Precision of recumbent anthropometry

In some studies recumbent anthropometric measures are more appropriate than standing measures. There is little published information, however, on the precision of recumbent measures. To estimate the interobserver precision of recumbent anthropometry, 22 men and 29 women volunteers 35–64 years of age were each measured on the same day by four trained nurses previously inexperienced in anthropometry. Fourteen recumbent measurements were taken, including abdominal sagittal diameter measured with a new type of caliper. The nurses also measured standing waist and hip girths. Various indicators of interobserver precision were estimated including the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The ICC ranged from 98.5% for calf girth to 56.2% for the suprailiac skinfold in men, while it ranged from 95.8% for upper arm girth to 67.0% for the suprailiac skinfold in women. The abdominal sagittal diameter measurement had very high precision as estimated by the ICC in both men and women, 95.8% and 96.3%, respectively. Recumbent waist girth was, on average, only 0.3 cm larger than standing girth. In contrast, recumbent hip girth was 3.8 cm smaller than standing girth. These findings suggest that studies using recumbent anthropometry can achieve levels of precision similar to those obtained with standing anthropometry. For both sexes, however, the suprailiac skinfold appears to have much lower precision in the recumbent than in the standing position. In addition, prevalence estimates of abdominal obesity derived from the ratio of waist‐to‐hip girths will be higher in studies using recumbent anthropometry than in studies using standing anthropometry. © 1993 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  W. Mueller,et al.  Relative reliability of circumferences and skinfolds as measures of body fat distribution. , 1987, American journal of physical anthropology.

[2]  P. Björntorp "Portal" adipose tissue as a generator of risk factors for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. , 1990, Arteriosclerosis.

[3]  Bruce Bradtmiller,et al.  Interobserver error in a large scale anthropometric survey , 1992, American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council.

[4]  A. Roche,et al.  Errors of Measurement for Methods of Recumbent Nutritional Anthropometry in the Elderly , 1985 .

[5]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[6]  J. Bartko The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as a Measure of Reliability , 1966, Psychological reports.

[7]  W. Mueller,et al.  Reliability, dependability, and precision of anthropometric measurements. The Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1976-1980. , 1989, American journal of epidemiology.

[8]  Edwin L. Bradley,et al.  Comparing Paired Data: A Simultaneous Test for Means and Variances , 1989 .

[9]  D. Johnston,et al.  A comparison of triceps skinfold and upper arm circumference measurements taken in standard and supine positions. , 1981, JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition.

[10]  B. Larsson Obesity, fat distribution and cardiovascular disease. , 1991, International journal of obesity.

[11]  L. Sjöström,et al.  A computer-tomography based multicompartment body composition technique and anthropometric predictions of lean body mass, total and subcutaneous adipose tissue. , 1991, International journal of obesity.

[12]  A. Kissebah Insulin resistance in visceral obesity. , 1991, International journal of obesity.

[13]  Shumei S. Guo,et al.  Reliability for anthropometric measurements in the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HHANES 1982-1984) , 1990 .

[14]  G. Bray,et al.  Use of anthropometric measures to assess weight loss. , 1978, The American journal of clinical nutrition.

[15]  T. Lohman,et al.  Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual , 1988 .