An analysis of the errors in certain anthropometric measurements

Munro, A.; Joffe, A. D.; Ward, J. P.; Wyndham, C. H.; Fleming, P. W.

doi:10.1007/bf00699299

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although Malina et al [1973] stated that, for example, spreading and sliding calipers had good replicability, this was specifically ascribed to factors other than the instrument, such as the ease of landmark location. Munro et al [1966] found significant intraobserver variance in measurements taken with an anthropometer, spreading caliper, and measuring tape, and significant interobserver differences in measurements taken with spreading and sliding calipers, and a measuring tape. Harvey et al [1994] investigated the effect of the size of the divisions (1 mm vs. 5 mm) of tape measures on the distribution of head circumference measurements, concluding that there was bias in the measurements taken with the tape measure with the larger divisions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…More specific investigations into the role of the instruments in measurement error were carried out on measurements of: stature [Voss et al, 1990]; skinfold thickness; and facial and/or body measurements [Harvey et al, 1994;Malina et al, 1973;Munro et al, 1966]. Of these, only Voss et al [1990] and Sloan and Shapiro [1972] repeated the measurements on the same subjects with a variety of different instruments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Facial measurements in clinical genetics: How important are the instruments we use?

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prompted by our finding that a popular compendium of clinical measurements often suggests a transparent ruler as a suitable substitute for anthropometric calipers (which were typically used by the original researchers to collect the normative data), we compared facial measurements taken with a ruler and calipers. Our objectives were to compare facial measurement data taken with these instruments by two classes of observer: expert and inexperienced. Ten facial measurements were repeated on four medically normal women by one expert and one inexperienced observer. Both observers' data showed that the caliper-derived means were usually the larger, but, whereas the expert observer's caliper-derived data typically were the least variable, the novice observer had smaller standard deviations and ranges for the ruler-derived data. Statistically significant differences were found between the ruler- and caliper-derived data from both observers on all four subjects, except for subnasale-pogonion and stomion-pogonion. For the novice observer only, endocanthion-endocanthion, left exocanthion-endocanthion, and alare-alare were also nonsignificant. The calibrations of the sliding caliper and ruler were compared to determine if differences between them could explain the statistical results, but were the same. We concluded that the differences between the caliper- and ruler-derived measurements resulted because the ruler often could not be placed directly on the landmarks, as could the arms of the calipers. We recommend that clinicians interested in taking facial measurements to assess their patients consult the original publications for information on the techniques and instruments used so that reliable comparisons with the normative data can be made.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facial measurements in clinical genetics: How important are the instruments we use?

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even in situations where morphometric measurements fail to separate individual species, this approach can be used to track certain ecosystems in time and space, and the length of grass pollen grains, for example, has been used to characterize different grassland ecosystems in South America (Schü ler and Behling 2011a). Measurements in such studies are usually undertaken manually (e.g., Schü ler and Behling 2011b; May and Lacourse 2012), and tests of anthropometric measurements taken manually by humans using devices such as calipers, anthropometers, and measuring tape are characterized by considerable intra-and interobserver variance (Gavan 1950;Munro et al 1966;Feathers et al 2004). However, to our knowledge there has been no published research designed specifically to investigate the accuracy and consistency of measurements taken from sporomorphs by human analysts using imaging software, and the extent to which morphometric studies of sporomorph morphology are undermined by inconsistencies in measurements made by human analysts is currently unclear.…”

Section: Morphometric Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Taxonomic Resolution of Pollen and Spore Records of Earth’s Vegetation

Mander

Punyasena

2014

International Journal of Plant Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Premise of research. Pollen and spores (sporomorphs) are a valuable record of plant life and have provided information on subjects ranging from the nature and timing of evolutionary events to the relationship between vegetation and climate. However, sporomorphs can be morphologically similar at the species, genus, or family level. Studies of extinct plant groups in pre-Quaternary time often include dispersed sporomorph taxa whose parent plant is known only to the class level. Consequently, sporomorph records of vegetation suffer from limited taxonomic resolution and typically record information about plant life at a taxonomic rank above species.Methodology. In this article, we review the causes of low taxonomic resolution, highlight examples where this has hampered the study of vegetation, and discuss the strategies researchers have developed to overcome the low taxonomic resolution of the sporomorph record. Based on this review, we offer our views on how greater taxonomic precision might be attained in future work.Pivotal results. Low taxonomic resolution results from a combination of several factors, including inadequate reference collections, the absence of sporomorphs in situ in fossilized reproductive structures, and damage following fossilization. A primary cause is the difficulty of accurately describing the very small morphological differences between species using descriptive terminology, which results in palynologists classifying sporomorphs conservatively at the genus or family level to ensure that classifications are reproducible between samples and between researchers.Conclusions. In our view, the most promising approach to the problem of low taxonomic resolution is a combination of high-resolution imaging and computational image analysis. In particular, we encourage palynologists to explore the utility of microscopy techniques that aim to recover morphological information from below the diffraction limit of light and to employ computational image analyses to consistently quantify small morphological differences between species.

show abstract