Table 3.

Proportion of adolescents that met the requirements for food recording with digital images, by group.

Criteriaa	High-Level interventionb (n=21)	Low-Level interventionc (n=21)	P d
1. Correctly placed FMe in the image, n (%)	9 (43)	20 (95)	<.001
2. Only good-quality images for whole report, n (%)	15 (71)	20 (95)	.11
3. Texted food intake accompanied by image with FM, n (%)	17 (81)	20 (95)	.15
4. Complete information for each meal in FRDIf, n (%)	15 (71)	20 (95)	.04
5. Sent “end” message, n (%)	9 (33)	8 (38)	.75
Total score for meeting criteria, mean (SD)	3.4 (1.1)	4.3 (0.7)	.01

^aEach criterion met was worth 1 point, except for image quality, where a score of 1 was given if all images in the food record with digital images (FRDI) were of good quality, 0.5 if at least half were of good quality, and 0 if less than half were of good quality.

^bHigh-level intervention involved one-on-one, face-to-face training and real-time support during food recording day.

^cLow-level intervention involved one-on-one training via telephone with only a follow-up after the food recording day.

^dChi-square test for each criterion and Mann-Whitney U test for the total score.

^eFM: fiducial marker.

^fFRDI: food record with digital images. Information on meal name—breakfast, snack, lunch, or dinner/supper—meal time, and foods and corresponding amounts eaten were included in text messages.