The ASA24‐Kids‐2014 versus Traditional 24‐hour Diet Recall for Assessing Dietary Intake of Adolescents
Authors: Summer Suzanne , Hughes Ashley , Benken Laura , Ollberding Nicholas , Kalkwarf Heidi J 
Published: November 2023

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare a self‐administered, web‐based 24‐hour diet recall, the ASA24‐Kids‐2014 (ASA24), to a traditional interviewer‐administered (IA) recall on method preference (Aim 1) and reporting quality (Aim 2), and to obtain feedback on both methods, in adolescents.MethodsAdolescents ages 12–17 years were recruited for this study. Aim 1 participants (n=10) completed one ASA24 and one IA recall in random order. IA recalls were administered using the Nutrition Data System for Research (NDSR). Instrument preference was tested by a Wald test of equal proportions. Aim 2 participants (n=20) were randomly assigned to complete either ASA24 or IA recalls once a week for 6 weeks. Reporting quality was assessed by mixed effects regression models testing differences in reported energy intake and number of foods consumed between groups and over time. All participants answered a feedback survey to indicate aspects they liked and disliked about each method upon completion.ResultsParticipants were on average 14 years of age with a BMI z score of 0.1. For Aim 1, 80% (8/10) of participants reported preference for the IA over ASA24 (p=0.06). For Aim 2, there was no appreciable difference between groups in reported daily energy intake or number of foods consumed over the 6 weeks (p>0.57). Reported energy intake did not decline significantly over the six recalls for the ASA24 [−12 (SE 53) kcal/recall, p=0.82] or the IA [−9 (SE 33) kcal/recall, p=0.78]. Similarly the number of foods reported did not decline for the ASA24 [−0.04 (SE 0.31) items, p=0.88] or the IA [−0.17 (SE 0.14) items, p=0.25]. Mean time required to complete the ASA24 and IA recalls at week 1 was 25±10 and 16±5 minutes, respectively. This decreased to 14±8 and 13±5 minutes at week 6. The geometric mean difference for the decline in the time to complete the ASA24 relative to the IA recall was −1.1 (SE 1.0) min/recall (p<0.012); however, this did not appear to impact differences in the reporting of total energy and food items when compared to the IA and likely reflects increased familiarity with the ASA24 system. One‐third of Aim 2 participants using the ASA24 reported technical barriers. Two participants from this group completed only one recall each due to technical difficulties. All participants in the IA group completed all recalls.ConclusionThe ASA24 could be used as a viable method for obtaining adolescents’ diet intake. However, IA was the preferred method and subjects completed all recalls, whereas ASA24 users experienced technical barriers and data loss. These factors could contribute to attrition and loss of data in longitudinal studies using ASA24 to collect dietary intake data.Support or Funding InformationThis study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, under Award Number 1UL1TR001425‐01, and by the division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.