• Indication
• Pros and cons
• Practical considerations
• Resources required
• References
• Examples and links

• Dietary assessment
• Methods
• Dietary checklist
• Practical considerations

Practical considerations

• Obtaining information on regular household measures is useful
• In LIDMS, interviewers measured kitchen utensils used regularly by respondents by measuring the length and diameter e.g. spoons and/or weighing the amount of water that each utensil held e.g. mugs.  Utensils were numbered and each use of a utensil in the diary was coded with these numbers by the interviewer.  This was particularly useful where respondents had used an alternative-serving size
• Respondents should keep labels and packages of manufactured foods consumed to assist with food coding
• Respondents should be reminded to complete the checklist throughout the day rather than retrospectively at the end of the day
• Larger versions of the food checklist may be necessary for those with poor eyesight.
• It is difficult to probe for missing foods using this method, as the end result is a summary of foods eaten in the day

Findings from the Low Income Diet Methods Study (LIDMS) (Nelson et al, 2003)

In LIDMS, the protocol for the food checklist was for three field worker visits and the average total visit time per 1 person household was 120 minutes. This compared to the averages for the 24-hour recall, semi-weighed and weighed diaries were 116, 158 and 188 respectively. For two person households the average total visit time for the food checklist was 142 minutes compared to 177, 183 and 230 minutes for the 24 hour recall, semi-weighed and weighed diaries respectively. 

When asked at the end of the study which of the methods they had preferred, respondents showed a clear preference for the food checklist (46%) followed by the 24 hour recall (29%) and weighed inventory (21%).

Nutrient analysis

• Children age 2-10 years

The 24h recall and food checklist tended to yield higher energy and nutrient estimates compared to the weighed inventory, especially among girls.

• Children age 11-17 years

The 24h recall tended to yield significantly higher values than the weighed inventory. Values for the food checklist tended to be higher, and those for the semi-weighed diary method lower, but none of the differences reached statistical significance except for estimates of vitamin C intake in girls.

• Adults age 18-59 years

The 24h and food checklist tended to yield higher values, especially in men, and the semi-weighed lower values, significantly so in women.

• Adults age 60-90 years

There was only one statistically significant difference between the mean estimates of energy and nutrient intake between methods (higher alcohol intake in men using the food checklist).

The balance of these findings suggested that, in comparison with the weighed inventory, the 24h recall and the food checklist were more likely to yield higher estimates of energy and nutrient intakes, and the semi-weighed diary lower estimates.

In general, the 24h recall yielded the fewest number of low energy reporters (15.6% across all age and gender groups), and the food checklist and semi-weighed method the most (25%), with the weighed inventory in between (21.6%).

Interviewers recorded whether the respondent had any difficulties completing the methods. 30% reported difficulties with the food checklist, 59% with the semi-weighed method, and 51% with the weighed inventory. The most common difficulties for the food checklist were:

• ticking the boxes (18%);
• understanding the portion sizes (18%);
• understanding what was required (16%);
• finding the food on the list including ethnic minority foods (15%);
• recording food eaten outside the home (15%);
• the food checklist also had the greatest number of difficulties relating to literacy and numeracy problems (6%) compared to the other methods largely due to the large amount of reading required.   

Back to top