Literature DB >> 7058781

Comparison of self-reported and measured height and weight.

M Palta, R J Prineas, R Berman, P Hannan.   

Abstract

Screening data from the Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program in Minneapolis, MN, 1973-1974, provided an opportunity to evaluate the accuracy of self-report of height and weight. It was found that both were reported, on the average, with small but systematic errors. Large errors were found in certain population subgroups. Also, men and women differed somewhat in their pattern of misreporting. Weight was understated by 1.6% by men and 3.1% by women, whereas height was overstated by 1.3% by men and 0.6% by women. As in previous studies, it was found that the most important correlates of the amount of error were the actual measurements of height and weight. An interesting finding was that misreporting of both height and weight in men was correlated with both aspects of body size, whereas for women, it was related mainly to the characteristic in question. Certain other demographic variables, such as age and educational level, were also found to have some importance as factors influencing misreporting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7058781     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113294

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  133 in total

1.  Refining the association between education and health: the effects of quantity, credential, and selectivity.

Authors:  C E Ross; J Mirowsky
Journal:  Demography       Date:  1999-11

2.  Older adults need guidance to meet nutritional recommendations.

Authors:  J A Foote; A R Giuliano; R B Harris
Journal:  J Am Coll Nutr       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.169

3.  Anthropometric measurements and body silhouette of women: validity and perception.

Authors:  B Tehard; M J van Liere; C Com Nougué; F Clavel-Chapelon
Journal:  J Am Diet Assoc       Date:  2002-12

4.  Can self-reported height and weight be used to calculate 10 year risk of osteoporotic fracture?

Authors:  M J Bridges; S Ruddick
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 4.075

5.  Patient Barriers to Mammography Identified During a Reminder Program.

Authors:  Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; A Gabriela Rosales; Jennifer Schneider; Mary M Rix; Russell E Glasgow
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 2.681

6.  Relation between leptin and body fat distribution in menopausal status.

Authors:  P A Martínez-Carpio; C Fiol; I Hurtado; C Arias; E Ruiz; P Orozco; A Corominas
Journal:  J Physiol Biochem       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.158

7.  The Behavioral Risk Factor Survey and the Stanford Five-City Project Survey: a comparison of cardiovascular risk behavior estimates.

Authors:  C Jackson; D E Jatulis; S P Fortmann
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Trends in professional advice to lose weight among obese adults, 1994 to 2000.

Authors:  J Elizabeth Jackson; Mark P Doescher; Barry G Saver; L Gary Hart
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  How should gestational weight gain be assessed? A comparison of existing methods and a novel method, area under the weight gain curve.

Authors:  Ken P Kleinman; Emily Oken; Jenny S Radesky; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Karen E Peterson; Matthew W Gillman
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-22       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 10.  Clinical assessment and management of obesity in individuals with spinal cord injury: a review.

Authors:  Suparna Rajan; Marguerite J McNeely; Catherine Warms; Barry Goldstein
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.985

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.