AJCN Cancer Health Disparities Conference
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Marshall, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Quinney, H. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Marshall, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Quinney, H. A.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Marshall, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Quinney, H. A.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 51, 22-28, Copyright © 1990 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc


ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Comparison of convenient indicators of obesity

JD Marshall, CB Hazlett, DW Spady and HA Quinney
Department of Physical Education and Sport Studies, University of Alberta, Canada.

A comparative study of obesity measurements was undertaken with 533 male and female subjects, aged 11.8-15.9. Six adiposity measures (three skinfold indices, three height-weight indices) were derived from measures of height, weight, and eight skinfold thickness measurements. A principal components analysis of these adiposity measures resulted in a unifactorial solution accounting for 85.6% of the total variance. A cross-tabulation analysis with the derived factor scores and a criterion visual inspection rating supported the interpretation that the underlying construct of the factor was adiposity, and that a factor score of greater than 1.5 SD above the mean was a suitable standard for labeling obesity. Utilizing this dichotomy of factor scores as a standard, the differential diagnostic capabilities of four adiposity scales commonly used in identifying obesity was undertaken. Pursuit of this methodology, with the use of additional measures and larger sample sizes, is recommended to ensure the validation of an obesity measure.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
CirculationHome page
W. Group, S. S. Gidding, R. L. Leibel, S. Daniels, M. Rosenbaum, L. Van Horn, and G. R. Marx
Understanding Obesity in Youth: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the Committee on Atherosclerosis and Hypertension in the Young of the Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young and the Nutrition Committee, American Heart Association
Circulation, December 15, 1996; 94(12): 3383 - 3387.
[Full Text]


Home page
Clin Nurs ResHome page
P. J. Brink
Challenging Commonly Held Beliefs about Obesity
Clin Nurs Res, November 1, 1992; 1(4): 418 - 429.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
West J Nurs ResHome page
J. B. Sherman, M. A. Alexander, L. Clark, A. Dean, L. Welter, J. D. Allan, and N. M. Ryan-Wenger
Instruments Measuring Maternal Factors in Obese Preschool Children
West J Nurs Res, October 1, 1992; 14(5): 555 - 575.
[PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1990 by The American Society for Nutrition