Reliability and validity of self-report and observers' estimates of relative weight

https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(79)90047-9Get rights and content

Abstract

Two studies were done to assess the reliability and validity of observers' ratings and self-reports of relative weight in order to establish procedures for naturalistic studies of obesity. In Study I, observers rated relative weight of college students on a five point rating scale. Self-reports of height and weight of each subject were also obtained. Both the observers' ratings and the self-reports were highly correlated with the measured height and weight data, but self-report data allowed for a more accurate classification of subjects into relative weight categories. Reliability and validity of the observer estimates and the self-reports were calculated using both correlational and percent agreement procedures. Percent agreement provided a more stringent measure of reliability than did the correlational procedures. Study II confirmed the results of Study I for an older, heavier population. Self-report was again superior to observational procedures for weight determination, and percent agreement provided more accurate estimates of reliability and validity than did the correlational techniques.

References (13)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (75)

  • Physical activity, weight status, and neighborhood characteristics of dog walkers

    2008, Preventive Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated as: weight (kg) / [height (m)]2. Adults' self-report of weight and height are routinely used in epidemiological research (Stewart, 1982; Smith et al., 1989) and are strongly correlated with objectively measured values (r > .90; Stewart, 1982; Wing et al., 1979). All analyses were conducted in SPSS version 13 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text