BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Studies of adolescents often use self-assessment of pubertal maturation, the reliability of which has shown conflicting results. We aimed to examine the reliability of child and parent assessments of healthy boys and girls. METHODS: A total of 898 children (418 girls, 480 boys, age 7.4-14.9 years) and 1173 parents (550 daughters, 623 sons, age 5.6-14.7 years) assessed onset of puberty or development of breasts, genitals, and pubic hair according to Tanner stages by use of a questionnaire and drawings. Physicians' assessments were blinded and set as the gold standard. Percentage agreement, κ, and Kendall's correlation were used to analyze the agreement rates. RESULTS: Breast stage was assessed correctly by 44.9% of the girls (κ = 0.28, r = 0.74, P < .001) and genital stage by 54.7% of the boys (κ = 0.33, r = 0.61, P < .001). For pubic hair stage 66.8% of girls (κ = 0.55, r = 0.80, P < .001) and 66.1% of boys (κ = 0.46, r = 0.70, P < .001) made correct assessments. Of the parents, 86.2% correctly assessed onset of puberty in girls (κ = 0.70, r = 0.71, P < .001) and 68.4% in boys (κ = 0.30, r = 0.37, P < .001). Children who underestimated were younger and children who overestimated older than their peers who made correct assessments. Girls and their parents tended to underestimate, whereas boys overestimated their pubertal stage. CONCLUSIONS: Pubertal assessment by the child or the parents is not a reliable measure of exact pubertal staging and should be augmented by a physical examination. However, for large epidemiologic studies self-assessment can be sufficiently accurate for a simple distinction between prepuberty and puberty.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Studies of adolescents often use self-assessment of pubertal maturation, the reliability of which has shown conflicting results. We aimed to examine the reliability of child and parent assessments of healthy boys and girls. METHODS: A total of 898 children (418 girls, 480 boys, age 7.4-14.9 years) and 1173 parents (550 daughters, 623 sons, age 5.6-14.7 years) assessed onset of puberty or development of breasts, genitals, and pubic hair according to Tanner stages by use of a questionnaire and drawings. Physicians' assessments were blinded and set as the gold standard. Percentage agreement, κ, and Kendall's correlation were used to analyze the agreement rates. RESULTS: Breast stage was assessed correctly by 44.9% of the girls (κ = 0.28, r = 0.74, P < .001) and genital stage by 54.7% of the boys (κ = 0.33, r = 0.61, P < .001). For pubic hair stage 66.8% of girls (κ = 0.55, r = 0.80, P < .001) and 66.1% of boys (κ = 0.46, r = 0.70, P < .001) made correct assessments. Of the parents, 86.2% correctly assessed onset of puberty in girls (κ = 0.70, r = 0.71, P < .001) and 68.4% in boys (κ = 0.30, r = 0.37, P < .001). Children who underestimated were younger and children who overestimated older than their peers who made correct assessments. Girls and their parents tended to underestimate, whereas boys overestimated their pubertal stage. CONCLUSIONS: Pubertal assessment by the child or the parents is not a reliable measure of exact pubertal staging and should be augmented by a physical examination. However, for large epidemiologic studies self-assessment can be sufficiently accurate for a simple distinction between prepuberty and puberty.
Authors: Mary Beth Terry; Mandy Goldberg; Sarah Schechter; Lauren C Houghton; Melissa L White; Karen O'Toole; Wendy K Chung; Mary B Daly; Theresa H M Keegan; Irene L Andrulis; Angela R Bradbury; Lisa Schwartz; Julia A Knight; Esther M John; Saundra S Buys Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: M S Rønne; M Heidemann; A Schou; J O Laursen; A B Bojesen; L Lylloff; S Husby; N Wedderkopp; C Mølgaard Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Louise Fugl; Casper P Hagen; Mikkel G Mieritz; Jeanette Tinggaard; Eva Fallentin; Katharina M Main; Anders Juul Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 3.756
Authors: Marisa G Stahl; Fran Dong; Molly M Lamb; Kathleen C Waugh; Iman Taki; Ketil Størdal; Lars C Stene; Marian J Rewers; Edwin Liu; Jill M Norris; Karl Mårild Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 2.423
Authors: E Andrew Pitchford; Chelsea Adkins; Rebecca E Hasson; Joseph E Hornyak; Dale A Ulrich Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Jorge E Chavarro; Deborah J Watkins; Myriam C Afeiche; Zhenzhen Zhang; Brisa N Sánchez; David Cantonwine; Adriana Mercado-García; Clara Blank-Goldenberg; John D Meeker; Martha María Téllez-Rojo; Karen E Peterson Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Jihui Zhang; Ngan Yin Chan; Siu Ping Lam; Shirley Xin Li; Yaping Liu; Joey W Y Chan; Alice Pik Shan Kong; Ronald C W Ma; Kate C C Chan; Albert Martin Li; Yun-Kwok Wing Journal: Sleep Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 5.849