CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 146Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementSurvey Methodology and NonresponseCancer Risks and Factors

Accuracy and reliability of self-reported weight and height in the Sister Study

Open access
Lin, Cynthia J, DeRoo, Lisa A, Jacobs, Sara R, Sandler, Dale P·2012·Public Health Nutrition
DOI 10.1017/s1368980011003193PMC PMC3511620
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective: To assess the accuracy and reliability of self-reported weight and height and identify the factors associated with reporting accuracy. Design: Analysis of self-reported and measured weight and height from participants in the Sister Study (2003–2009), a nationwide cohort of 50 884 women aged 35–74 years in the USA with a sister with breast cancer. Setting: Weight and height were reported via computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) and self-administered questionnaires, and measured by examiners. Subjects: Early enrolees in the Sister Study. There were 18 639 women available for the accuracy analyses and 13 316 for the reliability analyses. Results: Using weighted kappa statistics, comparisons were made between CATI responses and examiner measures to assess accuracy and CATI and questionnaire responses to assess reliability. Polytomous logistic regression evaluated factors associated with over- or under-reporting. Compared with measured values, agreement was 96 % for reported height (±1 inch (±2·5 cm); weighted κ = 0·84) and 67 % for weight (±3 lb (±1·36 kg); weighted κ = 0·92). Obese women (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2) were more likely than normal-weight women to under-report weight by ≥5 % and underweight women (BMI < 18·5 kg/m 2) were more likely to over-report. Among normal-weight and overweight women (18·5 kg/m 2 ≤ BMI < 30 kg/m 2), weight cycling and lifetime weight difference ≥50 lb (≥22·68 kg) were associated with over-reporting. Conclusions: US women in the Sister Study were reasonably reliable and accurate in reporting weight and height. Women with normal-range BMI reported most accurately. Overweight and obese women and those with weight fluctuations were less accurate, but even among obese women, few under-reported their weight by >10 %.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1368980011003193

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The use of self-reported weight may limit accuracy.

    “Further limitations of the study include the use of self-reported weight (which may limit accuracy [38])”

    From Supporting Weight Management during COVID-19 (SWiM-C): twelve-month follow-up of a randomised controlled trial of a web-based, ACT-based, guided self-help intervention (2023) · cites this paper as [38]

  • Our findings indicate that SWiM-C reduced experiential avoidance and increased psychological flexibility.

    “Accordingly, our findings indicate that SWiM-C reduced experiential avoidance (i.e., attempts to control/avoid unwanted internal experiences such as negative emotions, thoughts, or cravings due to unwillingness to experience them [16, 27]) and increased psychological flexibility (i.e., the ability to act in accordance with personal values despite the presence of interfering emotions, thoughts, and”

    From Supporting Weight Management during COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Web-Based, ACT-Based, Guided Self-Help Intervention (2022) · cites this paper as [27]

    The citation appears beside the definition of experiential avoidance, while the reported SWiM-C effects are framed as the citing authors’ own findings. The cited paper’s Methods and Discussion examine the accuracy of self-reported weight and height; searches for SWiM-C, experiential avoidance, psychological flexibility, and the quoted definition found no passage addressing them. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lin, C. J., DeRoo, L. A., Jacobs, S. R., & Sandler, D. P.
Affiliations
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (US)
Corresponding author
Sandler, Dale P
ORCID
Venue
Public Health Nutrition
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2011-12-09
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
989-999
ISSN
  • 1368-9800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2727
DOI
10.1017/s1368980011003193
PMC
PMC3511620
OpenAlex
W2007620741
Cited by
146
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
6.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • Public Health Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1z01es044005-04, Z01‐ES044005)
  • National Cancer Institute (R25CA116339)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01 ES‐044005, T32ES007018)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Risks and Factors
Keywords
self-reported weight, self-reported height, measurement accuracy, reporting reliability, body mass index, obesity, underreporting, weight cycling, overweight women, women's health, Sister Study, breast cancer
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Body Height, Body Weight, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Middle Aged, Obesity, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reference Values, Thinness, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies, Body Mass Index, Logistic Models, Siblings, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review