This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Comparison of self-reported and measured height and weight: Implications for obesity research among young adults

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Danubio, Maria Enrica
Miranda, Gaetano
Vinciguerra, Maria Giulia
Vecchi, Elvira
Rufo, Fabrizio
Abstract

Background The use of self-reported data in epidemiological surveys leads to misclassification of the prevalence of obesity as the participants overestimate or underestimate height, weight and/or both. Such misclassifications vary according to gender, age, status and ethnicity.Objectives To estimate on a sample of youth of both sexes (1) the difference between self-reported data and measured height and weight and (2) the extent of misclassification of BMI deriving from such differences.Methods Self-reporting in questionnaires and subsequent measurements of height and weight conducted by trained personnel. The mean values and the BMIs were calculated.Results Both sexes overestimate height (2.1 and 2.8Â cm for males and females, respectively), and underestimate weight (1.5 and 1.9Â kg for males and females, respectively). Consequently the BMI is underestimated (1.1 and 1.5 points for males and females, respectively). The classification of BMI from self-reported data shows underestimation of overweight in both sexes (8 percentage points) and of obese males (3.3 percentage points), an overestimation of normal weight (12.2 and 4.3 percentage points for males and females, respectively) and an excessive underweight in the girls (4.3 percentage points).Conclusions There is a difference between self-reported and measured data and self-reported biases are reflected in the classification of the participants in the 4 categories of BMI.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B73DX-4NFH0DH-1/1/1cc177ba0633c1cdc5a36d9c3b102507
File Format:
File Function:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Economics and Human Biology.

Volume (Year): 6 (2008)
Issue (Month): 1 (March)
Pages: 181-190
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:eee:ehbiol:v:6:y:2008:i:1:p:181-190

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622964

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Heidi Boesdal).

Related research
Keywords:

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You too can volunteer with RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2009-1-6.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.