Cohort study demonstrates validity and reliability of a food frequency questionnaire assessing intake of ultra-processed foods in youth.
Background/Objectives: There is a lack of food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) specifically designed to assess food consumption based on processing levels in younger populations. This study evaluates the validity and the reliability of a 107-item FFQ (NFFQ-Kids) in estimating the intake (g/day) and the weight and energy ratios of Nova groups in Italian children and adolescents aged 2–18 years. Methods: The NFFQ-Kids was administered twice (T0 and T1), with a four-week interval. A total of 73 participants completed the questionnaire at T0, and 53 completed it at T1. Participants were selected from the ICARO Study (December 2023–April 2024), a web-based cohort study in Southern Italy. Questionnaire validity was assessed by comparison with a 3-day food record (two weekdays and one weekend day) collected between the two NFFQ-Kids administrations. Test–retest reliability was evaluated to assess the consistency of the questionnaire over time. Results: A moderate correlation was found between the NFFQ-Kids and the 3-day food record for the energy ratio of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) (r = 0.48; p < 0.001; ICC = 0.46; 95% CI 0.29–0.64) and the weight ratio for both unprocessed or minimally processed foods (r = 0.49; p < 0.001; ICC = 0.50; 95%CI 0.33–0.66) and ultra-processed foods (UPFs) (r = 0.58; p < 0.001; ICC = 0.58; 95%CI 0.42–0.72). Overall, the NFFQ-Kids showed good test–retest reliability across all Nova group intakes, total food, and relative energy and weight ratios of UPFs (r = 0.71, ICC = 0.67; and r = 0.79, ICC = 0.67, respectively), indicating stable measurements over time. Conclusions: The NFFQ-Kids demonstrated acceptable validity and good reliability, proving useful for assessing food intake by processing level in Italian youth.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paladino et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: