Feasibility and reliability of body composition measurements in adults with severe intellectual and sensory disabilities.
Use tibia length instead of height and drop skinfolds when you measure body size in adults with severe intellectual and sensory disabilities.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team tested how well common body-size tools work on adults with severe intellectual and sensory disabilities.
They re-took each measure twice to see if the numbers stayed the same.
Tools tested were weight, standing height, tibia length, arm span, waist, and skinfold calipers.
What they found
All tools except skinfolds gave near-perfect match scores between the two trials.
Tibia length worked best as a stand-in when standing height was hard to get.
Skinfold calipers failed because clients startled or moved too much.
How this fits with other research
Ramos-Jiménez et al. (2014) extends these ideas to teens and young adults. They show that waist and arm measures can also flag metabolic syndrome risk, not just body size.
Laugeson et al. (2014) looked at Special Olympics athletes and found most are overweight. Their BMI data depend on the same height and weight tools this paper proves are reliable.
Aznar et al. (2005) used short stature as a warning sign for weak bones. The current study gives you a reliable way to get that stature proxy—tibia length—when direct height is impossible.
Hoekstra-van Duijn et al. (2025) also report excellent reliability numbers on a different health screen. Together the papers build confidence that adapted tools can reach the same high standards used in the general population.
Why it matters
You can now trust weight, tibia length, arm span, and waist when you track health for adults with severe ID. Skip skinfolds to save time and stress. Use tibia length in your BMI formula whenever standing height is tough to collect. This small switch keeps your data solid and your clients calm.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Measure each client’s tibia length once, record it, and use that number in place of height when you calculate BMI.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Anthropometric measurements are widely used to reliably quantify body composition and to estimate risks of overweight in healthy subjects and in patients. However, information about the reliability of anthropometric measurements in subjects with severe intellectual and sensory disabilities is lacking. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility and the test-retest reliability of body composition measures in subjects with severe intellectual and sensory disabilities. METHOD: The study population consisted of 45 subjects with severe intellectual and sensory disabilities. Body mass index, waist circumference, skin folds and tibia length were measured. Reliability was assessed by Wilcoxon signed rank test, limits of agreement (LOA) and intraclass correlation coefficients. The outcomes were compared with values provided by the World Health Organization. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between test and retest (P < 0.05). For the skinfold measurements, however, the LOA was insufficient. Intraclass correlation coefficients for all variables, except skinfold measurements, were 0.90 or above. CONCLUSION: Test-retest reliability and feasibility for all measurements are acceptable in subjects with severe intellectual and sensory disabilities. Skinfold measurements, however, could not be reliably performed in these subjects. Measuring tibia length and using the determined formula to calculate body height from tibia length is a reliable alternative for measuring body height. Although measuring the body height of subjects with severe disabilities was feasible, measuring tibia length was more feasible.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2009 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01153.x