Validity of Web-Based Self-Reported Weight and Height: Results of the Nutrinet-Santé Study
Open Access
- 8 August 2013
- journal article
- research article
- Published by JMIR Publications Inc. in Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Vol. 15 (8), e152
- https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2575
Abstract
Background: With the growing scientific appeal of e-epidemiology, concerns arise regarding validity and reliability of Web-based self-reported data. Objective: The objectives of the present study were to assess the validity of Web-based self-reported weight, height, and resulting body mass index (BMI) compared with standardized clinical measurements and to evaluate the concordance between Web-based self-reported anthropometrics and face-to-face declarations. Methods: A total of 2513 participants of the NutriNet-Santé study in France completed a Web-based anthropometric questionnaire 3 days before a clinical examination (validation sample) of whom 815 participants also responded to a face-to-face anthropometric interview (concordance sample). Several indicators were computed to compare data: paired t test of the difference, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland–Altman limits of agreement for weight, height, and BMI as continuous variables; and kappa statistics and percent agreement for validity, sensitivity, and specificity of BMI categories (normal, overweight, obese). Results: Compared with clinical data, validity was high with ICC ranging from 0.94 for height to 0.99 for weight. BMI classification was correct in 93% of cases; kappa was 0.89. Of 2513 participants, 23.5% were classified overweight (BMI≥25) with Web-based self-report vs 25.7% with measured data, leading to a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 99%. For obesity, 9.1% vs 10.7% were classified obese (BMI≥30), respectively, leading to sensitivity and specificity of 83% and 100%. However, the Web-based self-report exhibited slight underreporting of weight and overreporting of height leading to significant underreporting of BMI ( P <.05) for both men and women: –0.32 kg/m 2 (SD 0.66) and –0.34 kg/m 2 (SD 1.67), respectively. Mean BMI underreporting was –0.16, –0.36, and –0.63 kg/m 2 in the normal, overweight, and obese categories, respectively. Almost perfect agreement (ie, concordance) was observed between Web-based and face-to-face report (ICC ranged from 0.96 to 1.00, classification agreement was 98.5%, and kappa 0.97). Conclusions: Web-based self-reported weight and height data from the NutriNet-Santé study can be considered as valid enough to be used when studying associations of nutritional factors with anthropometrics and health outcomes. Although self-reported anthropometrics are inherently prone to biases, the magnitude of such biases can be considered comparable to face-to-face interview. Web-based self-reported data appear to be an accurate and useful tool to assess anthropometric data. [J Med Internet Res 2013;15(8):e152]This publication has 45 references indexed in Scilit:
- How Valid are Web-Based Self-reports of Weight?Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2013
- Validation of self-reported anthropometrics in the Adventist Health Study 2BMC Public Health, 2011
- Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposedJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011
- Web-based Questionnaires: The Future in Epidemiology?American Journal of Epidemiology, 2010
- The Nutrinet-Sante Study: a web-based prospective study on the relationship between nutrition and health and determinants of dietary patterns and nutritional statusBMC Public Health, 2010
- A successful implementation of e-epidemiology: the Danish pregnancy planning study ‘Snart-Gravid’European Journal of Epidemiology, 2010
- Observational Epidemiologic Studies of Nutrition and Cancer: The Next Generation (with Better Observation)Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 2009
- New times, new needs; e-epidemiologyEuropean Journal of Epidemiology, 2007
- Trends in national and state-level obesity in the USA after correction for self-report bias: analysis of health surveysJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2006
- STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTThe Lancet, 1986