Test-Retest Reliability of Beurer Glass Diagnostic Scale for Measuring Body Mass Index

A. Alghadir; S. Anwer; E. Al-Eisa

doi:10.1055/s-0042-109270

Physikalische Medizin, Rehabilitationsmedizin, Kurortmedizin, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Physikalische Medizin, Rehabilitationsmedizin, Kurortmedizin 2016; 26(05): 242-244
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-109270

Wissenschaft und Forschung

Test-Retest Reliability of Beurer Glass Diagnostic Scale for Measuring Body Mass Index

Retest-Reliabilität von Beurer Glas-Diagnosewaagen zur Messung des Body-Mass-Index

A. Alghadir

¹Rehabilitation Research Chair, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

,

S. Anwer

¹Rehabilitation Research Chair, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

²Dr. D. Y. Patil College of Physiotherapy, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, India

,

E. Al-Eisa

¹Rehabilitation Research Chair, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of beurer glass diagnostic scale for measuring body mass index (BMI).

Methods: A total of 80 healthy male subjects in the age group of 19–45 years were participated in this study. The age and height of each participant was added into the beurer glass diagnostic scale prior to the measurement of the BMI. Each participant was measured twice to establish test-retest reliability. To assess test-retest reliability, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and the Bland-Altman method was used. The level of significance was set at 5% (p<0.05).

Results: The ICC values were significant and showed excellent magnitude (0.98–0.99) and no significant differences were found between the means of 2 measurement (p>0.05). A strong positive correlation between BMI of glass scale and BMI calculation method (r=0.994) and BMI of glass scale and body weight (r=0.943) were noted.

Conclusions: The results suggest that the beurer glass diagnostic scale is a reliable instrument for assessing BMI.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Ziel dieser Studie war die Beurteilung der Retest-Reliabilität von Beurer Glas-Diagnosewaagen zur Messung des Body-Mass-Index (BMI).

Methoden: Insgesamt nahmen 80 männliche Probanden in der Altersgruppe von 19–45 Jahren an dieser Studie teil. Vor Messung des BMI wurden Alter und Körpergröße jedes Probanden in die Beurer Glas-Diagnosewaage eingegeben. Jeder Proband wurde 2-mal gemessen, um die Retest-Reliabilität festzustellen. Um die Retest-Reliabilität zu bewerten, wurden der Intraklassen-Korrelationskoeffizient (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient ICC) und die Bland-Altman-Methode angewendet. Das Signifikanzniveau wurde auf 5% (p<0,05) festgelegt.

Ergebnisse: Die ICC-Werte waren signifikant und zeigten ausgezeichnete Ergebnisse (0,98–0,99); es ergaben sich keine signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen den Mittelwerten zweier Messungen (p>0,05). Es wurde eine starke positive Korrelation zwischen dem BMI der Glas-Diagnosewaage und der BMI-Berechnungsmethode (r=0,994) sowie zwischen dem BMI der Glas-Diagnosewaage und dem Körpergewicht (r=0,943) festgestellt.

Schlusfolgerung: Die Ergebnisse lassen darauf schließen, dass die Beurer Glas-Diagnosewaage ein zuverlässiges Instrument ist, um den BMI zu berechnen.

Key words

body mass index - measurement - reliability

Schlüsselwörter

Body-Mass-Index - Messung - Reliabilität

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Gutierrez-Fisac JL, Banegas Banegas JR, Artalejo FR, Regidor E. Increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity among spanish adults, 1987–1997. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000 24. 1677-1682
2 Olds TS, Harten NR. One hundred years of growth: The evolution of height, mass, and body composition in Australian children, 1899–1999. Hum Biol 2001; 73: 727-738
3 Caballero B. Introduction. Symposium: Obesity in developing countries: Biological and ecological factors J Nutr 2001; 131: 866S-870S
4 Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults – The Evidence Report. National Institutes of Health. Obes Res. 1998; (Suppl. 02) 51S-209S Erratum in: Obes Res 1998; 6:464
5 Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 1995; 854: 1-452
6 Seidell JC, Kahn HS, Williamson DF, Lissner L, Valdez R. Report from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Workshop on use of adult anthropometry for public health and primary health care. Am J Clin Nutr 2001; 73: 123-126
7 dos Santos DM, Sichieri R. Body mass index and measures of adiposity among elderly adults. Rev Saude Publica 2005; 39: 163-168
8 Dumoulin C, Gravel D, Bourbonnais D et al. Reliability of dynamometric measurements of the pelvic floor musculature. Neurourol Urodyn 2004; 23: 134-142
9 Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. 2nd (ed.). Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange. 2000