The Experts below are selected from a list of 13080 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Suzanne Domel Baxter - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fourth grade children s dietary reporting accuracy by meal component results from a validation study that manipulated Retention Interval and prompts
Appetite, 2017Co-Authors: Suzanne Domel Baxter, David B Hitchcock, Julie A Royer, Albert F Smith, Caroline H GuinnAbstract:We examined reporting accuracy by meal component (beverage, bread, breakfast meat, combination entree, condiment, dessert, entree, fruit, vegetable) with validation-study data on 455 fourth-grade children (mean age = 9.92 ± 0.41 years) observed eating school meals and randomized to one of eight dietary recall conditions (two Retention Intervals [short, long] crossed with four prompts [forward, meal-name, open, reverse]). Accuracy category (match [observed and reported], omission [observed but unreported], intrusion [unobserved but reported]) was a polytomous nominal item response variable. We fit a multilevel cumulative logit model with item variables meal component and serving period (breakfast, lunch) and child variables Retention Interval, prompt and sex. Significant accuracy category predictors were meal component (p < 0.0003), Retention Interval (p < 0.0003), meal-component × serving-period (p < 0.0003) and meal-component × Retention-Interval (p = 0.001). The relationship of meal component and accuracy category was much stronger for lunch than breakfast. For lunch, beverages were matches more often, omissions much less often and intrusions more often than expected under independence; fruits and desserts were omissions more often. For the meal-component × Retention-Interval interaction, for the short Retention Interval, beverages were intrusions much more often but combination entrees and condiments were intrusions less often; for the long Retention Interval, beverages were matches more often and omissions less often but fruits were matches less often. Accuracy for each meal component appeared better with the short than long Retention Interval. For lunch and for the short Retention Interval, children's reporting was most accurate for entree and combination entree meal components, whereas it was least accurate for vegetable and fruit meal components. Results have implications for conclusions of studies and interventions assessed with dietary recalls obtained from children.
-
Retention Interval and prompts creation and cross sectional pilot testing of eight interview protocols to obtain 24 hour dietary recalls from fourth grade children
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2015Co-Authors: Suzanne Domel Baxter, David B Hitchcock, Albert F Smith, Caroline H Guinn, K K Vaadi, M P Puryear, Christopher J FinneyAbstract:Abstract Background Any 24-hour dietary recall (24hDR) has a Retention Interval and prompts. No research has investigated their combined effect. Objective Eight 24hDR protocols, constructed by crossing two Retention Intervals (prior-24-hour recall obtained in afternoon and previous-day recall obtained in morning) with four prompts (forward [distant-to-recent], reverse [recent-to-distant], meal-name [eg, breakfast, lunch, etc], and open [no instructions]), were pilot-tested. Design Via a cross-sectional design, children were interviewed once, using one of eight 24hDR protocols. Participants/setting Forty-eight fourth-grade children (79% black; 50% girls; six per protocol) were randomly selected from two schools during spring 2011. Protocol assignment was random. Analyses excluded one interview due to protocol deviation. Statistical analyses performed Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with four nonaccuracy-related response variables was conducted, with independent variables Retention Interval, prompt, and their interaction. The significance level was 0.10 due to the study's exploratory nature. Results The response variable set differed across Retention Intervals ( P =0.0003) and prompts ( P =0.045) but not their interaction ( P =0.11). Follow-up analysis of variance for each of four variables showed differences by Retention Interval for three and prompt for two: Interview length (minutes) differed by Retention Interval (prior-24-hour-afternoon=21.8, previous-day-morning=16.1; P P =0.079). Number of school meals reported eaten during the target period did not depend on Retention Interval or prompt, but was greater using meal-name prompts (1.7) than the other three prompts (1.3; P =0.055; contrast t test). Number of 10 possible meal components reported eaten at school meals differed by Retention Interval (prior-24-hour-afternoon=4.1, previous-day-morning=2.9; P =0.048). Weighted number of items (condiment=0.33, combination entree=2.0, and else=1.0) reported eaten at school meals differed by Retention Interval (prior-24-hour-afternoon=5.8, previous-day-morning=4.1; P =0.079) and prompt (forward=6.2, meal-name=5.3, reverse=4.9, and open=3.3; P =0.093). Conclusions Children's nonaccuracy-related responses to eight 24hDR protocols varied as hypothesized. The selected protocols will be useful in a planned validation study to investigate differences by protocol in children's recall accuracy.
-
a validation study concerning the effects of interview content Retention Interval and grade on children s recall accuracy for dietary intake and or physical activity
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2014Co-Authors: Suzanne Domel Baxter, David B Hitchcock, Julie A Royer, Caroline H Guinn, Russell R. Pate, Kerry L. Mciver, Marsha Dowda, K K Vaadi, M P Puryear, Dawn K. WilsonAbstract:Abstract Background Practitioners and researchers are interested in assessing children's dietary intake and physical activity together to maximize resources and minimize subject burden. Objective Our aim was to investigate differences in dietary and/or physical activity recall accuracy by content (diet only; physical activity only; diet and physical activity), Retention Interval (same-day recalls in the afternoon; previous-day recalls in the morning), and grade (third; fifth). Design Children (n=144; 66% African American, 13% white, 12% Hispanic, 9% other; 50% girls) from four schools were randomly selected for interviews about one of three contents. Each content group was equally divided by Retention Interval, each equally divided by grade, each equally divided by sex. Information concerning diet and physical activity at school was validated with school-provided breakfast and lunch observations, and accelerometry, respectively. Dietary accuracy measures were food-item omission and intrusion rates, and kilocalorie correspondence rate and inflation ratio. Physical activity accuracy measures were absolute and arithmetic differences for moderate to vigorous physical activity minutes. Statistical analyses performed For each accuracy measure, linear models determined effects of content, Retention Interval, grade, and their two-way and three-way interactions; ethnicity and sex were control variables. Results Content was significant within four interactions: intrusion rate (content×Retention-Interval×grade; P =0.0004), correspondence rate (content×grade; P =0.0004), inflation ratio (content×grade; P =0.0104), and arithmetic difference (content×Retention-Interval×grade; P =0.0070). Retention Interval was significant for correspondence rate ( P =0.0004), inflation ratio ( P =0.0014), and three interactions: omission rate (Retention-Interval×grade; P =0.0095), intrusion rate, and arithmetic difference (both already mentioned). Grade was significant for absolute difference ( P= 0.0233) and five interactions mentioned. Content effects depended on other factors. Grade effects were mixed. Dietary accuracy was better with same-day than previous-day Retention Interval. Conclusions Results do not support integrating dietary intake and physical activity in children's recalls, but do support using shorter rather than longer Retention Intervals to yield more accurate dietary recalls. Additional validation studies need to clarify age effects and identify evidence-based practices to improve children's accuracy for recalling dietary intake and/or physical activity.
-
A Pilot Study of the Effects of Interview Content, Retention Interval, and Grade on Accuracy of Dietary Information From Children
Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 2013Co-Authors: Suzanne Domel Baxter, David B Hitchcock, Julie A Royer, Caroline H Guinn, Dawn K. Wilson, Russell R. Pate, Kerry L. Mciver, Marsha DowdaAbstract:Objective: Investigate differences in dietary recall accuracy by interview content (diet only or diet and physical activity), Retention Interval (same day or previous day), and grade (third or fifth). Methods: Thirty-two children observed eating school-provided meals and interviewed once each; interview content and Retention Interval randomly assigned. Multivariate analysis of variance on rates for omissions (foods observed but unreported) and intrusions (foods reported but unobserved); independent variables: interview content, Retention Interval, grade. Results: Accuracy differed by Retention Interval (P ¼ .05; better for same day [omission rate, intrusion rate: 28%, 20%] than previous day [54%, 45%]) but not interview content (P > .48; diet only: 41%, 33%; diet and physical activity: 41%, 33%) or grade (P > .27; third: 48%, 42%; fifth: 34%, 24%). Conclusions and Implications: Although the small sample limits firm conclusions, results provide evidence-baseddirectiontoenhanceaccuracy:specifically,toshortentheRetentionInterval.Largervalidation studiesneedtoinvestigatethecombinedeffectofinterviewcontent,RetentionInterval,andgradeonaccuracy.
-
accuracy of children s school breakfast reports and school lunch reports in 24 h dietary recalls differs by Retention Interval
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2009Co-Authors: Suzanne Domel Baxter, Julie A Royer, Caroline H Guinn, James W. Hardin, Alyssa J Mackelprang, Albert F SmithAbstract:Accuracy of children's school-breakfast reports and school-lunch reports (in 24-h dietary recalls) differs by Retention Interval
Caroline H Guinn - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fourth grade children s dietary reporting accuracy by meal component results from a validation study that manipulated Retention Interval and prompts
Appetite, 2017Co-Authors: Suzanne Domel Baxter, David B Hitchcock, Julie A Royer, Albert F Smith, Caroline H GuinnAbstract:We examined reporting accuracy by meal component (beverage, bread, breakfast meat, combination entree, condiment, dessert, entree, fruit, vegetable) with validation-study data on 455 fourth-grade children (mean age = 9.92 ± 0.41 years) observed eating school meals and randomized to one of eight dietary recall conditions (two Retention Intervals [short, long] crossed with four prompts [forward, meal-name, open, reverse]). Accuracy category (match [observed and reported], omission [observed but unreported], intrusion [unobserved but reported]) was a polytomous nominal item response variable. We fit a multilevel cumulative logit model with item variables meal component and serving period (breakfast, lunch) and child variables Retention Interval, prompt and sex. Significant accuracy category predictors were meal component (p < 0.0003), Retention Interval (p < 0.0003), meal-component × serving-period (p < 0.0003) and meal-component × Retention-Interval (p = 0.001). The relationship of meal component and accuracy category was much stronger for lunch than breakfast. For lunch, beverages were matches more often, omissions much less often and intrusions more often than expected under independence; fruits and desserts were omissions more often. For the meal-component × Retention-Interval interaction, for the short Retention Interval, beverages were intrusions much more often but combination entrees and condiments were intrusions less often; for the long Retention Interval, beverages were matches more often and omissions less often but fruits were matches less often. Accuracy for each meal component appeared better with the short than long Retention Interval. For lunch and for the short Retention Interval, children's reporting was most accurate for entree and combination entree meal components, whereas it was least accurate for vegetable and fruit meal components. Results have implications for conclusions of studies and interventions assessed with dietary recalls obtained from children.
-
Retention Interval and prompts creation and cross sectional pilot testing of eight interview protocols to obtain 24 hour dietary recalls from fourth grade children
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2015Co-Authors: Suzanne Domel Baxter, David B Hitchcock, Albert F Smith, Caroline H Guinn, K K Vaadi, M P Puryear, Christopher J FinneyAbstract:Abstract Background Any 24-hour dietary recall (24hDR) has a Retention Interval and prompts. No research has investigated their combined effect. Objective Eight 24hDR protocols, constructed by crossing two Retention Intervals (prior-24-hour recall obtained in afternoon and previous-day recall obtained in morning) with four prompts (forward [distant-to-recent], reverse [recent-to-distant], meal-name [eg, breakfast, lunch, etc], and open [no instructions]), were pilot-tested. Design Via a cross-sectional design, children were interviewed once, using one of eight 24hDR protocols. Participants/setting Forty-eight fourth-grade children (79% black; 50% girls; six per protocol) were randomly selected from two schools during spring 2011. Protocol assignment was random. Analyses excluded one interview due to protocol deviation. Statistical analyses performed Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with four nonaccuracy-related response variables was conducted, with independent variables Retention Interval, prompt, and their interaction. The significance level was 0.10 due to the study's exploratory nature. Results The response variable set differed across Retention Intervals ( P =0.0003) and prompts ( P =0.045) but not their interaction ( P =0.11). Follow-up analysis of variance for each of four variables showed differences by Retention Interval for three and prompt for two: Interview length (minutes) differed by Retention Interval (prior-24-hour-afternoon=21.8, previous-day-morning=16.1; P P =0.079). Number of school meals reported eaten during the target period did not depend on Retention Interval or prompt, but was greater using meal-name prompts (1.7) than the other three prompts (1.3; P =0.055; contrast t test). Number of 10 possible meal components reported eaten at school meals differed by Retention Interval (prior-24-hour-afternoon=4.1, previous-day-morning=2.9; P =0.048). Weighted number of items (condiment=0.33, combination entree=2.0, and else=1.0) reported eaten at school meals differed by Retention Interval (prior-24-hour-afternoon=5.8, previous-day-morning=4.1; P =0.079) and prompt (forward=6.2, meal-name=5.3, reverse=4.9, and open=3.3; P =0.093). Conclusions Children's nonaccuracy-related responses to eight 24hDR protocols varied as hypothesized. The selected protocols will be useful in a planned validation study to investigate differences by protocol in children's recall accuracy.
-
a validation study concerning the effects of interview content Retention Interval and grade on children s recall accuracy for dietary intake and or physical activity
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2014Co-Authors: Suzanne Domel Baxter, David B Hitchcock, Julie A Royer, Caroline H Guinn, Russell R. Pate, Kerry L. Mciver, Marsha Dowda, K K Vaadi, M P Puryear, Dawn K. WilsonAbstract:Abstract Background Practitioners and researchers are interested in assessing children's dietary intake and physical activity together to maximize resources and minimize subject burden. Objective Our aim was to investigate differences in dietary and/or physical activity recall accuracy by content (diet only; physical activity only; diet and physical activity), Retention Interval (same-day recalls in the afternoon; previous-day recalls in the morning), and grade (third; fifth). Design Children (n=144; 66% African American, 13% white, 12% Hispanic, 9% other; 50% girls) from four schools were randomly selected for interviews about one of three contents. Each content group was equally divided by Retention Interval, each equally divided by grade, each equally divided by sex. Information concerning diet and physical activity at school was validated with school-provided breakfast and lunch observations, and accelerometry, respectively. Dietary accuracy measures were food-item omission and intrusion rates, and kilocalorie correspondence rate and inflation ratio. Physical activity accuracy measures were absolute and arithmetic differences for moderate to vigorous physical activity minutes. Statistical analyses performed For each accuracy measure, linear models determined effects of content, Retention Interval, grade, and their two-way and three-way interactions; ethnicity and sex were control variables. Results Content was significant within four interactions: intrusion rate (content×Retention-Interval×grade; P =0.0004), correspondence rate (content×grade; P =0.0004), inflation ratio (content×grade; P =0.0104), and arithmetic difference (content×Retention-Interval×grade; P =0.0070). Retention Interval was significant for correspondence rate ( P =0.0004), inflation ratio ( P =0.0014), and three interactions: omission rate (Retention-Interval×grade; P =0.0095), intrusion rate, and arithmetic difference (both already mentioned). Grade was significant for absolute difference ( P= 0.0233) and five interactions mentioned. Content effects depended on other factors. Grade effects were mixed. Dietary accuracy was better with same-day than previous-day Retention Interval. Conclusions Results do not support integrating dietary intake and physical activity in children's recalls, but do support using shorter rather than longer Retention Intervals to yield more accurate dietary recalls. Additional validation studies need to clarify age effects and identify evidence-based practices to improve children's accuracy for recalling dietary intake and/or physical activity.
-
A Pilot Study of the Effects of Interview Content, Retention Interval, and Grade on Accuracy of Dietary Information From Children
Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 2013Co-Authors: Suzanne Domel Baxter, David B Hitchcock, Julie A Royer, Caroline H Guinn, Dawn K. Wilson, Russell R. Pate, Kerry L. Mciver, Marsha DowdaAbstract:Objective: Investigate differences in dietary recall accuracy by interview content (diet only or diet and physical activity), Retention Interval (same day or previous day), and grade (third or fifth). Methods: Thirty-two children observed eating school-provided meals and interviewed once each; interview content and Retention Interval randomly assigned. Multivariate analysis of variance on rates for omissions (foods observed but unreported) and intrusions (foods reported but unobserved); independent variables: interview content, Retention Interval, grade. Results: Accuracy differed by Retention Interval (P ¼ .05; better for same day [omission rate, intrusion rate: 28%, 20%] than previous day [54%, 45%]) but not interview content (P > .48; diet only: 41%, 33%; diet and physical activity: 41%, 33%) or grade (P > .27; third: 48%, 42%; fifth: 34%, 24%). Conclusions and Implications: Although the small sample limits firm conclusions, results provide evidence-baseddirectiontoenhanceaccuracy:specifically,toshortentheRetentionInterval.Largervalidation studiesneedtoinvestigatethecombinedeffectofinterviewcontent,RetentionInterval,andgradeonaccuracy.
-
accuracy of children s school breakfast reports and school lunch reports in 24 h dietary recalls differs by Retention Interval
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2009Co-Authors: Suzanne Domel Baxter, Julie A Royer, Caroline H Guinn, James W. Hardin, Alyssa J Mackelprang, Albert F SmithAbstract:Accuracy of children's school-breakfast reports and school-lunch reports (in 24-h dietary recalls) differs by Retention Interval
Lauren R Shapiro - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
remembering september 11th the role of Retention Interval and rehearsal on flashbulb and event memory
Memory, 2006Co-Authors: Lauren R ShapiroAbstract:Retention Interval and rehearsal effects on flashbulb and event memory for 11th September 2001 (9/11) were examined. In Experiment 1, college students were assessed three times (Groups 1 and 2) or once (Group 3) over 11 weeks. In Experiment 2, three new groups assessed initially at 23 weeks (Group 4), 1 year (Group 5), or 2 years (Group 6) were compared at 1 year and at 2 years with subsamples of those assessed previously. No effects of Retention Interval length or rehearsal were found for flashbulb memory, which contained details at each assessment. Event memory, but not consistency, was detrimentally affected by long Retention Intervals, but improved with rehearsal. Recall was higher for the reception event than for the main events. Also, consistency from 1 day to 11 weeks, but not 1 year to 2 years, was higher for flashbulb memory than for event memory. Event recall was enhanced when respondents conceived of their memory as vivid, frozen, and encompassing a longer period of time. Positive correlations were found for event memory with confidence in accuracy and with rehearsal through discussion at 2 years. Language: en
-
remembering september 11th the role of Retention Interval and rehearsal on flashbulb and event memory
Memory, 2006Co-Authors: Lauren R ShapiroAbstract:Retention Interval and rehearsal effects on flashbulb and event memory for 11th September 2001 (9/11) were examined. In Experiment 1, college students were assessed three times (Groups 1 and 2) or once (Group 3) over 11 weeks. In Experiment 2, three new groups assessed initially at 23 weeks (Group 4), 1 year (Group 5), or 2 years (Group 6) were compared at 1 year and at 2 years with subsamples of those assessed previously. No effects of Retention Interval length or rehearsal were found for flashbulb memory, which contained details at each assessment. Event memory, but not consistency, was detrimentally affected by long Retention Intervals, but improved with rehearsal. Recall was higher for the reception event than for the main events. Also, consistency from 1 day to 11 weeks, but not 1 year to 2 years, was higher for flashbulb memory than for event memory. Event recall was enhanced when respondents conceived of their memory as vivid, frozen, and encompassing a longer period of time. Positive correlations were found for event memory with confidence in accuracy and with rehearsal through discussion at 2 years. Language: en
Albert F Smith - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fourth grade children s dietary reporting accuracy by meal component results from a validation study that manipulated Retention Interval and prompts
Appetite, 2017Co-Authors: Suzanne Domel Baxter, David B Hitchcock, Julie A Royer, Albert F Smith, Caroline H GuinnAbstract:We examined reporting accuracy by meal component (beverage, bread, breakfast meat, combination entree, condiment, dessert, entree, fruit, vegetable) with validation-study data on 455 fourth-grade children (mean age = 9.92 ± 0.41 years) observed eating school meals and randomized to one of eight dietary recall conditions (two Retention Intervals [short, long] crossed with four prompts [forward, meal-name, open, reverse]). Accuracy category (match [observed and reported], omission [observed but unreported], intrusion [unobserved but reported]) was a polytomous nominal item response variable. We fit a multilevel cumulative logit model with item variables meal component and serving period (breakfast, lunch) and child variables Retention Interval, prompt and sex. Significant accuracy category predictors were meal component (p < 0.0003), Retention Interval (p < 0.0003), meal-component × serving-period (p < 0.0003) and meal-component × Retention-Interval (p = 0.001). The relationship of meal component and accuracy category was much stronger for lunch than breakfast. For lunch, beverages were matches more often, omissions much less often and intrusions more often than expected under independence; fruits and desserts were omissions more often. For the meal-component × Retention-Interval interaction, for the short Retention Interval, beverages were intrusions much more often but combination entrees and condiments were intrusions less often; for the long Retention Interval, beverages were matches more often and omissions less often but fruits were matches less often. Accuracy for each meal component appeared better with the short than long Retention Interval. For lunch and for the short Retention Interval, children's reporting was most accurate for entree and combination entree meal components, whereas it was least accurate for vegetable and fruit meal components. Results have implications for conclusions of studies and interventions assessed with dietary recalls obtained from children.
-
Retention Interval and prompts creation and cross sectional pilot testing of eight interview protocols to obtain 24 hour dietary recalls from fourth grade children
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2015Co-Authors: Suzanne Domel Baxter, David B Hitchcock, Albert F Smith, Caroline H Guinn, K K Vaadi, M P Puryear, Christopher J FinneyAbstract:Abstract Background Any 24-hour dietary recall (24hDR) has a Retention Interval and prompts. No research has investigated their combined effect. Objective Eight 24hDR protocols, constructed by crossing two Retention Intervals (prior-24-hour recall obtained in afternoon and previous-day recall obtained in morning) with four prompts (forward [distant-to-recent], reverse [recent-to-distant], meal-name [eg, breakfast, lunch, etc], and open [no instructions]), were pilot-tested. Design Via a cross-sectional design, children were interviewed once, using one of eight 24hDR protocols. Participants/setting Forty-eight fourth-grade children (79% black; 50% girls; six per protocol) were randomly selected from two schools during spring 2011. Protocol assignment was random. Analyses excluded one interview due to protocol deviation. Statistical analyses performed Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with four nonaccuracy-related response variables was conducted, with independent variables Retention Interval, prompt, and their interaction. The significance level was 0.10 due to the study's exploratory nature. Results The response variable set differed across Retention Intervals ( P =0.0003) and prompts ( P =0.045) but not their interaction ( P =0.11). Follow-up analysis of variance for each of four variables showed differences by Retention Interval for three and prompt for two: Interview length (minutes) differed by Retention Interval (prior-24-hour-afternoon=21.8, previous-day-morning=16.1; P P =0.079). Number of school meals reported eaten during the target period did not depend on Retention Interval or prompt, but was greater using meal-name prompts (1.7) than the other three prompts (1.3; P =0.055; contrast t test). Number of 10 possible meal components reported eaten at school meals differed by Retention Interval (prior-24-hour-afternoon=4.1, previous-day-morning=2.9; P =0.048). Weighted number of items (condiment=0.33, combination entree=2.0, and else=1.0) reported eaten at school meals differed by Retention Interval (prior-24-hour-afternoon=5.8, previous-day-morning=4.1; P =0.079) and prompt (forward=6.2, meal-name=5.3, reverse=4.9, and open=3.3; P =0.093). Conclusions Children's nonaccuracy-related responses to eight 24hDR protocols varied as hypothesized. The selected protocols will be useful in a planned validation study to investigate differences by protocol in children's recall accuracy.
-
accuracy of children s school breakfast reports and school lunch reports in 24 h dietary recalls differs by Retention Interval
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2009Co-Authors: Suzanne Domel Baxter, Julie A Royer, Caroline H Guinn, James W. Hardin, Alyssa J Mackelprang, Albert F SmithAbstract:Accuracy of children's school-breakfast reports and school-lunch reports (in 24-h dietary recalls) differs by Retention Interval
-
fourth grade children s dietary recall accuracy is influenced by Retention Interval target period and interview time
Journal of The American Dietetic Association, 2009Co-Authors: Suzanne Domel Baxter, Julie A Royer, Caroline H Guinn, James W. Hardin, Alyssa J Mackelprang, Albert F SmithAbstract:Abstract Background For a 24-hour dietary recall, two possible target periods are the prior 24 hours (24 hours immediately preceding the interview time) and previous day (midnight to midnight of the day before the interview), and three possible interview times are morning, afternoon, and evening. Target period and interview time determine the Retention Interval (elapsed time between to-be-reported meals and the interview), which, along with intervening meals, can influence reporting accuracy. Objective The effects of target period and interview time on children's accuracy for reporting school meals during 24-hour dietary recalls were investigated. Design and subjects/setting During the 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007 school years in Columbia, SC, each of 374 randomly selected fourth-grade children (96% African American) was observed eating two consecutive school meals (breakfast and lunch) and interviewed to obtain a 24-hour dietary recall using one of six conditions defined by crossing two target periods with three interview times. Each condition had 62 or 64 children (half boys). Main outcome measures Accuracy for reporting school meals was quantified by calculating rates for omissions (food items observed eaten but unreported) and intrusions (food items reported eaten but unobserved); a measure of total inaccuracy combined errors for reporting food items and amounts. Statistical analyses performed For each accuracy measure, analysis of variance was conducted with target period, interview time, their interaction, sex, interviewer, and school year in the model. Results There was a target-period effect and a target-period by interview-time interaction on omission rates, intrusion rates, and total inaccuracy (six P values Conclusions To enhance children's dietary recall accuracy, target periods and interview times that minimize the Retention Interval should be chosen.
-
children s dietary recalls from three validation studies types of intrusion vary with Retention Interval
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2008Co-Authors: Suzanne Domel Baxter, Julie A Royer, Albert F Smith, James W. Hardin, Caroline H GuinnAbstract:Using previously collected data of fourth-grade children observed eating school meals and then interviewed, we categorized intrusions (food items reported but not observed eaten) as stretches (on the child’s tray) or confabulations (not on the child’s tray). We investigated intrusions, confabulations, and stretches, and the role of liking, at different Retention Intervals (morning interviews about the previous day’s intake; evening interviews about that day’s intake) and under different reporting-order prompts (forward; reverse). As Retention Interval between consumption and report increased, the likelihood 1) increased that reported items were intrusions, that reported items were confabulations, and that intrusions were confabulations; and 2) was constant that reported items were stretches. Results concerning reporting-order prompts were inconclusive. Liking ratings were higher for matches (reports of items observed eaten) than stretches, for confabulations than stretches, and for matches than omissions (unreported items observed eaten), but did not vary by Retention Interval or reporting-order prompts.
Zoltán Vidnyánszky - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Retention Interval affects visual short-term memory encoding.
Journal of neurophysiology, 2010Co-Authors: Éva M. Bankó, Zoltán VidnyánszkyAbstract:Humans can efficiently store fine-detailed facial emotional information in visual short-term memory for several seconds. However, an unresolved question is whether the same neural mechanisms underlie high-fidelity short-term memory for emotional expressions at different Retention Intervals. Here we show that Retention Interval affects the neural processes of short-term memory encoding using a delayed facial emotion discrimination task. The early sensory P100 component of the event-related potentials (ERP) was larger in the 1-s interstimulus Interval (ISI) condition than in the 6-s ISI condition, whereas the face-specific N170 component was larger in the longer ISI condition. Furthermore, the memory-related late P3b component of the ERP responses was also modulated by Retention Interval: it was reduced in the 1-s ISI as compared with the 6-s condition. The present findings cannot be explained based on differences in sensory processing demands or overall task difficulty because there was no difference in the stimulus information and subjects' performance between the two different ISI conditions. These results reveal that encoding processes underlying high-precision short-term memory for facial emotional expressions are modulated depending on whether information has to be stored for one or for several seconds.
