Reliability and criterion validity of self-measured waist, hip, and neck circumferences.
Reliability and criterion validity of self-measured waist, hip, and neck circumferences.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12874-016-0150-2
复制
发表时间：
2016-05-04
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Byrd-Bredbenner C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barrios P;Martin-Biggers J;Quick V;Byrd-Bredbenner C
腰围、臀围和颈围测量是一种成本效益高、无创、有用的身体脂肪分布和疾病风险标志。对于流行病学和干预研究，在自我报告调查中包括体围测量可能会提供信息。然而，很少有研究评估的重测信度和效标效度的自我报告工具，可用于大规模的研究。在家里，年幼孩子的母亲观看了一个简短的在线教学视频，介绍如何测量他们的腰围、臀围和颈围。之后，他们用剪刀和胶带从下载的文件中制作了一个自制的纸卷尺，测量了所有的尺寸，并将其输入到在线调查中。几周后，参与者参观了人体测量实验室，在那里他们再次测量自己，训练有素的技术人员（n = 9）使用标准设备和程序测量参与者的两次。为了评估自我测量和技术人员测量的周长之间的差异，对参与者家庭自我测量、参与者实验室自我测量和技术人员测量的重复测量值进行平均，并进行Wilcoxon符号秩检验。使用组内相关性（ICC）和Bland-Altman图检查所有可能的测量值对之间的一致性。参与者（n = 41;年龄38.05 ± 3.54 SD岁; 71%为白色）均为至少有一个12岁以下孩子的母亲。自我和技术人员重复测量的测量技术误差变化很小（0.08至0.76英寸），可靠性非常高（≥0.90）。组内相关性（ICC）比较自己与技术人员高（0.97，0.96，0.84腰，髋关节和颈部）。家庭与实验室自我测量的比较显示了较高的重测信度（ICC ≥ 0.87）。参与者自我测量和技术人员测量之间的差异很小（即，平均差异范围为-0.13至0.06英寸），几乎所有（≥ 93%）差异均在Bland-Altman一致性限度内，<10%的差异超过先验临床有意义的差异标准。本研究提供了一种简单、廉价的方法，可用于指导幼儿的新手母亲测量自己的身体围度，从而获得准确、可靠的数据。因此，在未来的研究中收集自我测量和自我报告的周长数据可能是研究方案中的一种可行方法，有可能扩展我们对身体组成的了解，超越自我报告的身体质量指数。
Waist, hip, and neck circumference measurements are cost-effective, non-invasive, useful markers for body fat distribution and disease risk. For epidemiology and intervention studies, including body circumference measurements in self-report surveys could be informative. However, few studies have assessed the test-retest reliability and criterion validity of a self-report tool feasible for use in large scale studies. At home, mothers of young children viewed a brief, online instructional video on how to measure their waist, hip, and neck circumferences. Afterwards, they created a homemade paper measuring tape from a downloaded file with scissors and tape, took all measurements in duplicate, and entered them into an online survey. A few weeks later, participants visited an anthropometrics lab where they measured themselves again, and trained technicians (n = 9) measured participants in duplicate using standard equipment and procedures. To assess differences between self- and technician-measured circumferences, duplicate measurements for participant home self-measurements, participant lab self-measurements, and technician measurements each were averaged and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests conducted. Agreement between all possible pairs of measurements were examined using Intraclass Correlations (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots. Participants (n = 41; aged 38.05 ± 3.54SD years; 71 % white) were all mothers that had at least one child under the age of 12 yrs. Technical error of measurements for self- and technician- duplicate measurements varied little (0.08 to 0.76 inches) and had very high reliability (≥0.90). Intraclass Correlations (ICC) comparing self vs technician were high (0.97, 0.96, and 0.84 for waist, hip, and neck). Comparison of self-measurements at home vs lab revealed high test-retest reliability (ICC ≥ 0.87). Differences between participant self- and technician measurements were small (i.e., mean difference ranged from −0.13 to 0.06 inches) with nearly all (≥93 %) differences within Bland-Altman limits of agreement and <10 % exceeding the a priori clinically meaningful difference criterion. This study has demonstrated a simple, inexpensive method for teaching novice mothers of young children to take their own body circumferences resulting in accurate, reliable data. Thus, collecting self-measured and self-reported circumference data in future studies may be a feasible approach in research protocols that has potential to expand our knowledge of body composition beyond that provided by self-reported body mass indexes.