The reliability of in-home measures of height and weight in large cohort studies

Abstract

Background With the emergence of obesity as a global health issue an increasing number of major demographic surveys are collecting measured anthropometric data. Yet little is known about the characteristics and reliability of these data. Objectives We evaluate the accuracy and reliability of anthropometric data collected in the home during Wave IV of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), compare our estimates to national standard, clinic-based estimates from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and, using both sources, provide a detailed anthropometric description of young adults in the United States. Methods The reliability of Add Health in-home anthropometric measures was estimated from repeat examinations of a random subsample of study participants. A digit preference analysis evaluated the quality of anthropometric data recorded by field interviewers. The adjusted odds of obesity and central obesity in Add Health vs. NHANES were estimated with logistic regression. Results Short-term reliabilities of in-home measures of height, weight, waist and arm circumference—as well as derived body mass index (BMI, kg/m2)—were excellent. Prevalence of obesity (37% vs. 29%) and central obesity (47% vs. 38%) was higher in Add Health than in NHANES while socio-demographic patterns of obesity and central obesity were comparable in the two studies. Conclusions Properly trained non-medical field interviewers can collect reliable anthropometric data in a nationwide, home visit study. This national cohort of young adults in the United States faces a high risk of early-onset chronic disease and premature mortality.

Sex and racial/ethnic differences in the association between childhood attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom subtypes and body mass index in the transition from adolescence to adulthood in the United States

“…Height and weight were measured in Waves II, III, and IV using a tape measure and a digital scale by trained nonmedical field interviewers; height was measured to the nearest 0.5 cm, and weight was measured to the nearest 0.1 kg . Information on BMI was obtained by calculating weight (kg) divided by squared height (m 2 ).…”

Voice disorders and associated risk markers among young adults in the United States

“…Self‐reported health was assessed as: “In general, how is your health?” Frequency of cigarette smoking among the past 30 days and frequency of alcohol consumption in the past 12 months were asked. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated from standing height measured with a steel tape and weight measured with a high capacity digital bathroom scale . Normal weight status was defined as BMI <25.0 kg/m 2 and overweight as BMI between 25.0 and 29.9 kg/m 2 .…”

“…Body mass index (BMI) was calculated from standing height measured with a steel tape and weight measured with a high capacity digital bathroom scale. 18 Normal weight status was defined as BMI <25.0 kg/m 2 and overweight as BMI between 25.0 and 29.9 kg/m 2 . Class 1 obesity was defined as BMI between 30 and 34.9 kg/m 2 , class 2 obesity as BMI between 35.0 and 39.9 kg/m 2 , and class 3 obesity as BMI 40.0 kg/m 2 .…”

Does Knowing Hurt? Perceiving Oneself as Overweight Predicts Future Physical Health and Well-Being

“…These readings were used to estimate BMI in kg/m 2 . A quality control study where participants were tested and then retested 1 -2 weeks later, showed that the assessment methods used produced highly reliable height, weight, and BMI measures (intra-class correlation coefficients from 0.98 -1.00; Hussey et al, 2015).…”