Relative reliability of circumferences and skinfolds as measures of body fat distribution

The question of whether body circumferences are inherently more reliable than skinfold thicknesses in 77 intra- and 224 interexaminer replicates from the Health Examination Survey of 12 to 17-year-olds in the U.S.A. is addressed.

Abstract

The question has arisen whether patterns of body fat distribution can be identified by body circumferences, a method which is said to be more reliable and simpler than skinfold thickness or like measures of subcutaneous fat (Ashwell et al., Int. J. Obes. 6: 143-152, 1982). Here we address the question of whether body circumferences are inherently more reliable than skinfold thicknesses in 77 intra- and 224 interexaminer replicates from the Health Examination Survey of 12 to 17-year-olds in the U.S.A. Reliability of six body circumferences (0.96) was significantly (P less than .01) higher than that of skinfold thicknesses at five sites (0.91), suggesting that circumferences are a more reliable method. However, the reliability of skinfolds is still high, and skinfolds may be used in studies which focus on preadults or other groups in which the validity of circumferences as measures of body fat distribution is unknown.