Measuring Body Composition in Individuals with Intellectual Disability: A Scoping Review

Table 1

Reliability and validity of body composition measurements in individuals with intellectual disabilities.

Author(s)	Subjects mean (SD)	Measure	Regression equation	Reference method	Results: reliability and validity	Summary
Usera et al. (2005) [21]	14 adults with DS; 38(11) yrs.	SKF; AGM	SKF: Jackson and Pollock [22].; AGM: Kelly et al. [23]; Lohman [24]	ADP with BOD; POD	Validity: correlations with reference method and RMSE: Jackson et al. (𝑟=.54), RMSE = 14.90; Lohman (𝑟=.43), RMSE = 13.20; Kelly and Rimmer (𝑟=.11), RMSE = 9.82.	Lack of validity in 3-field-based methods.; New equations for DS recommended
Verstraelen et al. (2009) [18]	76 adults with ID; 19–72 yrs.	BMI; WC; BIA; SKF	Jackson et al. [25]; Durnin and Womersley [26]	—	Reliability: Cohen’s kappa with 90% CI. Intertest agreement among BMI & WC (0.61). Agreements between BMI SKF & FFM index, WC to SKF & FFM and SKF to FFM (<0.6)	BIA & WC feasible measures. Lack of reliability and large noncompliance for both SKF (𝑛=5) and FFMI (BIA) (𝑛=14).
Waninge et al. (2009) [19]	45 severe ID; 38(11) yrs.	BMI; WC; SKF; Tibia length		—	Reliability: ICC for all variables (95% CI) except SKF (>0.90).	Measuring tibia; length possible.; Noncompliance and low reliability noted for all SKF measurements
Temple et al. (2010) [17]	46 adults mild to mod ID; 19–60 yrs.	BMI	—	DXA	Validity: BMI accounted for 68% of variance in %BF (𝑟^2). Partial correlation of BMI with fat; (𝑟=0.91) and fat-free; mass (𝑟=.12)	BMI reasonable indicator of adiposity.
Rieken et al. (2011) [16]	61 children w/neurol. disability and severe ID; 10(4) yrs.	SKF; BIA; Tibia length	SKF: Gurka et al.[27]; Rieken et al. [16]; BIA: Pencharz and Azcue [28]; Rieken et al. [16]	Isotope dilution	Validity: ICC SKF-Gurka et al. [27] mean Difference = −9.2 ± 16.7; ICC = 0.51; SEE = 5.1 kg; 𝑅^2 = 0.27; Rieken et al. ICC = 0.59; SEE = 7.6 kg; 𝑅^2 =0.44; SEE = 2.2 kg; 𝑅^2 = 0.88; BIA- Pencharz and Azcue [28] Mean difference = 2.6 ± 4.4; ICC = 0.94; Rieken et al. ICC = 0.96; SEE 1.7 kg; 𝑅^2 = 0.92	SKF met with noncompliance (𝑛=12). Low; reliability and validity for SKF compared to BIA.
Gonzalez-Aguero et al. (2011) [20]	28 children with DS; 10–20 yrs.	SKF	Slaughter et al. [29]; Durnin and Womersley [26]; Johnston et al. [30]; Brook [31]	ADP	Validity: Slaughter et al. [29] (𝑟=0.105 (𝑃=0.583)); mean difference = 0.69; 95% CI = 25.8; Durnin and Womersley [26] (𝑟=0.529 (𝑃<0.05)); mean difference = 2.34; 95% CI = 18.0; Johnston et al. [30] (𝑟=0.665 (𝑃<0.05)); mean difference = 2.73; 95% CI = 19.6; Brook (𝑟=0.389 (𝑃<0.05)); mean difference = −2.45; 95% CI = 22.3	Slaughter’s equation; most accurate despite; wide LOA. Other; equations displayed; substantial intermethods difference; and under- or overestimation of % BF.

ID: intellectual disability; DS: Down syndrome; AGM: anthropometric girth measurements; SKF: skinfold; BIA: bioelectrical impedance analysis, ADP: air displacement plethysmography; WC: waist circumference; FFMI (BIA): fat-free mass index derived by bioelectrical impedance analysis; %BF: percent body fat; ICC: intraclass correlation coefficients; CI: confidence interval; 𝑟: coefficient of correlation; LOA: limits of agreement.