European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 287–296 | Cite as

Comparison between web-based and paper versions of a self-administered anthropometric questionnaire

  • Mathilde Touvier
  • Caroline Méjean
  • Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot
  • Clothilde Pollet
  • Aurélie Malon
  • Katia Castetbon
  • Serge Hercberg
Methods

Abstract

Online data collection could advantageously replace paper-and-pencil questionnaires in epidemiological studies by reducing the logistic burden, the cost and the duration of data processing. However, there is a need for studies comparing these new instruments to traditional ones. Our objective was to compare the web-based version of the NutriNet-Santé self-administered anthropometric questionnaire to the paper-based version. The questionnaire included 17 questions divided into subquestions (55 variables in all) dealing with height, weight, hip and waist circumferences, weight history, restrictive diet and weight self-perception. Both versions of the questionnaire were filled out by 147 volunteers (paper version first, N = 76, or web-based version first, N = 71) participating in the SU.VI.MAX (“Supplémentation en VItamines Minéraux et AntioXydants”) cohort (age-range: 49–75 years; men: 46.3%). At the end of the test, subjects filled in a “satisfaction” questionnaire giving their opinions and feelings about each version. Agreement was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and kappas. We also quantified the number of errors inherent in the paper version. Agreement between the two versions was high. ICCs ranged from 0.86 to 1.00. Kappas ranged from 0.69 to 1.00 for comparable variables. A total of 82 data entry mistakes (1.5% of total entries), 60 missing values (1.1%), 57 inconsistent values (1.1%) and 3 abnormal values (0.1%) were counted in the paper version (non-existent in the web-based version due to integrated controls). The web-based version was preferred by 92.2% of users. In conclusion, the quality of information provided by the web-based anthropometric questionnaire used in the NutriNet-Santé Study was equal to, or better than, that of the paper version, with substantial logistic and cost advantages.

Keywords

Anthropometry Comparative study Internet Self-administered Web-based questionnaire 

Abbreviation

ICC

Intraclass correlation coefficient

References

  1. 1.
    American Institute for Cancer Research/World Cancer Research Fund. Food, nutrition, physical activity and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. Washington, DC: American Institute for Cancer Research; 2007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. Joint WHO/FAO expert consultation. WHO Technical Report Series. Geneva: WHO; 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization. The challenge of obesity in the WHO European Region and the strategies for response. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2007.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ekman A, Litton JE. New times, new needs; e-epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol. 2007;22(5):285–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hardré PL, Crowson HM, Xie K, Ly C. Testing differential effects of computer-based, web-based and paper-based administration of questionnaire research instruments. Br J Educ Technol. 2007;38(1):5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reips UD. Standards for internet-based experimenting. Exp Psychol. 2002;49(4):243–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schatzkin A, Subar AF, Moore S, Park Y, Potischman N, Thompson FE, et al. Observational epidemiologic studies of nutrition and cancer: the next generation (with better observation). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(4):1026–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hercberg S, Preziosi P, Briancon S, Galan P, Triol I, Malvy D, et al. A primary prevention trial using nutritional doses of antioxidant vitamins and minerals in cardiovascular diseases and cancers in a general population: the SU.VI.MAX study—design, methods, and participant characteristics. SUpplementation en VItamines et Mineraux AntioXydants. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19(4):336–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    NutriNet-Santé questionnaires [in French]. Internet: http://media.etude-nutrinet-sante.fr/questionnaires/questionnaires_nutrinet_papier.zip (accessed 15 September 2009).
  10. 10.
    Sorensen TI, Stunkard AJ, Teasdale TW, Higgins MW. The accuracy of reports of weight: children’s recall of their parents’ weights 15 years earlier. Int J Obes. 1983;7(2):115–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(6):543–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beasley JM, Davis A, Riley WT. Evaluation of a web-based, pictorial diet history questionnaire. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12(5):651–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marsden J, Jones RB. Validation of Web-based questionnaires regarding osteoporosis prevention in young British women. Health Bull (Edinb). 2001;59(4):254–62.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beidleman BA, Muza SR, Fulco CS, Rock PB, Cymerman A. Validation of a shortened electronic version of the environmental symptoms questionnaire. High Alt Med Biol. 2007;8(3):192–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klovning A, Sandvik H, Hunskaar S. Web-based survey attracted age-biased sample with more severe illness than paper-based survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1068–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Médiamétrie. Internet: http://www.mediametrie.fr/internet/ (accessed 15 September 2009).
  18. 18.
    European Interactive Advertising Association. Internet: http://eiaa.net/index.asp (accessed 15 September 2009).
  19. 19.
    Ipsos Media. Internet: http://www.ipsos.fr/canalipsos/poll/8273.asp/ (accessed 15 September 2009).
  20. 20.
    Internet World Stats © Copyright 2009, Miniwatts Marketing Group. Internet: http://internetworldstats.com/ (accessed 15 September 2009).
  21. 21.
    Golvin CS, Schadler T. The state of consumers and technology: benchmark 2008. Cambridge: Forrester Research; 2008.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lefever S, Dal M, Matthiasdottir A. Online data collection in academic research: advantages and limitations. Br J Educ Technol. 2007;38(4):574–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bexelius C, Honeth L, Ekman A, Eriksson M, Sandin S, Bagger-Sjoback D, et al. Evaluation of an internet-based hearing test—comparison with established methods for detection of hearing loss. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(4):e32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ekman A, Dickman PW, Klint A, Weiderpass E, Litton JE. Feasibility of using web-based questionnaires in large population-based epidemiological studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21(2):103–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kendler KS, Myers J, Potter J, Opalesky J. A web-based study of personality, psychopathology and substance use in twin, other relative and relationship pairs. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2009;12(2):137–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Etter JF, Perneger TV. A comparison of cigarette smokers recruited through the internet or by mail. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30(3):521–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Joinson A. Social desirability, anonymity, and Internet-based questionnaires. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1999;31(3):433–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang YC, Lee CM, Lew-Ting CY, Hsiao CK, Chen DR, Chen WJ. Survey of substance use among high school students in Taipei: web-based questionnaire versus paper-and-pencil questionnaire. J Adolesc Health. 2005;37(4):289–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vance VA, Woodruff SJ, McCargar LJ, Husted J, Hanning RM. Self-reported dietary energy intake of normal weight, overweight and obese adolescents. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12(2):222–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rowland ML. Self-reported weight and height. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;52(6):1125–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van der Lei J, Sturkenboom M. Of new times, new opportunities, and old problems. Eur J Epidemiol. 2007;22(5):281–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Underbakke G, McBride PE, Spencer E. Web-based resources for medical nutrition education. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;83(4):951S–5S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tse MM, Choi KC, Leung RS. E-health for older people: the use of technology in health promotion. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2008;11(4):475–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brug J, Oenema A, Campbell M. Past, present, and future of computer-tailored nutrition education. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;77(4 Suppl):1028S–34S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    van Wier MF, Ariens GA, Dekkers JC, Hendriksen IJ, Smid T, van Mechelen W. Phone and e-mail counselling are effective for weight management in an overweight working population: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathilde Touvier
    • 1
  • Caroline Méjean
    • 1
  • Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot
    • 1
  • Clothilde Pollet
    • 1
  • Aurélie Malon
    • 1
  • Katia Castetbon
    • 2
  • Serge Hercberg
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.UREN (Unité de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle)U557 Inserm/U1125 Inra/Cnam/Paris 13, CRNH IdFBobignyFrance
  2. 2.USEN (Unité de Surveillance et d’Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle)Institut de Veille SanitaireBobignyFrance
  3. 3.Département de Santé PubliqueHôpital AvicenneBobignyFrance

Personalised recommendations