Evaluation of short dietary questions from the 1995 National Nutrition Survey

Six of the short dietary questions used in the 1995 National Nutrition Survey (see box below) were evaluated for relative validity both directly and indirectly and for consistency, by documenting the differences in mean intakes of foods and nutrients as measured on the 24-hour recall, between groups with different responses to the short questions. 1. Including snacks, how many times do you usually have something to eat in a day including evenings? 2. How many days per week do you usually have something to eat for breakfast? 3. In the last 12 months, were there any times that you ran out of food and couldn’t afford to buy more? 4. What type of milk do you usually consume? 5. How many serves of vegetables do you usually eat each day? (a serve = 1/2 cup cooked vegetables or 1 cup of salad vegetables) 6. How many serves of fruit do you usually eat each day? (a serve = 1 medium piece or 2 small pieces of fruit or 1 cup of diced pieces) These comparisons were made for males and females overall and for population sub-groups of interest including: age, socio-economic disadvantage, region of residence, country of birth, and BMI category. Several limitations to this evaluation of the short questions, as discussed in the report, need to be kept in mind including: · The method for comparison available (24-hour recall) was not ideal (gold standard); as it measures yesterday’s intake. This limitation was overcome by examining only mean differences between groups of respondents, since mean intake for a group can provide a reasonable approximation for ‘usual’ intake. · The need to define and identify, post-hoc, from the 24-hour recall the number of eating occasions, and occasions identified by the respondents as breakfast. · Predetermined response categories for some of the questions effectively limited the number of categories available for evaluation. · Other foods and nutrients, not selected for this evaluation, may have an indirect relationship with the question, and might have shown stronger and more consistent responses. · The number of responses in some categories of the short questions eg for food security may have been too small to detect significant differences between population sub-groups. · No information was available to examine the validity of these questions for detecting differences over time (establishing trends) in food habits and indicators of selected nutrient intakes. By contrast, the strength of this evaluation was its very large sample size, (atypical of most validation studies of dietary assessment) and thus, the opportunity to investigate question performance in a range of broad population sub-groups compared with a well-conducted, quantified survey of intakes. The results of the evaluation are summarised below for each of the questions and specific recommendations for future testing, modifications and use provided for each question. The report concludes with some general recommendations for the further development and evaluation of short dietary questions.

An Economic Analysis of the Legal Concept of Trustees' Power of Investment

Authorised trustee status is a legal concept which has economic implications; one of the major implications is that it assists in the direction of investment funds into particular securities and areas of the economy. The concept of authorised trustee status, while attempting to achieve specific outcomes for the beneficiaries of trusts cannot be relied upon to secure these results. Economic analysis of the role of the trustee maintains that this role is one of portfolio manager; a role which is complex but which is explicable in terms of definable procedures and practices. The role of trustee as portfolio manager is one which requires greater financial knowledge than can be assumed is possessed by all trustees. The trustee as portfolio manager is required to maintain a review of decisions make under powers to invest trust assets. A solution to the problem of authorised trustee status is proposed. The solution takes two parts: the first is the adoption of the prudent person approach but with the codification of duties of the trustee and the explicit listing of the factors that a trustee should consider in using the investment powers. The second part of the proposed solution is to link the investment powers of trustees to the best practice features of securities advisers who are now licensed by a regulatory body, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.