000. We also present prevalence estimates based on naïve statistical analysis of the unadjusted distribution of intakes.
Setting/subjects
Children drawn from the Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey in 1996 and 2000 and from the 1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals.
Results
When the EAR cut-point method is applied to a single recall, the resulting prevalence estimate in this study is inflated by 100–1300%. When the intake distribution is adjusted using an external variance estimate, the prevalence estimate is much less biased, suggesting that any adjustment may give less biased estimates than no adjustment.
Conclusions
In moderately large samples, adjusting distributions with external estimates of variances results in more reliable prevalence estimates than using 1–day data.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.