• Phoenix Epidemiology and Clinical Research Branch, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Phoenix, AZ, United States. Electronic address: changdc@mail.nih.gov.
• Phoenix Epidemiology and Clinical Research Branch, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
• Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, United States.
• Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, United States.
• Department of Nutritional Sciences, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States.
• Information Management Services, Inc., Rockville, MD, United States.
• Arizona State University, Hydration Science Lab, Phoenix, AZ, United States.

BACKGROUND: Although prior evidence indicates that water intake is important for health, the ability to accurately measure community-dwelling intake is limited. Only a few studies have evaluated self-reported water intake against an objective recovery biomarker.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to compare preformed water intakes (all sources including food) by multiple Automated Self-Administered 24-h recalls (ASA24s), food frequency questionnaires (FFQs), and 4-d food records (4DFRs) against a recovery biomarker, doubly labeled water (DLW), to assess measurement error.

METHODS: Over 1 y, 1082 women and men (50%), aged 50 to 74 y, were asked to complete 6 ASA24s, 2 FFQs, 2 unweighted 4DFRs, and an administration of DLW (n = 686). Geometric means of water intake by self-report tools were compared with DLW. Attenuation factors and correlation coefficients between self-reported and the recovery biomarker (DLW) were estimated.

RESULTS: Mean water intakes by DLW were 2777 mL/d (interquartile range, 2350 to 3331) in women and 3243 mL/d (interquartile range, 2720 to 3838) in men. Compared with DLW, water intake was underestimated by 18% to 31% on ASA24s and 43% to 44% on 4DFRs. Estimated geometric means from FFQs differed from DLW by -1% to +13%. For a single ASA24, FFQ, and 4DFR, attenuation factors were 0.28, 0.27, and 0.32 and correlation coefficients were 0.46, 0.48, and 0.49, respectively. Repeated use of 6 ASA24s, 2 FFQs, and 2 4DFRs improved attenuation factors to 0.43, 0.32, and 0.39 and correlation coefficients to 0.58, 0.53, and 0.54, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: FFQs may better estimate population means for usual water intake compared with ASA24 and 4DFR. Similar attenuation factors and correlation coefficients across all self-report tools indicate that researchers have 3 feasible options if the goal is understanding intake-disease relationships. The findings are useful for planning future nutrition studies that set policy priorities for populations and to understand the health impact of water. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03268577.