Validation of self-reported height and weight in a large, nationwide cohort of U.S. adults

228Citations
Citations of this article
133Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Height and weight are commonly used metrics in epidemiologic studies to calculate body mass index. Large cohort studies generally assess height and weight by self-report rather than by measurement. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of self-reported height and weight in the Cancer Prevention Study-3 (CPS-3), a large, nationwide cohort recruited by the American Cancer Society between 2006-2013. Methods In a subset of CPS-3 participants (n = 2,643), weight and height were assessed at the same time via self-report and in-person measurement. BMI was calculated and classified underweight (<18.5 kg/m2), normal (18.5-<25 kg/m2), overweight (25-<30 kg/m2), or obese (≥30 kg/m2). Self-reported and measured height, weight, and BMI were compared using mean differences and Bland-Altman plots and examined by sex, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, age group, and BMI category. Results Men and women slightly overreported height and underreported weight. BMI calculated from self-reported data was lower than for measured data for men and women. In analyses stratified by race/ethnicity, age, education, and marital status, older women and women with less than a college degree overreported height. Approximately 13% of men and 7% of women were misclassified into a lower self-reported BMI category, with misclassification of BMI being greatest in obese men and women. Conclusions Overall, height, weight, and BMI were well-reported, and this study further suggests that BMI computed from self-reported weight and height is a valid measure in men and women across different socio-demographic groups.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hodge, J. M., Shah, R., McCullough, M. L., Gapstur, S. M., & Patel, A. V. (2020). Validation of self-reported height and weight in a large, nationwide cohort of U.S. adults. PLoS ONE, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231229

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