Background/Objectives: Nutritional research emphasizes evaluating food processing levels alongside nutrient content. The Nova system categorizes foods as minimally processed foods (MPFs), processed culinary ingredients (PCIs), processed foods (PFs), and ultra-processed foods (UPFs). High UPF consumption is linked to adverse health outcomes in older adults. Traditional Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQs) often fail to capture processing differences. This study evaluated the reproducibility and relative validity of a Nova-based FFQ (NFFQ-Elderly) in Italian healthy older adults aged ≥65 years. Methods: A total of 111 older adults (73.7 ± 5.9 years; 56.8% women) completed the NFFQ-Elderly twice (4–6 weeks interval). Relative validity was compared with a three-day weighed food record. Foods were categorized by Nova groups and analyzed for absolute intake, energy and weight percentages. Pearson correlation (r), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Bland–Altman plots were used. Results: Reproducibility was satisfactory for MPFs (r = 0.75; ICC = 0.74), UPFs (r = 0.87; ICC = 0.85), and PFs (r ≈ 0.73; ICC ≈ 0.66–0.67). Relative validity was moderate for MPFs (r = 0.57; ICC = 0.53) and UPFs (r = 0.48; ICC ≈ 0.37), but lower for PCIs. Accuracy generally improved when intakes were expressed as percentages of total energy or weight. Bland–Altman analyses showed limited mean bias for MPFs and PFs, but higher variability for PCIs and absolute energy intake. Conclusions: The NFFQ-Elderly appears to be a suitable tool for ranking older adults according to their relative intake of MPFs and UPFs. Estimates for PCIs are less reliable, indicating caution when interpreting absolute intake values.

Reproducibility and Validity of a Nova-Based Food Frequency Questionnaire in Older Italian Adults: The NFFQ-Elderly

Formisano A.;Dello Russo M.;Ruggiero E.;Marena P.;Lauria F.
2026

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Nutritional research emphasizes evaluating food processing levels alongside nutrient content. The Nova system categorizes foods as minimally processed foods (MPFs), processed culinary ingredients (PCIs), processed foods (PFs), and ultra-processed foods (UPFs). High UPF consumption is linked to adverse health outcomes in older adults. Traditional Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQs) often fail to capture processing differences. This study evaluated the reproducibility and relative validity of a Nova-based FFQ (NFFQ-Elderly) in Italian healthy older adults aged ≥65 years. Methods: A total of 111 older adults (73.7 ± 5.9 years; 56.8% women) completed the NFFQ-Elderly twice (4–6 weeks interval). Relative validity was compared with a three-day weighed food record. Foods were categorized by Nova groups and analyzed for absolute intake, energy and weight percentages. Pearson correlation (r), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Bland–Altman plots were used. Results: Reproducibility was satisfactory for MPFs (r = 0.75; ICC = 0.74), UPFs (r = 0.87; ICC = 0.85), and PFs (r ≈ 0.73; ICC ≈ 0.66–0.67). Relative validity was moderate for MPFs (r = 0.57; ICC = 0.53) and UPFs (r = 0.48; ICC ≈ 0.37), but lower for PCIs. Accuracy generally improved when intakes were expressed as percentages of total energy or weight. Bland–Altman analyses showed limited mean bias for MPFs and PFs, but higher variability for PCIs and absolute energy intake. Conclusions: The NFFQ-Elderly appears to be a suitable tool for ranking older adults according to their relative intake of MPFs and UPFs. Estimates for PCIs are less reliable, indicating caution when interpreting absolute intake values.
2026
Istituto di Scienze dell'Alimentazione - ISA
dietary assessment
food frequency questionnaire
Nova classification
older adults
reproducibility
ultra-processed foods
validation
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14243/583003
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ente

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact