Effects of differential measurement error in self-reported diet in longitudinal lifestyle intervention studies

Abstract

BackgroundLifestyle intervention studies often use self-reported measures of diet as an outcome variable to measure changes in dietary intake. The presence of measurement error in self-reported diet due to participant failure to accurately report their diet is well known. Less familiar to researchers is differential measurement error, where the nature of measurement error differs by treatment group and/or time. Differential measurement error is often present in intervention studies and can result in biased estimates of the treatment effect and reduced power to detect treatment effects. Investigators need to be aware of the impact of differential measurement error when designing intervention studies that use self-reported measures.MethodsWe use simulation to assess the consequences of differential measurement error on the ability to estimate treatment effects in a two-arm randomized trial with two time points. We simulate data under a variety of scenarios, focusing on how different factors affect power to detect a treatment effect, bias of the treatment effect, and coverage of the 95% confidence interval of the treatment effect. Simulations use realistic scenarios based on data from the Trials of Hypertension Prevention Study. Simulated sample sizes ranged from 110-380 per group.ResultsRealistic differential measurement error seen in lifestyle intervention studies can require an increased sample size to achieve 80% power to detect a treatment effect and may result in a biased estimate of the treatment effect.ConclusionsInvestigators designing intervention studies that use self-reported measures should take differential measurement error into account by increasing their sample size, incorporating an internal validation study, and/or identifying statistical methods to correct for differential measurement error.