Cited by 1,015Body Composition Measurement TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Validity of Self-Reported Waist and Hip Circumferences in Men and Women

Open access
Rimm, Eric B., Stampfer, Meir J., Colditz, Graham A., Chute, Christopher G., Litin, Lisa B., Willett, Walter C.·1990·Epidemiology

Abstract

Recent epidemiologic evidence indicates an association between fat distribution and many diseases. To assess the validity of circumference measurements obtained by self-report, the authors analyzed data from 123 men aged 40-75 years and 140 women aged 41-65 years, drawn from two large ongoing prospective studies. On mailed questionnaires, subjects were asked to measure and record their weight and waist and hip circumferences. These data were compared with standardized measurements taken approximately six months apart by technicians who visited participants at their homes. Crude Pearson correlations between self-reported waist circumferences and the average of two technician-measured waist circumferences were 0.95 for men and 0.89 for women. Similar correlations for hip measurements were 0.88 for men and 0.84 for women, and for waist-to-hip ratios, 0.69 for men and 0.70 for women. After adjusting for age and body mass index (kg/m2), correlations for waist-to-hip ratios were 0.55 for men and 0.58 for women. Correlations became stronger after correcting for random within-person variability from daily or seasonal fluctuations. Self-reported and measured weights were highly correlated: 0.97 for men and 0.97 for women. Self-reported waist, hip, and weight measurements appear reasonably valid. The moderate degree of measurement error for the ratio of self-reported waist and hip circumferences, however, implies that previously reported associations based on self-report of these measures may have been appreciably underestimated.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00001648-199011000-00009

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rimm, E. B., Stampfer, M. J., Colditz, G. A., Chute, C. G., Litin, L. B., & Willett, W. C.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
Venue
Epidemiology
Published
1990-11
Volume
1
Issue
6
Pages
466-473
ISSN
1044-3983 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2087327978
Cited by
1,015
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 46
FWCI
2.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Public Health Service (5T32 E507069)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL035464, HL35464)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (DK 36798, R01DK036798)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
hip circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, measurement validity, measurement error, body fat distribution, body mass index, self-reported weight, sex differences, within-person variability
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Anthropometry, Body Constitution, Body Weight, Epidemiologic Methods, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies

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