Validity of Self-Reported Birth Weight: Results from a Norwegian Twin Sample

15Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The association between birth weight and later life outcomes is of considerable interest in life-course epidemiology. Research often relies on self-reported measures of birth weight, and its validity is consequently of importance. We assessed agreement between self-reported birth weight and official birth records for Norwegian twins born 1967-1974. The intraclass correlation between self-reported birth weight and register-based birth weight was 0.91 in our final sample of 363 twins. It could be expected that 95% of self-reported birth-weight values will deviate from official records within a maximum of +446 grams and a minimum of -478 grams - around a mean deviation of 16 grams. Self-reported birth weight had a sensitivity of 0.78-0.89 and a positive predictive value of 0.59-0.85, and an overall weighted kappa of 0.71. We further assessed agreement by conducting two linear regression models where we respectively regressed self-reported birth weight and register-based birth weight on adult body mass index, a known association. The two models were not significantly different; however, there were different levels of significance in parameter estimates that warrant some caution in using self-reported birth weight. Reliability of self-reported birth weight was also assessed, based on self-reports in another sample of twins born 1935-1960 who had reported their birth weight in two questionnaires 34 years apart. The intraclass correlation was 0.86, which indicates a high degree of reliability. In conclusion, self-reported birth weight, depending on context and age when birth weight was reported, can be cautiously used.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nilsen, T. S., Kutschke, J., Brandt, I., & Harris, J. R. (2017). Validity of Self-Reported Birth Weight: Results from a Norwegian Twin Sample. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 20(5), 406–413. https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2017.44

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free