Reliability of Repeated Trials Protocols for Body Composition Assessment by Air Displacement Plethysmography

Paul Muntean, Monica Micloș-Balica, Anca Popa, Adrian Neagu and Monica Neagu
Additional contact information
Paul Muntean: Department of Functional Sciences, Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
Monica Micloș-Balica: Department of Functional Sciences, Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
Anca Popa: Department of Functional Sciences, Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
Adrian Neagu: Department of Functional Sciences, Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
Monica Neagu: Department of Functional Sciences, Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, 300041 Timisoara, Romania

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 20, 1-12

Abstract: Air displacement plethysmography (ADP) is fast, accurate, and reliable. Nevertheless, in about 3% of the cases, standard ADP tests provide rogue results. To spot these outliers and improve precision, repeated trials protocols have been devised, but few works have addressed their reliability. This study was conducted to evaluate the test–retest reliabilities of two known protocols and a new one, proposed here. Ninety-two healthy adults (46 men and 46 women) completed six consecutive ADP tests. To evaluate the reliability of single measurements, we used the results of the first two tests; for multiple measures protocols, we computed the test result from trials 1–3 and the retest result from trials 4–6. Bland–Altman analysis revealed that the bias and the width of the 95% interval of agreement were smaller for multiple trials than for single ones. For percent body fat (%BF)/fat-free mass, the technical error of measurement was 1% BF/0.68 kg for single trials and 0.62% BF/0.46 kg for the new protocol of multiple trials, which proved to be the most reliable. The minimal detectable change (MDC) was 2.77% BF/1.87 kg for single trials and 1.72% BF/1.26 kg for the new protocol.

Keywords: BOD POD; precision; Bland–Altman analysis; technical error of measurement; standard error of measurement; minimal detectable change; intraclass correlation coefficient (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/20/10693/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/20/10693/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:20:p:10693-:d:654357

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().