Table 1.
Comparison of food selection, plate waste, and EI estimated with the RFPM to weighed EI when a standard portion photograph from the archive was and was not utilized during the estimation procedure (Pilot Study 1). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) with 95% confident intervals represent agreement between the two RDs who estimated EI (100% over-sample)
| ICC (95% CI) | Estimated kJ (kcal) | Weighed kJ (kcal) | Difference (%) of the means | t | df | P | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | |||||||
| No Standard Portion Photo was Used | Food Selection | .93*** (.81-.98) | 502 (120) | 59 (14) | 548 (131) | 59 (14) | -8.4% | -2.21 | 61 | .01 |
| Plate Waste | .94*** (.84-.98) | 142 (34) | 25 (6) | 146 (35) | 21 (5) | -2.9% | -0.35 | 61 | .73 | |
| Energy Intake | .91*** (.76-.97) | 360 (86) | 46 (11) | 406 (97) | 50 (12) | -11.3% | -2.30 | 61 | .03 | |
| Standard Portion Photo was Used | Food Selection | .95*** (.86-.98) | 523 (125) | 59 (14) | 548 (131) | 59 (14) | -4.6% | -1.12 | 61 | .27 |
| Plate Waste | .92*** (.81-.97) | 151 (36) | 25 (6) | 146 (35) | 21 (5) | +2.9% | 0.51 | 61 | .61 | |
| Energy Intake | .92*** (.79-.97) | 372 (89) | 46 (11) | 406 (97) | 50 (12) | -8.2% | -1.58 | 61 | .12 | |
***
p<.0001.