COMPARISON OF THE TRADITIONAL PAPER VISUAL ANALOG SCALE QUESTIONNAIREWITH AN APPLE-NEWTON ELECTRONIC APPETITE RATING SYSTEM (EARS) IN FREE-LIVING SUBJECTS FEEDING AD-LIBITUM

Objective: Assessing the value of a newly developed electronic visual analogue scale questionnaire (Apple Newton Message Pad) with the tradi tional paper method for appetite rating. Design: In a random, crossove r design, subjects completed both electronic and paper questionnaires to compare results obtained by the two methods; individual methods wer e completed consecutively to assess test-retest reliability; preferenc e was established using a questionnaire. Setting/Subjects: Healthy, fr ee-living adults were studied for comparison of methods (n=12), test-r etest reliability (n = 8) and preference (n = 13). Intervention: Visua l analogue scales were completed each waking hour to assess appetite. Preference was assessed after both methods were completed. Results: Th ere was no significant difference in the hourly results obtained by th e paper and electronic methods for 'desire to eat', 'how much can you eat now', 'urge to eat' and 'preoccupation with thoughts of food'. Sma ll differences in 'hunger' and 'fullness' ratings were noted (similar to 5% mean difference between methods, P < 0.05), but patterns of chan ge and sensitivity for these and all other parameters remained similar for both methods across the visual analogue scale. Test-retest reliab ility demonstrated was similar for both methods. Seven (54%) subjects preferred to use the paper questionnaire, five (38%) the electronic me thod and one (8%) had no preference. Conclusions: The electronic Apple Newton questionnaire is as sensitive and reliable as the paper method , has the advantage that it automatically records the time of data acq uisition and data collection and processing are more efficient for the researcher. The two methods should not be used interchangeably.