Bias, precision and heritability of self-reported and clinically measured height in Australian twins

Many studies of quantitative and disease traits in human genetics rely upon self-reported measures. Such measures are based on questionnaires or interviews and are often cheaper and more readily available than alternatives. However, the precision and potential bias cannot usually be assessed. Here we report a detailed quantitative genetic analysis of stature. We characterise the degree of measurement error by utilising a large sample of Australian twin pairs (857 MZ, 815 DZ) with both clinical and self-reported measures of height. Self-report height measurements are shown to be more variable than clinical measures. This has led to lowered estimates of heritability in many previous studies of stature. In our twin sample the heritability estimate for clinical height exceeded 90%. Repeated measures analysis shows that 2-3 times as many self-report measures are required to recover heritability estimates similar to those obtained from clinical measures. Bivariate genetic repeated measures analysis of self-report and clinical height measures showed an additive genetic correlation > 0.98. We show that the accuracy of self-report height is upwardly biased in older individuals and in individuals of short stature. By comparing clinical and self-report measures we also showed that there was a genetic component to females systematically reporting their height incorrectly; this phenomenon appeared to not be present in males. The results from the measurement error analysis were subsequently used to assess the effects of error on the power to detect linkage in a genome scan. Moderate reduction in error (through the use of accurate clinical or multiple self-report measures) increased the effective sample size by 22%; elimination of measurement error led to increases in effective sample size of 41%.

Evaluating the properties of a stage-specific self-efficacy scale for physical activity using classical test theory, confirmatory factor analysis and item response modeling

The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a stage-specific selfefficacy scale for physical activity with classical test theory (CTT), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and item response modeling (IRM). Women who enrolled in the Women On The Move study completed a 20-item stage-specific self-efficacy scale developed for this study [n = 226, 51.1% African-American and 48.9% Hispanic women, mean age = 49.2 (67.0) years, mean body mass index = 29.7 (66.4)]. Three analyses were conducted: (i) a CTT item analysis, (ii) a CFA to validate the factor structure and (iii) an IRM analysis. The CTT item analysis and the CFA results showed that the scale had high internal consistency (ranging from 0.76 to 0.93) and a strong factor structure. Results also showed that the scale could be improved by modifying or eliminating some of the existing items without significantly altering the content of the scale. The IRM results also showed that the scale had few items that targeted high self-efficacy and the stage-specific assumption underlying the scale was rejected. In addition, the IRM analyses found that the five-point response format functioned more like a four-point response format. Overall, employing multiple methods to assess the psychometric properties of the stage-specific self-efficacy scale demonstrated the complimentary nature of these methods and it highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of this scale.