Log in Register

Tool Library Tool Information Best Practice Guidelines – Evaluation Checklist (opens new tab)

Validation Information: 7 day Estimated Food Diary

Bingham 1994

Comparison of dietary assessment methods in nutritional epidemiology: weighed records v. 24 h recalls, food-frequency questionnaires and estimated-diet records

Women (n 160) aged 50 to 65 years were asked to weigh their food for 4d on four occasions over the period of 1 year, using the PETRA (Portable Electronic Tape Recorded Automatic) scales. Throughout the year, they were asked to complete seven other dietary assessment methods: a simple 24h recall, a structured 24h recall with portion size assessments using photographs, two food-frequency questionnaires, a 7d estimated record or open-ended food diary, a structured food-frequency (menu) record, and a structured food-frequency (menu) record with portion sizes assessed using photographs. Comparisons between the average of the 16d weighed records and the first presentation of each method indicated that food-frequency questionnaires were not appreciably better at placing individuals in the distribution of habitual diet than 24h recalls, due partly to inaccuracies in the estimation of frequency of food consumption. With a 7d estimated record or open-ended food diary, however, individual values of nutrients were most closely associated with those obtained from 16d weighed records, and there were no significant differences in average food or nutrient intakes

Web Link

Validation Information

Year of Publication

Tool Information

Dietary Exposure Measured
Full Nutrient, Food Groups
Tool Type
Food Diary Estimated
Timeframe Tool Measures info
1 Day
Portion Size Measures info
15 sets of photographs. Subjects could state portion size in other measures if they wished.
Reporting Method info
Usual; Prospective
Format info
Supplements Measured
Not Reported
Administration Method info

Study Information

Study Location
Cambridge, England
Associated Nutrient Database
DIDO (Data In, Diet Out)
Comparator Validated Against
Weighed Food Diary


Sample Size
Age of Population

Range: 50-65 years

Female Only
Other Notable Characteristics

Total number of nutrients validated: 14 info

Not all of the nutrients validated in the validation studies are included in the table below, as statistical data was only selected to be displayed for a number of nutrients, this included:

  • Energy
  • Fat
  • Saturated Fat
  • Mono-unsaturated Fat
  • Poly-unsaturated Fat
  • Carbohydrates
  • Protein
  • Sugar
  • Non‐starch polysaccharides(NSP)
  • Sodium
  • Calcium
  • Iron
  • Zinc
  • Retinol
  • Folate
  • Folic Acid
  • Vitamin B12
  • Vitamin C
  • Fruit & Vegetables
  • Urinary Nitrogen

To find information on the other validated nutrients please read the validation study.

  • Energy
  • Macronutrients: 7
  • Micronutrients: 6
Comparator Lifestage Sex Nutrient Measured info Mean Difference Standard Deviation info Correlation Coefficient info Cohen's Kappa Coefficient Percentage Agreement Percentage Agreement Categories info Lower Limits of Agreement Upper Limits of Agreement
Weighed Food Diary Adults Female Only Energy (kcal) 50 316 0.59 (S) 40 4 -581 681
Energy (kJ) 210 1320 0.59 (S) 40 4 -2430 2850
Protein (g) 1 10 0.66 (S) 49 4 -20 22
Fat (g) 5 18 0.63 (S) 44 4 -31 41
Carbohydrates (g) -2 37 0.71 (S) 38 4 -76 72
Total Sugars (g) 1 23 0.77 (S) 58 4 -45 47
Fibre (NSP) (g) -1 3 0.74 (S) 51 4 -8 6
Calcium (mg) -71 197.6 0.67 (S) 51 4 -466.3 324.3
Iron (mg) -0.5 2.1 0.83 (S) 56 4 -4.6 3.6
Retinol (µg) 123 877.6 0.35 (S) 37 4 -1632.1 1878.1
Vitamin C (mg) 4 36.8 0.70 (S) 48 4 -69.6 77.6
Fruit (g) -8
Vegetables (g) -10

Some results have been calculated using statistical techniques based on the published data.

For further information on statistical terms click on Statistical tests used in validation studies

All correlations coefficients in the table are unadjusted unless stated otherwise. For adjusted correlation coefficients and other statistical methods used in the study e.g. paired t-tests, please read the validation articles.

  • # Adjusted
  • † Energy adjusted.
  • ‡ For loge-transformed, energy-adjusted nutrient intakes.
  • ^ Adjacent included.
  • ᵟ Participants provided identical responses.
  • (w) = Weighted.

Bingham SA, Gill C, Welch A, Day K, Cassidy A, Khaw KT, et al. Comparison of dietary assessment methods in nutritional epidemiology: weighed records v. 24 h recalls, food-frequency questionnaires and estimated-diet records. British Journal of Nutrition. 1994 Oct 1;72(04):619-43.