Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2022
Improving the accuracy of self-reported height and weight in surveys: an experimental study.
Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of the Gene-Lifestyle Interactions on Metabolic Disease-Related Outcomes in Arab Populations.Nutrients · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The accuracy of self-reported height, weight and BMI in a sample of emerging adult college students across California: an observational study.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Observational
- The Economic Cost of Obesity: A Cost-of-Illness Study in Greece.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- Dietary behaviours, cooking practices and their associations with body weight status among Malaysians - a nationwide study during COVID-19 pandemic.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Prevalence of Obesity Among Elementary School Children in Cyprus: The National COSI Program.Nutrients · 2025Article
- "We know what we should be eating, but we don't always do that." How and why people eat the way they do: a qualitative study with rural australians.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Mediterranean Diet Favors Vitamin K Intake: A Descriptive Study in a Mediterranean Population.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Development of a questionnaire for assessing the impact of children's food marketing exposure on diet-related outcomes.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2024Article
- Validity of self-reported weight and height among female young adults in the United Arab Emirates.PloS one · 2024Article
- Using classification and regression trees to model missingness in youth BMI, height and body mass data.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany studies rely on self-reported height and weight. While a substantial body of literature exists on misreporting of height and weight, little exists on improving accuracy. The aim of this study was to determine, using an experimental design and a comparative approach, whether the accuracy of self-reported height and weight data can be increased by improving how these questions are asked in surveys, drawing on the relevant evidence from the psychology and survey research literatures.
methodsTwo surveys from two separate studies were used to test our hypotheses (Science Survey, n = 1,200; Eating Behaviours Survey, n = 200). Participants were randomly assigned to one of six conditions, four of which were designed to improve the accuracy of the self-reported height and weight data ("preamble"), and two of which served as the control conditions ( "no preamble"). Four hypotheses were tested: (H1) survey participants read a preamble prior to being asked their height and weight will report lower heights and higher weights than those not read a preamble; (H2) the impact of question-wording (i.e., preamble vs. no preamble) on self-reported weight will be greater for participants with higher BMIs; (H3) the impact of question-wording on height will be greater for older participants; (H4) either version of the weight question - standard or "weight-specific"-may result in participants reporting more accurate self-reported weight. One-way MANOVA was conducted to test Hypothesis 1; two-way analysis of variance were conducted to test Hypothesis 2; moderation analysis was used to test Hypothesis 3; independent samples t-test was conducted to test Hypothesis 4.
resultsNone of the hypotheses was supported.
conclusionsThis paper provides an important starting point from which to inform further work exploring how question wording can improve self-reported measurement of height and weight. Future research should explore how question preambles may or may not operationalise hypothesised underlying mechanisms, the sensitivity or intrusiveness of height and weight questions, individual beliefs about one's height and weight, and survey context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.