Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-q9hcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-12T01:00:25.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validity of self-reported height and weight in 4808 EPIC–Oxford participants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Elizabeth A Spencer ,
Paul N Appleby ,
Gwyneth K Davey  and
Timothy J Key
Elizabeth A Spencer*
Affiliation:
Imperial Cancer Research Fund Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University of OxfordGibson Building, The Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK
Paul N Appleby
Affiliation:
Imperial Cancer Research Fund Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University of OxfordGibson Building, The Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK
Gwyneth K Davey
Affiliation:
Imperial Cancer Research Fund Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University of OxfordGibson Building, The Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK
Timothy J Key
Affiliation:
Imperial Cancer Research Fund Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University of OxfordGibson Building, The Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Email l.spencer@icrf.icnet.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

To assess the validity of self-reported height and weight by comparison with measured height and weight in a sample of middle-aged men and women, and to determine the extent of misclassification of body mass index (BMI) arising from differences between self-reported and measured values.

Design:

Analysis of self-reported and measured height and weight data from participants in the Oxford cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC–Oxford).

Subjects:

Four thousand eight hundred and eight British men and women aged 35–76 years.

Results:

Spearman rank correlations between self-reported and measured height, weight and BMI were high ( r <0.9, P >0.0001 ). Height was overestimated by a mean of 1.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–1.34) cm in men and 0.60 (0.51–0.70) cm in women; the extent of overestimation was greater in older men and women, shorter men and heavier women. Weight was underestimated by a mean of 1.85 (1.72–1.99) kg in men and 1.40 (1.31–1.49) kg in women; the extent of underestimation was greater in heavier men and women, but did not vary with age or height. Using standard categories of BMI, 22.4% of men and 18.0% of women were classified incorrectly based on self-reported height and weight. After correcting the self-reported values using predictive equations derived from a 10% sample of subjects, misclassification decreased to 15.2% in men and 13.8% in women.

Conclusions:

Self-reported height and weight data are valid for identifying relationships in epidemiological studies. In analyses where anthropometric factors are the primary variables of interest, measurements in a representative sample of the study population can be used to improve the accuracy of estimates of height, weight and BMI.

Keywords

AnthropometryHeightWeightBody mass indexValidity
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , August 2002 , pp. 561 - 565
Copyright
Copyright © CABI Publishing 2002

References

1National Audit Office. Tackling Obesity in England. London: The Stationery Office, 2001.Google Scholar
2Stewart, AL. The reliability and validity of self-reported weight and height. J. Chronic Dis. 1982; 35(4): 295–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Stunkard, AJ, Albaum, JM. The accuracy of self-reported weights. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1981; 34(8): 1593–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Weaver, TW, Kushi, LH, McGovern, PG, Potter, JD, Rich, SS, King, RA, Whitbeck, J, Greenstein, J, Sellers, TA. Validation study of self-reported measures of fat distribution. Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disorders 1996; 20(7): 644–50.Google ScholarPubMed
5Nieto-Garcia, FJ, Bush, TL, Keyl, PM. Body mass definitions of obesity: sensitivity and specificity using self-reported weight and height. Epidemiology 1990; 1(2): 146–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Palta, M, Prineas, RJ, Berman, R, Hannan, P. Comparison of self-reported and measured height and weight. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1982; 115(2): 223–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Pirie, P, Jacobs, D, Jeffery, R, Hannan, P. Distortion in self-reported height and weight data. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1981; 78(6): 601–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Rowland, ML. Self reported height and weight. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1990; 52: 1125–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Stata Corporation. Stata Statistical Software: Release 5.0. College Station, TX: Stata Press, 1997.Google Scholar
10Wing, RR, Epstein, LH, Ossip, DJ, LaPorte, RE. Reliability and validity of self-report and observers' estimates of relative weight. Addict. Behav. 1979; 4(2): 133–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Giles, E, Hutchinson, DL. Stature- and age-related bias in self-reported stature. J. Forensic Sci. 1991; 36(3): 765–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Ziebland, S, Thorogood, M, Fuller, A, Muir, J. Desire for the body normal: body image and discrepancies between self reported and measured height and weight in a British population. J Epidemiol. Community Health 1996; 50(1): 105–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Millar, WJ. Distribution of body weight and height: comparison of estimates based on self-reported and observed measures. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 1986; 40(4): 319–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Rimm, EB, Stampfer, MJ, Colditz, GA, Chute, CG, Litin, LB, Willett, WC. Validity of self-reported waist and hip circumferences in men and women. Epidemiology 1990; 1(6): 466–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed