IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ias/cpaper/91-wp75.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Critique of Two Methods for Assessing the Nutrient Adequacy of Diets, A

Author

Listed:
  • Helen H. Jensen
  • Sarah M. Nusser
  • Howard Riddick
  • Laura Sands

Abstract

The adequacy of diets can be assessed using several analytical approaches. This paper reviews two methods of assessment: a cutoff method, which estimates the percentage of the population having usual intakes below a given value; and a probability method, which assesses the percentage of the population whose usual intakes are below their individual requirements. First, the concept pf usual nutrient intakes and the problems associated with estimating usual intake distributions are discussed. Next, the two methods of dietary assessment and their related assumptions are described and compared. The more specific inference of the probability method is shown to rely on its assumptions and data that are currently not available. While the cutoff method is simpler, its use may result in misclassification errors and its estimates are highly influenced by the cutoff standard selected.

Suggested Citation

  • Helen H. Jensen & Sarah M. Nusser & Howard Riddick & Laura Sands, 1991. "Critique of Two Methods for Assessing the Nutrient Adequacy of Diets, A," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 91-wp75, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:91-wp75
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/91wp75.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=733
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:91-wp75. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caiasus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.