Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:49:51.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Accuracy of self-reported waist and hip measurements in 4492 EPIC–Oxford participants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Elizabeth A Spencer ,
Andrew W Roddam  and
Timothy J Key
Elizabeth A Spencer*
Affiliation:
Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, OX2 6HE, UK
Andrew W Roddam
Affiliation:
Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, OX2 6HE, UK
Timothy J Key
Affiliation:
Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, OX2 6HE, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

To assess the accuracy of self-reported waist and hip circumferences and the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) by comparison with measured waist and hip circumferences and WHR in a sample of middle-aged men and women.

Design:

Analysis of measured and self-reported waist and hip data from participants in the Oxford cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC–Oxford).

Participants:

Four thousand four hundred and ninety-two British men and women aged 35–76 years.

Results:

Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between measured and self-reported waist, hip and WHR were 0.80, 0.74 and 0.44, respectively, for men and 0.83, 0.86 and 0.62 for women. Waist was underestimated, on average, by 3.1 (standard deviation (SD) 5.6) cm in men and 1.9 (SD 5.4) cm in women. The extent of underestimation was greater in participants with larger waists, older participants and women with greater body mass index (BMI). Hip was underestimated by a mean of 1.8 (SD 4.9) cm in men and 1.2 (SD 4.5) cm in women; the extent of underestimation was greater in participants with larger hip circumference and older participants. On average, WHR was underestimated by less than 2% by men and women; the extent of underestimation was greater among those with larger WHR, older people and those with greater BMI. Using self-reported values, the proportion of classification to the correct tertile was over 65% for waist and hip measurements. For WHR this proportion was 50% among men and 60% among women.

Conclusions:

Self-reported waist and hip measurements in EPIC–Oxford are sufficiently accurate for identifying relationships in epidemiological studies.

Keywords

AnthropometryHipWaistWaist-to-hip ratioBody mass indexAccuracy
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 7 , Issue 6 , September 2004 , pp. 723 - 727
Copyright
Copyright © CAB International 2004

References

1Han, TS, van Leer, EM, Seidell, JC, Lean, ME. Waist circumference action levels in the identification of cardiovascular risk factors: prevalence study in a random sample. British Medical Journal 1995; 311(7017): 1401–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Hall, TR, Young, TB. A validation study of body fat distribution as determined by self-measurement of waist and hip circumference. International Journal of Obesity 1989; 13(6): 801–7.Google ScholarPubMed
3Kushi, LH, Kaye, SA, Folsom, AR, Soler, JT, Prineas, RJ. Accuracy and reliability of self-measurement of body girths. American Journal of Epidemiology 1988; 128(4): 740–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Rimm, EB, Stampfer, MJ, Colditz, GA, Chute, CG, Litin, LB, Willett, WC. Validity of self-reported waist and hip circumferences in men and women. Epidemiology 1990; 1(6): 466–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Weaver, TW, Kushi, LH, McGovern, PG, Potter, JD, Rich, SS, King, RA, et al. Validation study of self-reported measures of fat distribution. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 1996; 20(7): 644–50.Google ScholarPubMed
6Freudenheim, JL, Darrow, SL. Accuracy of self-measurement of body fat distribution by waist, hip, and thigh circumferences. Nutrition and Cancer 1991; 15(3–4): 179–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Roberts, CA, Wilder, LB, Jackson, RT, Moy, TF, Becker, DM. Accuracy of self-measurement of waist and hip circumference in men and women. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1997; 97(5): 534–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Han, TS, Lean, ME. Self-reported waist circumference compared with the ‘Waist Watcher’ tape-measure to identify individuals at increased health risk through intra-abdominal fat accumulation. British Journal of Nutrition 1998; 80(1): 81–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Davey, GD, Spencer, EA, Appleby, PN, Allen, NE, Knox, KH, Key, TJ. EPIC-Oxford: lifestyle characteristics and nutrient intakes in a cohort of 33 883 meat-eaters and 31 546 non meat-eaters in the UK. Public Health Nutrition 2003; 6(3): 259–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Spencer, EA, Appleby, PN, Davey, GK, Key, TJ. Validity of self-reported height and weight in 4808 EPIC-Oxford participants. Public Health Nutrition 2002; 5(4): 561–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Ziebland, S, Thorogood, M, Fuller, A, Muir, J. Desire for the body normal: body image and discrepancies between self reported and measured height and weight in a British population. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1996; 50(1): 105–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar