Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Challenging the role of social norms regarding body weight as an explanation for weight, height, and BMI misreporting biases: Development and application of a new approach to examining misreporting and misclassification bias in surveys

  • Jonathan R Brestoff1Email author,
  • Ivan J Perry1 and
  • Jan Van den Broeck1
BMC Public Health201111:331

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-331

Received: 29 September 2010

Accepted: 18 May 2011

Published: 18 May 2011

Abstract

Background

Cultural pressures to be thin and tall are postulated to cause people to misreport their body weight and height towards more socially normative (i.e., desirable) values, but a paucity of direct evidence supports this idea. We developed a novel non-linear approach to examining weight, height, and BMI misreporting biases and used this approach to examine the association between socially non-normative weight and misreporting biases in adults.

Methods

The Survey of Lifestyles, Attitudes, and Nutrition 2007 (SLÁN 2007), a nationally representative survey of the Republic of Ireland (N = 1942 analyzed) was used. Self-reported weight (height) was classified as under-reported by ≥2.0 kg (2.0 cm), over-reported by ≥2.0 kg (2.0 cm), or accurately reported within 2.0 kg (2.0 cm) to account for technical errors of measurement and short-term fluctuations in measured weight (height). A simulation strategy was used to define self-report-based BMI as under-estimated by more than 1.40 kg/m2, over-estimated by more than 1.40 kg/m2, or accurately estimated within 1.40 kg/m2. Patterns of biases in self-reported weight, height, and BMI were explored. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with mis-estimated BMI and to calculate adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 99% confidence intervals (99%CI).

Results

The patterns of bias contributing the most to BMI mis-estimation were consistently, in decreasing order of influence, (1) under-reported weight combined with over-reported height, (2) under-reported weight with accurately reported height, and (3) accurately reported weight with over-reported height. Average bias in self-report-based BMI was -1.34 kg/m2 overall and -0.49, -1.33, and -2.66 kg/m2 in normal, overweight, and obese categories, respectively. Despite the increasing degree of bias with progressively higher BMI categories, persons describing themselves as too heavy were, within any given BMI category, less likely to have under-estimated BMI (AOR 0.5, 99%CI: 0.3-0.8, P < 0.001), to be misclassified in a lower BMI category (AOR 0.3, 99%CI: 0.2-0.5, P < 0.001), to under-report weight (AOR 0.5, 99%CI: 0.3-0.7, P < 0.001), and to over-report height (OR 0.7, 99%CI: 0.6-1.0, P = 0.007).

Conclusions

A novel non-linear approach to examining weight, height, and BMI misreporting biases was developed. Perceiving oneself as too heavy appears to reduce rather than exacerbate weight, height, and BMI misreporting biases.

Keywords

Social norms social desirability BMI bias misreporting bias weight bias height bias misclassification bias survey

Background

One of the most commonly used proxy measures of obesity in large cross-sectional surveys is elevated body mass index (BMI). A cost-effective, practical approach for obtaining BMI values in large numbers of individuals is to collect self-reported weight and height data, but these parameters are liable to response and recall bias. Many studies in adults have indicated that self-reported weight and height tend to be under- and over-reported, respectively, in surveys in the United States [14], England [5, 6], Germany [7], France [8], Spain [9], Italy [10], Sweden [11, 12], Finland [13], New Zealand [14], the United Kingdom [15], and Ireland [16].

It has been postulated that cultural pressures to be thin and tall cause people to intentionally or unintentionally misreport their body weight and height towards more socially normative (i.e., desirable) values [15, 17, 18]. This theory, proposed by Zeibland et al. (1996), has been supported mainly by indirect evidence. In particular, numerous studies show that self-report-based BMI estimates from overweight and obese individuals tend towards the normal range, thereby resulting in substantial BMI category misclassification [2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19]. Consistent with these observations, heavier individuals tend to under-report weight to greater degrees than lighter individuals [6, 12, 15, 20], and the sensitivities of self-reported weight and self-report-based BMI categorization decrease as measured BMI category increases [2, 11, 16].

Three studies have directly examined the relationship between social desirability and biases in self-reported weight and height in adults, and the findings from these studies are conflicting [4, 17, 18]. In one small study of 56 non-obese individuals, stronger desires to conform to social norms, as measured using the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale, correlated with greater magnitudes of self-reported weight bias in females [17]. However, in another much larger study, the degree of bias in self-reported weight was negatively related to the difference between measured body weight and "socially ideal" body weight, defined as the mean self-reported weight of the sample [18]. Consistent with the second study, a third reported that those who consider themselves to be too heavy are half as likely to have a discrepancy between self-reported and measured weight than those who consider themselves to be about the right weight [4]. The association in this latter study, however, likely suffers from significant bias because the questionnaire did not reference the participants to an appropriate comparison group (e.g., those of the same age), a factor that is known to influence what constitutes a social norm [21, 22].

Collectively, the evidence supporting the influence of social desirability on misreporting biases of anthropomorphic parameters is limited and controversial. Considering that social desirability and self-reported weight bias seem to be related non-linearly [18], further examination of this topic would benefit from a non-linear methodology, of which only one has been reported in the context of self-reported weight bias [4]. The current methodology does not, however, take into account technical errors of measurement (TEM) and short-term variations in weight or height, nor does it enable the examination of biases in self-report-based BMI, a parameter that better approximates adiposity. Therefore, the purposes of the present study were (1) to develop a non-linear approach to examining biased estimates of self-report-based BMI that accounts for TEM and short-term variations in weight and height; (2) to use this approach to characterize patterns of self-reported weight, height, and BMI biases in the Republic of Ireland using a nationally representative survey; and (3) to test directly the hypothesis that considering oneself to be heavier than the socially normative weight, while taking into consideration one's age and height, is positively associated with biases in self-report-based estimates of BMI.

Methods

Setting and population

The Survey of Lifestyle, Attitudes and Nutrition (SLÁN) 2007 is a nationally representative cross-sectional study of the adult (18+ years) population residing in the Republic of Ireland. Detailed methodology is found in the SLÁN 2007 Main Report [23]. In brief, trained interviewers conducted face-to-face interviews with 10,364 subjects selected using a multistage area probability sampling procedure. In addition, SLÁN 2007 incorporated two sub-studies for (1) the measurement of anthropomorphic characteristics (N = 967, age 18-44 years) and (2) physical examination with clinical laboratory tests (N = 1207, age 45+ years). In the main survey, self-reported height and weight were obtained and used to calculate self-report-based BMI (BMISR), and in both sub-studies trained interviewers measured body height and weight for the calculation of measured BMI (BMIM).

Inclusion criteria

Subjects who completed the SLÁN 2007 main survey and one of its sub-studies were selected for the present analyses, resulting in an initial sample size of 2174 (age 18+ years). Subjects were excluded if the interviewer deemed the height or weight measurements to be unreliable or slightly unreliable (N = 18) or if data was missing for BMIM (N = 3), self-reported height (N = 75), self-reported weight (N = 48), or any of the analysis variables (N = 68). The differences between self-reported and measured height or weight were determined, and the five most extreme cases in either direction were excluded because these cases were considered to have a high probability of data recording or entry error, as opposed to reporting error (N = 20). The total number of cases excluded was 232, resulting in a final sample size of 1942.

Definitions of under- and over-reported weight, height, and BMI

Self-reported weight or height was deemed acceptably accurate if within ±2.0 kg or ±2.0 cm of measured weight or height, respectively. These cut-off points were determined to allow for various factors that might explain differences between self-reported and measured height and weight that can occur even in the absence of any intentional or unintentional misreporting. One factor is the technical error of measurement of weight (negligible) and height (0.5 cm), and another is temporal variation in weight and height depending on food/liquid consumption, water balance, and postural differences. In addition, height and weight in an individual can vary with age, and subjects may have meticulously reported their weight and height based on a measurement that was taken months or years ago. Finally, most subjects (97%) reported their height in terms of feet and inches, which entails additional errors. The combined effects of errors in self-reported height and weight on BMI bias were simulated and led us to the conclusion that self-reported BMI should be considered accurate if within ±1.40 kg/m2, under-estimated if < -1.40 kg/m2, or over-estimated if > +1.40 kg/m2 (see additional file 1: Method of BMI error simulation to establish a BMI accuracy definition). This simulation method can be readily applied in samples of other populations, as it uses the mean measured weight and height of the sample.

Patterns of bias in height, weight, and BMI

Measured weight (kg) and height (cm) were subtracted from their corresponding self-reported values to determine errors in self-reported weight and height. Degrees of error were categorized in 1.0 cm or 1.0 kg intervals, and the frequency of error within each interval was determined and plotted in a frequency map to demonstrate the distribution of errors in the study population (Figure 1). Using the definitions of accurately reported, under-reported, and over-reported weight and height, we assigned subjects to one of nine possible types of error (visually demarcated in Figure 2, listed in Table 1). The number and proportion of subjects for each error type was determined. The difference between self-reported and measured BMI (BMID), an estimate of the degree and direction of bias, was calculated for the total population undergoing analysis and for each error type. To express the relative contribution of each error type to BMID, the following calculation was used:
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2458-11-331/MediaObjects/12889_2010_Article_3151_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Proportion of subjects with self-report-based BMI beyond or within ±1.40 kg/m 2 of measured BMI (A, top) and whose self-report-based and measured BMI resulted in concordant or discordant BMI category assignments (B, bottom).

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2458-11-331/MediaObjects/12889_2010_Article_3151_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Map of the frequencies of error in height and weight. Measured height (m) and weight (kg) were subtracted from their corresponding self-reported values to yield Error in Self-Reported Height (columns) and Error in Self-Reported Weight (rows). In both cases, negative values indicate that the self-reported value was less than the measured value. The degree of error was categorized in 1.0 cm or 1.0 kg intervals, and the frequency of error within each interval was determined. Solid lines indicate the cut-off values for accurately reported height (-0.02 m to +0.02 m) and accurately reported weight (-2.0 kg to +2.0 kg) to take into account technical errors of measurement and short-term fluctuations in weight and height. These lines form nine regions that correspond to the nine error pattern categories listed in Table 1. Counts are shown in each cell. Blank cells represent a count of zero, and each progressively darker shade represents the next seven-count level.

Table 1

Patterns of error in self-reported weight and height and their relative contributions to bias in BMI determined from self-reported values.

 

Total

Normal Range

 

N

%

BMID

Relative Contribution to BMID

N

%

BMID

Relative Contribution to BMID

TOTAL

1942

100.0

-1.34

 

689

100.0

-0.49

 

Accurate Weight

        

   Accurate Height

389

20.0

-0.17

-2.5

194

28.2

-0.16

-9.2

   Under-reported Height

77

4.0

1.06

3.2

43

6.2

1.00

12.7

   Over-reported Height

321

16.6

-1.48

-18.3

110

16.0

-1.12

-36.5

Over-reported Weight

        

   Accurate Height

92

4.7

1.42

5.0

51

7.4

1.31

19.8

   Under-reported Height

24

1.2

3.01

2.7

14

2.0

3.28

13.6

   Over-reported Height

96

4.9

0.00

0.0

52

7.5

0.15

2.3

Under-reported Weight

        

   Accurate Height

418

21.5

-1.92

-30.8

113

16.4

-1.45

-48.5

   Under-reported Height

103

5.3

-0.53

-2.1

36

5.2

-0.19

-2.0

   Over-reported Height

422

21.7

-3.54

-57.3

76

11.0

-2.34

-52.7

 

Overweight

Obese, Classes I-III

 

N

%

BMI D

Relative Contribution to BMI D

N

%

BMI D

Relative Contribution to BMI D

TOTAL

764

100.0

-1.33

 

474

100.0

-2.66

 

Accurate Weight

        

   Accurate Height

147

19.2

-0.19

-2.7

46

9.7

-0.21

-0.8

   Under-reported Height

29

3.8

1.16

3.3

3

0.6

0.96

0.2

   Over-reported Height

149

19.5

-1.63

-23.9

56

11.8

-1.95

-8.7

Over-reported Weight

        

   Accurate Height

27

3.5

1.43

3.8

13

2.7

1.89

1.9

   Under-reported Height

7

0.9

2.75

1.9

2

0.4

-

-

   Over-reported Height

27

3.5

-0.22

-0.6

15

3.2

-0.23

-0.3

Under-reported Weight

        

   Accurate Height

184

24.1

-1.75

-31.7

121

25.5

-2.61

-25.0

   Under-reported Height

31

4.1

-0.62

-1.9

35

7.4

-0.84

-2.3

   Over-reported Height

163

21.3

-3.00

-48.1

183

38.6

-4.53

-65.7

BMID = BMISR - BMIM (calculated for each subject, reported as mean values in table).

Self-reported height and weight were considered to be accurate when within ± 2.0 kg of measured weight or ± 2.0 cm of measured height.

Normal Range, BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2; Overweight, BMI 25.0-29.9 kg/m2; Obese, Class I-III, BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m2.

Relative Contribution to BMID = [(NErrorType*MeanErrorType)/(Ntotal *Meantotal)]*100b, where b = -1 when BMID is negative and b = 1 when BMID is positive to account for the type's direction of bias.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2458-11-331/MediaObjects/12889_2010_Article_3151_Equa_HTML.gif

where b = -1 when BMID is negative or b = +1 when BMID is positive for a given error type. The factor b accounts for the error type's direction of bias. These analyses were carried out in the total sample and the normal, overweight, and obese BMI ranges. Underweight subjects were not analyzed in this manner because the number of observations (n = 15) was not large enough for stratification by error type but were included in the total population analysis. Interval estimates and statistical comparisons were not performed because the error types are not fully stochastic.

Identification of factors associated with BMI bias and misclassification

Pearson χ2 tests were used to compare the proportions of subjects in covariate sub-categories according to the definitions for under-estimated, accurately estimated, or over-estimated BMI (Table 2). Similar comparisons were performed for subjects whose self-report-based and measured BMI categories were negatively discordant (BMISR category < BMIM category), concordant (BMISR = BMIM), or positively discordant (BMISR > BMIM) (not shown). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to determine the associations (odds ratios [OR] and 99% confidence intervals [99%CI]) of self-described weight status or attempted weight management with the following binary outcomes: (1) under-estimated vs accurately estimated BMI, (2) over-estimated vs accurately estimated BMI, (3) negative discordance vs concordance, or (4) positive discordance vs concordance. Associations were also determined for under- or over-reported weight and height.
Table 2

Association of various factors and estimating BMI beyond or within ±1.40 kg/m2.

Self-reported BMI:

Under-Estimated

Correctly Estimated

Over-Estimated

 

BMID (self-reported - measured):

< -1.40 kg/m2

Within ±1.40 kg/m2

> 1.40 kg/m2

 
 

N = 852 (43.8%)

N = 1000 (51.4%)

N = 93 (4.8%)

 
 

N

%

N

%

N

%

P value

BMI Category §

       

   Underweight

0

0.0

13

1.3

2

2.2

 

   Normal Weight

153

18.0

490

49.0

48

51.6

 

   Overweight

371

43.5

363

36.3

31

33.3

 

   Obese, Class I

233

27.3

107

10.7

8

8.6

 

   Obese, Class II

75

8.8

21

2.1

2

2.2

 

   Obese, Class III

20

2.3

6

0.6

2

2.2

< 0.001

Sex

       

   Male

366

43.0

449

44.9

47

43.0

 

   Female

486

57.0

551

55.1

46

57.0

0.327

Age

       

   18-29 y

90

10.6

184

18.4

16

17.2

 

   30-44 y

202

23.7

329

32.9

34

36.6

 

   45-64 y

331

38.8

366

36.6

29

31.2

 

   65+ y

229

26.9

121

12.1

14

15.1

< 0.001

Social class §§

       

   SC 1-2

334

37.6

382

39.8

26

26.8

 

   SC 3-4

366

41.2

372

38.8

40

41.2

 

   SC 5-6

119

13.4

134

14.0

20

20.6

 

   Unclassified

70

7.9

71

7.4

11

11.3

0.134

Current smoking status

       

   Former smoker

238

27.9

227

22.7

15

16.1

 

   Non-smoker

431

50.6

479

47.9

43

46.2

 

   Smoker

183

21.5

294

29.4

35

37.6

< 0.001

Alcohol consumption

       

   Never

183

21.6

137

13.7

23

25.0

 

   Monthly or less

145

17.1

150

15.0

25

27.2

 

   3-4 times/month

198

23.3

268

26.8

19

20.7

 

   2-3 times/week

235

27.7

338

33.8

18

19.6

 

   4 or more times/week

88

10.4

107

10.7

7

7.6

< 0.001

Marital status

       

   Single (never married)

185

21.8

244

24.5

28

30.1

 

   Married/Cohabiting

538

63.3

641

64.3

53

57.0

 

   Divorced/Separated/Widowed

127

14.9

112

11.2

12

12.9

0.066

Education

       

   Some/Completed Primary School

138

16.2

113

11.3

18

19.4

 

   Some/Completed Secondary School

387

45.4

423

42.3

48

51.6

 

   Diploma/Certificate

156

18.3

222

22.2

11

11.8

 

   Bachelors/Postgraduate Degree

171

20.1

242

24.2

16

17.2

0.001

Ethnicity

       

   White

826

98.2

971

97.9

90

96.8

 

   Black

5

0.6

4

0.4

1

1.1

 

   Asian

3

0.4

8

0.8

2

2.2

 

   Other

7

0.8

9

0.9

0

0.0

0.392

Physical Activity

       

   High IPAQ Score

221

25.9

214

21.4

25

26.9

 

   Medium IPAQ Score

425

49.9

514

51.4

47

50.5

 

   Low IPAQ Score

206

24.2

272

27.2

21

22.6

0.156

Self-described weight §§§

       

   About the right weight

419

49.6

607

60.8

48

51.6

 

   Too heavy

377

44.6

324

32.5

35

37.6

 

   Too light

22

2.6

42

4.2

3

3.2

 

   Not sure

27

3.2

25

2.5

7

7.5

<0.001

Attempting to manage weight

       

   No

406

47.7

540

54.0

49

52.7

 

   Lose weight

320

37.6

294

29.4

32

34.4

 

   Maintain weight

118

13.8

157

15.7

12

12.9

 

   Gain weight

8

0.9

9

0.9

0

0.0

0.020

BMI, body mass index; SC, social class; IPAQ, International Physical Activity Questionnaire.

§ BMI categories defined as: Underweight (<18.5 kg/m2), Normal Range (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), Overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m2), Class I Obese (30.0-34.9 kg/m2), Class II Obese (35.0-39.9 kg/m2), and Class III Obese (40.0 + kg/m2).

§§ Household social class defined according occupation type, as per methods in ref. [23].

§§§ Self-described weight taking into account one's age and height.

All comparisons were made using Pearson chi-squared tests.

To determine self-described weight, subjects were asked: "Given your age and height, would you say that you are about the right weight, too heavy, too light, or not sure?" Attempted weight management was determined by asking subjects: "Are you actively trying to manage your weight?" If a respondent answered affirmatively, they were asked: "Is it to lose, gain, or maintain weight?" In a first analysis (Table 3, Model 1), associations were adjusted for age, sex, social class, ethnicity, marital status, highest level of education, physical activity level, current smoking status, and alcohol consumption. A subsequent analysis (Table 3, Model 2) included the same covariates as in Model 1 with BMI category as an additional covariate. A final model (Table 4) was constructed with all covariates, including both self-described weight and attempted weight management. All analyses were conducted using PASW Statistics v18.0 (Macintosh). Significance was set at P ≤ 0.01.
Table 3

Adjusted odds ratios (99% CIs) of self-described weight or attempted weight management and mis-estimation of BMI and discordance between self-reported and measured BMI categories

 

BMISRUnder-Estimated by < -1.40 kg/m2

BMISRCategory < BMIMCategory

 

Model 1^

Model 2^^

Model 1^

Model 2^^

Self-described weight §

    

   About the right weight

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

   Too heavy

1.63 (1.24 to 2.14)***

0.46 (0.32 to 0.67)***

1.78 (1.33 to 2.39)***

0.21 (0.13 to 0.33)***

   Too light

0.78 (0.38 to 1.61)

1.93 (0.87 to 4.28)T

0.91 (0.40 to 2.12)

22.3 (5.33 to 93.1)***

   Not sure

1.51 (0.70 to 3.27)

0.89 (0.34 to 1.89)

1.68 (0.75 to 3.78)

0.53 (0.20 to 1.45)

Attempting to manage weight

    

   No

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

   Lose weight

1.45 (1.09 to 1.93)***

0.59 (0.42 to 0.84)***

1.33 (0.97 to 1.81)T

0.28 (0.18 to 0.42)***

   Maintain weight

0.97 (0.67 to 1.42)

0.91 (0.61 to 1.36)

0.90 (0.49 to 1.37)

0.82 (0.50 to 1.36)

   Gain weight

1.18 (0.31 to 4.51)

2.24 (0.57 to 8.86)

0.98 (0.21 to 4.63)

6.88 (0.84 to 56.5)T

 

BMI SR Over-Estimated by > 1.40 kg/m 2

BMI SR Category > BMI M Category

 

Model 1^

Model 2^^

Model 1^

Model 2^^

Self-described weight §

    

   About the right weight

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

   Too heavy

1.44 (0.76 to 2.72)

2.54 (1.10 to 4.82)**

1.49 (0.74 to 3.01)

3.87 (1.45 to 10.1)***

   Too light

0.81 (0.16 to 4.13)

0.57 (0.10 to 3.39)

1.41 (0.27 to 7.27)

0.43 (0.06 to 3.33)

   Not sure

3.02 (0.86 to 10.5)T

3.88 (1.06 to 14.1)**

2.15 (0.47 to 9.72)

3.37 (0.70 to 16.3)T

Attempting to manage weight

    

   No

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

   Lose weight

1.43 (0.74 to 2.78)

1.99 (0.92 to 4.31)T

1.98 (0.97 to 4.03)T

4.48 (1.85 to 10.8)***

   Maintain weight

0.99 (0.41 to 2.41)

1.02 (0.43 to 2.51)

0.77 (0.23 to 2.52)

1.01 (0.30 to 3.40)

   Gain weight

-

-

1.93 (0.12 to 32.0)

1.94 (0.11 to 32.8)

All values reported above are adjusted OR (99% CI).

BMISR, BMI based on self-reported weight and height; BMIM, BMI based on measured weight and height.

§ Self-described weight taking into account age and height.

^ Model 1: Multivariate logistic regression with adjustment for sex, age, ethnicity, current smoking status, alcohol consumption, physical acitvity level, level of education, and marital status.

^^ Model 2: Same as previous model but with BMI category as an additional covariate

T P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001.

Table 4

Associations of several variables in the final model with mis-estimation of BMI or discordance between self-reported and measured BMI categories.

 

BMISRUnder-

Estimated

by < -1.40 kg/m2

BMISRCat. <

BMIMCat.

BMISROver-

Estimated

by > 1.40 kg/m2

BMISRCat. >

BMIMCat.

Sex

    

   Male

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

   Female

1.76 (1.29 to 2.40)***

2.27 (1.54 to 3.33)***

0.51 (0.26 to 0.99)**

0.46 (0.21 to 1.01)T

Age

    

   18 to 29 years

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

   30 to 44 years

1.15 (0.70 to 1.89)

0.69 (0.35 to 1.36)

1.43 (0.54 to 3.74)

2.12 (0.65 to 6.85)

   45 to 64 years

1.48 (0.87 to 2.42)

0.90 (0.45 to 1.78)

1.22 (0.43 to 3.50)

1.69 (0.46 to 6.17)

   65+ years

2.99 (1.65 to 5.41)***

1.20 (0.56 to 2.55)

1.28 (0.35 to 4.68)

1.80 (0.40 to 8.06)

BMI Category §

    

   Underweight

-

-

1.62 (0.16 to 16.47)

22.45 (2.82 to 179)***

   Normal Range

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

   Overweight

4.99 (3.42 to 7.29)***

112 (36.7 to 344)***

0.45 (0.20 to 1.03)T

0.24 (0.09 to 0.66)***

   Obese

18.0 (10.7 to 30.4)***

1016 (300 to 3440)***

0.29 (0.09 to 0.91)**

0.12 (0.03 to 0.47)***

Marital Status

    

   Single (never married)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

   Married/Cohabiting

0.66 (0.45 to 0.97)**

0.60 (0.55 to 1.48)

0.75 (0.35 to 1.60)

0.82 (0.34 to 1.96)

   Divorced/Separated/Widowed

0.64 (0.37 to 1.10)T

0.85 (0.44 to 1.62)

0.91 (0.30 to 2.74)

0.56 (0.14 to 2.25)

Self-described weight §§

    

   About the right weight

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

   Too heavy

0.51 (0.34 to 0.76)***

0.28 (0.18 to 0.49)***

2.03 (0.80 to 5.14)T

2.20 (0.77 to 6.26)

   Too light

1.76 (0.77 to 4.01)

19.8 (4.50 to 87.4)***

0.60 (0.10 to 3.54)

0.40 (0.05 to 3.05)

   Not sure

0.81 (0.34 to 1.92)

0.60 (0.22 to 1.64)

3.77 (1.03 to 13.78)**

3.36 (0.68 to 16.5)

Attempting to manage weight

    

   No

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

   Lose weight

0.74 (0.51 to 1.07)T

0.39 (0.25 to 0.60)***

1.55 (0.65 to 3.68)

3.50 (1.33 to 9.20)***

   Maintain weight

0.88 (0.58 to 1.31)

0.73 (0.43 to 1.22)

1.02 (0.41 to 2.53)

0.97 (0.29 to 3.30)

   Gain weight

1.79 (0.43 to 7.49)

2.19 (0.32 to 15.2)

-

2.52 (0.14 to 45.8)

All values reported are adjusted OR (99% CI).

BMISR, BMI based on self-reported weight and height; BMIM, BMI based on measured weight and height; Cat., category.

§ BMI categories defined as: Underweight (<18.5 kg/m2), Normal Range (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), Overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m2), and Obese (30.0+ kg/m2).

§§ Self-described weight taking into account one's age and height.

Multivariate logistic regression with the following covariates: sex, age, BMI category, ethnicity, current smoking status, alcohol consumption, physical acitvity level, level of education, marital status, self-described weight, weight management attempt.

T P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001.

Ethics and Funding

SLÁN 2007 was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Royal College of Surgeons Ireland and was funded by the Department of Health and Children in Ireland.

Results

Self-reported weight, height, and BMI bias

As BMIM category increased, the prevalence of under-estimated BMISR and of negative discordance between BMISR and BMIM categories increased (Figure 1A and 1B, respectively, both P < 0.001). Opposite relationships were observed for the prevalence of over-estimated BMISR and positive discordance, where in both cases the prevalence decreased with increasing BMIM category (Figure 1A and 1B). Underweight subjects had the highest prevalence of accurately estimated BMISR (87%), with none of them having under-estimated BMISR. Normal range subjects often had under-estimated BMI (22%), but they had the highest prevalence of concordance (93%), and only 2% had negatively discordant BMI categories. Obese subjects were the least likely to have accurate BMISR estimates and to have concordant BMI categories.

To determine whether the trend for negative bias in BMISR was due mainly to misreporting of weight or height, we assigned subjects to one of nine error types that correspond to the nine regions depicted in Figure 2 and listed in Table 1. Figure 2 visualizes the distribution of errors in self-reported weight and height and suggests a trend towards under-reported weight and over-reported height. Table 1 indicates that the degree of under-estimation in BMISR increases as weight category increases. The overall BMI bias was -1.34 kg/m2 and was -0.49, -1.33, and -2.66 kg/m2 in the normal, overweight, and obese BMI ranges, respectively. Underweight subjects (n = 15) were excluded from this analysis because numbers in each group were too small for meaningful analysis. Although subjects in the normal BMI range exhibited a weak negative bias (-0.49 kg/m2), this degree of bias remained well within the acceptably accurate range of -1.40 to +1.40 kg/m2. The error types that contributed the most to bias in the total study population and in each of the BMI categories analyzed were consistently, in decreasing order of influence: (1) under-reported weight combined with over-reported height, (2) under-reported weight with accurately reported height, and (3) accurately reported weight with over-reported height.

Identification of factors associated with BMI bias and misclassification

The proportions of subjects for each covariate category used in logistic regression analyses are shown in Table 2. Multivariate logistic regression without adjustment for measured BMI category (Table 3, Model 1) suggested that describing oneself as too heavy and actively attempting to lose weight were significantly associated with a greater likelihood of under-estimating BMISR and exhibiting negative discordance. These covariates were also associated with an increased likelihood of under-reporting weight (OR 1.4, 99%CI: 1.1-1.8 for both covariates, P < 0.01) but not of over-reporting height (data not otherwise shown).

However, when Model 1 was further adjusted for measured BMI category, the associations described above were reversed (Table 3, Model 2). Specifically, in Model 2, describing oneself as too heavy and attempting to lose weight were, within an given BMI category, significantly associated with a lower likelihood of under-estimating BMISR and exhibiting negative discordance within each BMI category. Describing oneself as too heavy was also associated with a lower likelihood of under-reporting weight (OR 0.5, 99%CI: 0.3-0.7, P < 0.001) and over-reporting height (OR 0.7, 99%CI: 0.6-1.0, P = 0.007). Similarly, attempting to lose weight was associated with a lower likelihood of under-reporting weight (OR 0.7, 99%CI: 0.5-1.0, P = 0.011) and over-reporting height (OR 0.7, 99%CI: 0.5-1.0, P = 0.008) (data not otherwise shown).

The associations described above in Model 2 for describing oneself as too heavy held when both covariates -- self-described body weight and attempting weight loss -- were entered simultaneously (Table 4). Attempting to lose weight was partially confounded by self-described weight. Four additional factors emerged as being significantly associated with BMI mis-estimation: sex, age, measured BMI category, and marital status. The strongest factor associated with all outcomes shown in Table 4 was BMI category.

Discussion

In the present study, we developed a new methodological approach for the examination of bias in self-report-based BMI in any given sample of any given population. Based on this method, a consistent pattern of weight and height misreporting biases emerged. Specifically, in the total population and in the BMI categories analyzed, the combinations of misreporting biases that contributed the most to overall BMI mis-estimation were consistently, in decreasing order of influence: (1) under-reported weight combined with over-reported height, (2) under-reported weight with accurately reported height, and (3) accurately reported weight with over-reported height. Further examination of patterns of bias in BMI estimation revealed that subjects in the normal BMI range exhibited a slight negative bias overall but that the degree of bias was well within the acceptably accurate range. As BMI category increases beyond the normal range, both the prevalence and magnitude of self-report-based BMI mis-estimation increase. These latter findings regarding BMI categories are consistent with a large number of previous studies on weight and height misreporting biases in adults, suggesting that the method described herein has good reliability [2, 5, 6, 8, 1013, 15, 16, 1820].

It is widely believed that research participants misreport anthropometric characteristics to portray a more socially desirable weight and height. This view has been echoed in the literature [16, 24] despite limited evidence [4, 17, 18]. We provide evidence that challenges the role of social desirability as an explanation for misreported weight and height. Within any given BMI category, it appears that those who describe themselves as too heavy are less likely to under-report their weight, over-report their height, to have under-estimated BMI, and to be misclassified in a lower BMI category. Conversely, considering oneself to be too heavy increases the likelihood of over-reporting weight and having over-estimated BMI. These findings are consistent with those reported by Gil and Mora (2010) and by Villanueva (2001) [4, 18]. Thus, although overweight and obese participants tend to under-report their weight, it seems that social norms concerning weight tend to reduce rather than exacerbate misreporting bias of this parameter.

A plausible explanation of this finding is that persons who describe themselves as too heavy are more weight-conscious. They may measure their weight more frequently and therefore report their anthropomorphic characteristics more accurately. We are unaware of data demonstrating a link between perceived weight status and weight consciousness or weighing frequency; however, in the present study those who were attempting to lose weight -- a behavior that is associated with greater self-weighing frequency [25, 26] -- were, within any given BMI category, less likely to under-report their weight or to have under-estimated BMI. Rather, they were more likely to over-report their weight or to have over-estimated BMI. Further research is warranted to understand how social desirability influences self-reported weight and height and to explain why the degree of self-report-based BMI mis-estimation increases with progressively higher BMI categories. Indeed, in our final model presented in Table 4, BMI category was by far the strongest factor associated with the mis-estimation of BMI. The reasons for this association remain elusive.

The present study has important research implications, as the described methods can be optimized for any given sample from any given population and may provide novel insights into the factors associated with weight and height misreporting biases and self-report-based BMI mis-estimation. A particular advantage of this methodology is that it accounts for normal short-term fluctuations in weight and height and for technical errors of measurement, both of which may lead to apparent rather than true misreporting bias. Factors that may influence short-term weight and height variation may include food consumption (i.e., fasted vs post-prandial measurements), shifts in water balance/volume status, and temporal postural changes. Other factors influencing self-report accuracy may include reporting weight or height using a US standard scale rather than a metric one and reporting correct weight or height measurements taken weeks, months, or years earlier. Collectively, these factors may explain differences between self-reported and measured values, even in the absence of any intentional or unintentional misreporting.

A major weakness of this study is its cross-sectional design, which limits any causal inferences from our logistic regression analyses. In addition, the study population was mostly white, thereby precluding the study of ethnicity, a factor that some studies have shown to be associated with weight and height misreporting biases [4, 17, 27, 28]. Another weakness is that some combinations of misreported weight and height lead to accurate BMI estimates. However, instances of accurate BMI estimates in the context of misreported weight and height were relatively uncommon, and the expected effect would be to bias logistic regression analyses towards the null hypothesis. Future studies utilizing the methodology reported herein should consider these limitations.

Conclusions

A new methodological approach was developed for the examination of weight and height misreporting as well as BMI mis-estimation. This approach is useful for the exploration of patterns of such biases and for the analysis of factors potentially associated with misreporting bias. Using this new approach, we demonstrate that although BMI category is seemingly the most important factor associated with the misreporting of weight and height data, social norms concerning body weight appear to counteract such biases.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

JVDB and IJP are supported by the Irish Health Research Board (HRB) through funding of the HRB Centre for Health and Diet Research, Grant reference: HRC/2007/13. JRB is supported by the US-Ireland Alliance through the George J Mitchell Scholarship. The authors thank the participants of SLÁN 2007, the SLÁN 2007 staff, and the SLÁN 2007 Consortium: Professor Hannah McGee (Project Director)(RCSI), Professor Ivan Perry (Principal Investigator)(UCC), Professor Margaret Barry (Principal Investigator)(NUIG), Dr. Dorothy Watson (PI)(ESRI), Dr Karen Morgan (Research Manager, RCSI), Dr. Emer Shelley (RCSI), Professor Ronan Conroy (RCSI), Professor Ruairí Brugha (RCSI), Dr. Michal Molcho (NUIG), Ms. Janas Harrington (UCC) and Professor Richard Layte (ESRI), Ms. Nuala Tully (RCSI), Ms. Jennifer Lutomski (UCC), Mr. Mark Ward (RCSI), and Mr. Eric Van Lente (NUIG).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health & HRB Centre for Health and Diet Research, University College Cork

References

  1. Ezzati M, Martin H, Skjold S, Vander Hoorn S, Murray CJ: Trends in national and state-level obesity in the USA after correction for self-report bias: analysis of health surveys. J R Soc Med. 2006, 99 (5): 250-7. 10.1258/jrsm.99.5.250.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Gillum RF, Sempos CT: Ethnic variation in validity of classification of overweight and obesity using self-reported weight and height in American women and men: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Nutr J. 2005, 4: 27-10.1186/1475-2891-4-27.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Kuczmarski MF, Kuczmarski RJ, Najjar M: Effects of age on validity of self-reported height, weight, and body mass index: findings from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001, 101 (1): 28-34. 10.1016/S0002-8223(01)00008-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Villanueva EV: The validity of self-reported weight in US adults: a population based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2001, 1: 11-10.1186/1471-2458-1-11.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Hill A, Roberts J: Body mass index: a comparison between self-reported and measured height and weight. J Public Health Med. 1998, 20 (2): 206-10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Spencer EA, Appleby PN, Davey GK, Key TJ: Validity of self-reported height and weight in 4808 EPIC-Oxford participants. Public Health Nutr. 2002, 5 (4): 561-5. 10.1079/PHN2001322.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. John U, Hanke M, Grothues J, Thyrian JR: Validity of overweight and obesity in a nation based on self-report versus measurement device data. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006, 60 (3): 372-7. 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602325.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Niedhammer I, Bugel I, Bonenfant S, Goldberg M, Leclerc A: Validity of self-reported weight and height in the French GAZEL cohort. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000, 24 (9): 1111-8. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801375.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Alvarez-Torices JC, Franch-Nadal J, Alvarez-Guisasola F, Hernandez-Mejia R, Cueto-Espinar A: Self-reported height and weight and prevalence of obesity. Study in a Spanish population. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993, 17 (11): 663-7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Danubio ME, Miranda G, Vinciguera MG, Vecchi E, Rufo F: Comparison of self-reported and measured height and weight: Implications for obesity research among young adults. Econ Human Biol. 2008, 6: 181-190. 10.1016/j.ehb.2007.04.002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuskowska-Wolk A, Bergstrom R, Bostrom G: Relationship between questionnaire data and medical records of height, weight and body mass index. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1992, 16 (1): 1-9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Nyholm M, Gullberg B, Merlo J, Lundqvist-Persson C, Rastam L, Lindblad U: The validity of obesity based on self-reported weight and height: Implications for population studies. Obesity. 2007, 15 (1): 197-208. 10.1038/oby.2007.536. (Silver Spring)View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jalkanen L, Tuomilehto J, Tanskanen A, Puska P: Accuracy of self-reported body weight compared to measured body weight: A population survey. Scand J Soc Med. 1987, 15 (3): 191-198.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Stewart AW, Jackson RT, Ford MA, Beaglehole R: Underestimation of relative weight by use of self-reported height and weight. Am J Epidemiol. 1987, 125 (1): 122-6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ziebland S, Thorogood M, Fuller A, Muir J: Desire for the body normal: body image and discrepancies between self reported and measured height and weight in a British population. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1996, 50 (1): 105-6. 10.1136/jech.50.1.105.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Shiely F, Perry IJ, Lutomski J, Harrington J, Kelleher CC, McGee H, Hayes K: Temporal trends in misclassification patterns of measured and self-report based body mass index categories - findings from three population surveys in Ireland. BMC Public Health. 2010, 10: 560-10.1186/1471-2458-10-560.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Larson MR: Social desirability and self-reported weight and height. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000, 24 (5): 663-5. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801233.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gil J, Mora T: The determinants of misreporting weight and height: the role of social norms. Econ Hum Biol. 2010,Google Scholar
  19. Rowland ML: Self-reported weight and height. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990, 52 (6): 1125-33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Palta M, Prineas RJ, Berman R, Hannan P: Comparison of self-reported and measured height and weight. Am J Epidemiol. 1982, 115 (2): 223-30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Etilé F: Social norms, ideal body weight and food attitudes. Health Econ. 2007, 16 (9): 945-966. 10.1002/hec.1251.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Powdthavee N: Ill-health as a household norm: evidence from other people's health problems. Soc Sci Med. 2009, 68: 251-259. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.11.015.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Morgan K, McGee H, Watson D, Perry I, Barry M, Shelley E, Harrington J, Molcho M, Layte R, Tully N, van Lente E, Ward M, Lutomski J, Conroy R, Brugha R: SLÁN 2007: Survey of Lifestyle, Attitudes & Nutrition in Ireland. Main Report. 2008, Dublin: Department of Health and ChildrenGoogle Scholar
  24. Gorber SC, Tremblay M, Moher D, Gorber B: A comparison of direct vs. self-report measures for assessing height, weight and body mass index: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2007, 8 (4): 307-326. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2007.00347.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. McGuire MT, Wing RR, Klem ML, Hill JO: Behavioral strategies of individuals who have maintained long-term weight losses. Obes Res. 1999, 7: 334-341.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kruger J, Blanck HM, Gillespie C: Dietary and physical activity behaviors among adults successful at weight loss maintenance. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2006, 3: 17-10.1186/1479-5868-3-17.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Reither EN, Utz RL: A procedure to correct proxy-reported weight in the National Health Interview Survey, 1976-2002. Popul Health Metr. 2009, 7: 2-10.1186/1478-7954-7-2.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Stommel M, Schoenborn CA: Accuracy and usefulness of BMI measures based on self-reported weight and height: findings from the NHANES & NHIS 2001-2006. BMC Public Health. 2009, 9: 421-10.1186/1471-2458-9-421.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/331/prepub

Copyright

© Brestoff et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.