Volume 81, Issue 5 pp. 563-572
ORIGINAL RESEARCH

The test–retest reliability and validity of food photography and food diary analyses

Christopher Curtis PhD, RSEN

Corresponding Author

Christopher Curtis PhD, RSEN

School of Sport and Wellbeing, Leeds Trinity University, Leeds, UK

School of Pharmacy & Nutrition, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

Correspondence

Christopher Curtis, School of Pharmacy & Nutrition, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Samuel P. Hills PhD

Samuel P. Hills PhD

School of Social and Health Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Nicola Arjomandkhah PhD

Nicola Arjomandkhah PhD

School of Sport and Wellbeing, Leeds Trinity University, Leeds, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Carlton Cooke PhD

Carlton Cooke PhD

Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Mayur K. Ranchordas PhD, RSEN

Mayur K. Ranchordas PhD, RSEN

Academy of Sport & Physical Activity, Health Research Institute and Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Mark Russell PhD, ANutr

Mark Russell PhD, ANutr

School of Sport and Wellbeing, Leeds Trinity University, Leeds, UK

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 24 September 2024
Citations: 2

Abstract

Aims

To assess test–retest reliability of both food photography and food diary methods and validity of these data against known values derived from food labels.

Methods

Test–retest reliability analyses of food diary and food photography were compared using single foodstuffs using intra-class correlation coefficients, coefficients of variation, and limits of agreement. For food diaries, 24-h test–retest reliability was also examined. Validity was assessed against weighed analyses. As part of habitual intake, a single foodstuff (randomly allocated from 14 common foods) was consumed by 26 participants over 24-h. On two occasions (14 days apart), single-blind dietary analyses allowed estimation of foodstuff-specific energy and macronutrient content and 24-h intakes.

Results

For food diaries, test–retest reliability was acceptable (weight, energy, carbohydrate, protein, and fat: all intra-class correlation coefficients: >0.990, coefficient of variation percentage: <0.1%, limits of agreements: <0.1 to <0.1, p > 0.05, and effect size: <0.01). For food photography, test–retest reliability was acceptable for weight, energy, carbohydrate, and protein (all intra-class correlation coefficients: >0.898, coefficient of variation percentage: 3.6%–6.2%, limits of agreements: 1.1 to – 44.9, and effect size: 0.01–0.12). Food photography validity was worse than food diaries for all variables (percentage difference: 8.8%–15.3%, coefficient of variation percentage: 7.5%–13.8%, all p ≤ 0.05, and effect size: 0.001–0.11).

Conclusions

Greater reliability and validity occurred in food diaries versus food photography. These findings suggest that using food photography may lead to an underestimation of energy and macronutrient content, which may have implications for dietary interventions and nutritional strategies.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors have no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, to declare.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.