Validity of self‐reported anthropometrics in Arabic‐speaking adults in Australia

Abstract

Issue addressed Body mass index (BMI) is generally accepted as a useful measurement for monitoring risk factors in adults. Although self‐reported anthropometric measurements are deemed to be more cost‐effective, its accuracy has been debated. While BMI based on self‐reported measures may have to be relied on, accuracy of reporting such measures among culturally and linguistically diverse groups is unknown. Methods Face‐to‐face surveys were conducted among 272 adults of Arabic‐speaking backgrounds living in south western Sydney using non‐probability sampling to collect data for directly measured and self‐reported BMI. Agreement between both measures was determined by the Cohen's kappa coefficient analyses. The Wilcoxon matched‐pairs signed‐ranks and Mann‐Whitney U tests were used to compare the differences in median values between both measures. The Bland‐Altman analysis was conducted to identify the limits of agreement between both measurements. Results There was substantial agreement between both self‐reported and directly measured data (kappa = 0.70). Significant small median differences were found between both direct and self‐reported overall BMI measure (27.58 vs 27.34; P < .0001) with a significantly greater median difference for females compared to males (0.76 vs 0.38 kg/m2; P = .05). However, the 95% limits of agreement were moderately large for BMI (−5.1 and 6.4). Conclusion Self‐reported data for height and weight are generally appropriate for calculating BMI for health promotion interventions among adults from Arabic‐speaking backgrounds but should be used cautiously when assessing BMI status at the individual level. So what? When limited resources are available for accomplishing health promotion interventions, self‐reporting measures may be used as a proxy for assessing BMI.

Validity of Recreational Marathon Runners’ Self-Reported Anthropometric Data

“…The findings of our study should be considered with caution given our sample size and should be verified in future studies using larger samples. We acknowledge that our sample size (n ¼ 167) was smaller than that of studies participants in the general population (e.g., n ¼ 272, Arjunan et al, 2019). In addition, our participants were aware that they were going to be measured for actual height and body mass subsequent to completing questionnaires on which they self-reported these variables; this knowledge may have influenced the degree of bias they expressed, perhaps helping to explain a smaller bias in this sample than in studies with participants in the general population.…”

Anthropometric assessment in ambulatory nutrition amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Possibilities for the remote and in-person care

“…The use of self-reported measures based on recall or estimation of body size has been validated [ [53] , [54] , [55] , [56] , [57] ] for use when direct measurements are not possible. It has been shown that the gap between the BMI calculated from body measures obtained directly by the health professional and from self-reported measures by recall has only a mild influence on the clinical evaluation of the patient performed by the professional [ 36 ], reinforcing the potential for their use in the remote assessment when direct measurements cannot be taken.…”

“…Nevertheless, self-reported measures must be adopted sparingly due to the inherent limitations and risks of error [ 53 , [57] , [58] , [59] , [60] , [61] ], especially when the goal is to assess changes over time. In general, reporting estimated height tends to be more difficult than weight, especially by adults and the elderly of low resource settings, as their body size is not frequently measured in health services and this could undermine recollection.…”