Skip to main content

Table 5 The magnitude of agreement and the extent of misclassification on using different anthropometric measures instead of total skinfold thickness for measurement of body fat among children at birth (85th percentile cut-off). [N = 2432]

From: Mid-upper arm circumference in pregnant women and birth weight in newborns as substitute for skinfold thickness: findings from the MAASTHI cohort study, India

Anthropometric measure

Cut-off#

Total skin fold thickness percentile

Total misclassification (%)

Kappa coefficient (95 % CI)

≤ 85th percentile

> 85th percentile

Birth weight (kg) [N = 2432]

< 3.45

1839 (75.62)

78 (3.21)

13.00

0.57*

(0.52–0.60)

≥ 3.45

238 (9.79)

277 (11.39)

Head circumference (cm) [N = 2432]

< 35.00

1699 (69.86)

90 (3.70)

19.24

0.42*

(0.38–0.46)

≥ 35.00

378 (15.54)

265 (10.90)

Chest circumference (cm) [N = 2432]

< 33.70

1718 (70.64)

85 (3.50)

18.26

0.45*

(0.40–0.49)

≥ 33.70

359 (14.76)

270 (11.10)

Waist circumference (cm)

< 31.70

1469 (60.40)

52 (2.14)

27.14

0.34**

(0.31–0.37)

≥ 31.70

608 (25.00)

303 (12.46)

Hip circumference (cm)

< 30.30

1609 (66.16)

74 (3.04)

22.28

0.39**

(0.35–0.43)

≥ 30.30

468 (19.24)

281 (79.15)

Mid Upper Arm Circumference (Cm)

< 10.30

1621 (66.65)

78 (3.21)

21.96

0.39**

(0.35–0.43)

≥ 10.30

456 (18.75)

277 (11.39)

BMI (kg/m2)

< 13.22

1609 (66.19)

119 (4.90)

24.11

0.31**

(0.27–0.35)

≥ 13.22

467 (19.21)

236 (9.71)

  1. #Cut off corresponding to 85th percentile of total skinfold thickness
  2. *Moderate agreement; **Fair agreement [Landis & Koch (1977)]