Observational studyBMC medical research methodology2026
The accuracy of self-reported height, weight and BMI in a sample of emerging adult college students across California: an observational study.
Observational study in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSelf-reported height and weight are pragmatic, lower-cost alternatives for objective measurements but are potentially less accurate. This study examines the accuracy of self-reported measurements in a population of emerging adults.
methodsParticipants were 603 emerging adult college students aged 18 to 24 who attend public Hispanic-Serving Institutions of higher education in California, USA. The population was heterogeneous by race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic position, and body size. Participants self-reported height and weight; height and weight were then objectively measured during an in-person visit.
resultsRelative to objective measurements, participants, on average, overreported their height by 1.53 cm and underreported their weight by 0.77 kg, leading to an average body mass index (BMI) underestimation of 0.73 kg/m2. The discrepancy between self-report and objective measures significantly differed by gender, race/ethnicity, and weight but not by age, sexual orientation, household poverty status, or disordered eating behaviors. Overall, 23.8% of participants with overweight or obesity would be assigned to a lower-weight BMI category based on their self-reported measurements (including 16.2% to normal weight).
conclusionsIn this sample of emerging adult college students, we found modest but statistically significant inaccuracies in self-reported height and weight that resulted in some misclassification of BMI-based weight status categories. Expressing self-reported BMI as a numerical value instead of categorically may be one approach to minimize bias. These results may inform bias-correction approaches in future emerging adult studies that lack the resources for in-person objective measures.
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.