Within- and Between-Day Reliability of Laboratory-Based Body Composition Assessment Methods

This study examined the within- and between-day reliability of commonly employed laboratory-based body composition assessment methods. Eighteen healthy adults reported to the laboratory on two occasions, separated by 1-2 days, and were assessed with multiple methods under standardized conditions. These included two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanners with manual or automated regions of interest, air displacement plethysmography (ADP) with measured or estimated thoracic gas volume, two multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analyzers (MFBIA), single-frequency BIA (SFBIA), and bioimpedance spectroscopy. Within-day reliability was established via immediate test-retest assessments at the first visit (technical error), and between-day reliability by repeating assessments at the second visit (technical plus biological error). Within- and between-day measures were evaluated using technical error of the measurement (TEM) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). For body fat percentage, within-day TEMs ranged from 0.03-0.70%, with ICCs of 0.993-1.000, while between-day ranged from 0.37-1.24%, with ICCs of 0.965-0.998. For fat and fat-free mass (FM and FFM), within-day TEMs ranged from 0.02-0.53 kg, with ICCs of 0.998-1.000 for FFM and 0.992-1.000 for FM. Between-day TEMs ranged from 0.26-0.90 kg for FM and FFM, with ICCs of 0.995-0.999 for FFM and 0.955-0.998 for FM. Across metrics, DXA demonstrated the best reliability, followed by one MFBIA analyzer and ADP with predicted thoracic gas volume. Overall, laboratory-based body composition devices provide excellent within- and between-day reliability under standardized conditions, though observed differences in error may influence method selection when tracking small body composition changes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
British Journal Of Nutrition
Published
2026-06-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007114526107752
Primary Topic
Body Composition Measurement Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Within- and Between-Day Reliability of Laboratory-Based Body Composition Assessment Methods

Grant M. Tinsley, Madelin R. Siedler, Christine M. Florez, Matthew T. Stratton et al.
British Journal Of Nutrition
Body Composition Measurement Techniques
article

Within- and Between-Day Reliability of Laboratory-Based Body Composition Assessment Methods

Grant M. Tinsley, Madelin R. Siedler, Christine M. Florez, Matthew T. Stratton, Patrick S. Harty, Carina M. Velasquez, Madison H Sullivan, Christian Rodriguez, Ainsley E Way
article en

Abstract

This study examined the within- and between-day reliability of commonly employed laboratory-based body composition assessment methods. Eighteen healthy adults reported to the laboratory on two occasions, separated by 1-2 days, and were assessed with multiple methods under standardized conditions. These included two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanners with manual or automated regions of interest, air displacement plethysmography (ADP) with measured or estimated thoracic gas volume, two multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analyzers (MFBIA), single-frequency BIA (SFBIA), and bioimpedance spectroscopy. Within-day reliability was established via immediate test-retest assessments at the first visit (technical error), and between-day reliability by repeating assessments at the second visit (technical plus biological error). Within- and between-day measures were evaluated using technical error of the measurement (TEM) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). For body fat percentage, within-day TEMs ranged from 0.03-0.70%, with ICCs of 0.993-1.000, while between-day ranged from 0.37-1.24%, with ICCs of 0.965-0.998. For fat and fat-free mass (FM and FFM), within-day TEMs ranged from 0.02-0.53 kg, with ICCs of 0.998-1.000 for FFM and 0.992-1.000 for FM. Between-day TEMs ranged from 0.26-0.90 kg for FM and FFM, with ICCs of 0.995-0.999 for FFM and 0.955-0.998 for FM. Across metrics, DXA demonstrated the best reliability, followed by one MFBIA analyzer and ADP with predicted thoracic gas volume. Overall, laboratory-based body composition devices provide excellent within- and between-day reliability under standardized conditions, though observed differences in error may influence method selection when tracking small body composition changes.

British Journal Of Nutrition
Pennington Biomedical Research Center (US), Louisiana State University System (US), Texas Tech University (US), Kids' Brain Tumor Cure Foundation (US), College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University (US), Lindenwood University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Body Composition Measurement Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.