Intra- and inter-observer error in anthropometric measurement

Ulijaszek, Tanley J.; Lourie, John A.

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511600500.004

Cited by 104 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It might be expected that error between two or more observers should be greater than that obtained for withinobserver error, since systematic between-observer bias would contribute to between-observer measurement differences. However, most studies which report both intra-and inter-observer error show this not to be the case (Ulijaszek & Lourie, 1994), although in studies involving two or more observers, imprecision is an additive function of all withinand between-observer error values. The extent of imprecision is likely to be increased if anthropometry is carried out by poorly trained individuals.…”

Section: Unreliabilitymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…(Wong et al 1988;Ulijaszek & Lourie, 1994). Despite making direct comparison of different anthropometric measures possible, %TEM provides no information for comparison of studies in which more than one observer is used, and where both intra-and inter-observer TEM are reported.…”

Section: Unreliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, R Ͼ 0⋅95 should be sought where possible (Ulijaszek & Lourie, 1994). While it has been largely unfashionable to report levels of measurement error in anthropometric studies in the past (possibly because these values were difficult to interpret meaningfully in the context of the data collected), this has changed, with many studies since 1990 reporting measurement error values.…”

Section: Acceptable Levels Of Measurement Error Under Study Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As with any use of quantitative biological measure, it is important to minimize error, and to know and understand the various ways in which it is estimated and assessed. While anthropometric measurement error has been described by various authors (Heymsfield et al 1984;Mueller & Martorell, 1988) and guidelines for acceptable measurement in training (Zerfas, 1986;Norton & Olds, 1996) and practice (Frisancho, 1990;Ulijaszek & Lourie, 1994) given, there has been little evaluation of different methods of measurement error estimation. In this review article, different types of anthropometric measurement error are described, ways of estimating measurement error are critically evaluated, guidelines for acceptable error are presented, and ways in which measures of error can be used to improve the interpretation of anthropometric nutritional status are discussed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropometry involves the external measurement of morphological traits of human beings. It has a widespread and important place in nutritional assessment, and while the literature on anthropometric measurement and its interpretation is enormous, the extent to which measurement error can influence both measurement and interpretation of nutritional status is little considered. In this article, different types of anthropometric measurement error are reviewed, ways of estimating measurement error are critically evaluated, guidelines for acceptable error presented, and ways in which measures of error can be used to improve the interpretation of anthropometric nutritional status discussed. Possible errors are of two sorts; those that are associated with: (1) repeated measures giving the same value (unreliability, imprecision, undependability); and (2) measurements departing from true values (inaccuracy, bias). Imprecision is due largely to observer error, and is the most commonly used measure of anthropometric measurement error. This can be estimated by carrying out repeated anthropometric measures on the same subjects and calculating one or more of the following: technical error of measurement (TEM); percentage TEM, coefficient of reliability (R), and intraclass correlation coefficient. The first three of these measures are mathematically interrelated. Targets for training in anthropometry are at present far from perfect, and further work is needed in developing appropriate protocols for nutritional anthropometry training. Acceptable levels of measurement error are difficult to ascertain because TEM is age dependent, and the value is also related to the anthropometric characteristics of the group or population under investigation. R > 0·95 should be sought where possible, and reference values of maximum acceptable TEM at set levels of R using published data from the combined National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys I and II (Frisancho, 1990) are given. There is a clear hierarchy in the precision of different nutritional anthropometric measures, with weight and height being most precise. Waist and hip circumference show strong between-observer differences, and should, where possible, be carried out by one observer. Skinfolds can be associated with such large measurement error that interpretation is problematic. Ways are described in which measurement error can be used to assess the probability that differences in anthropometric measures across time within individuals are due to factors other than imprecision. Anthropometry is an important tool for nutritional assessment, and the techniques reported here should allow increased precision of measurement, and improved interpretation of anthropometric data.

show abstract

Section: Unreliabilitymentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Unreliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Acceptable Levels Of Measurement Error Under Study Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…17 Thus, provided the initial measurements are made accurately, this method is independent of further error.…”

Section: Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Cartesian co-ordinate system for representing the second to fifth metacarpals in the human hand

Lewis

2004

Radiography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe use of hand radiographs has both clinical and anthropometric applications. However, a method for converting standard bony points within the metacarpus to Cartesian co-ordinates does not exist. Methods A simple method for converting standard bony points of the second to fifth metacarpals to Cartesian co-ordinates is described for the first time. ResultsUsing a small set of measurements and treating these with equations of known voracity, this method is accurate and allows the metacarpus to be interrogated via a much wider range of geometrical techniques than has so far been available. ConclusionsThis method allows naked-eye assessments to be supported or replaced by metrical evaluations. It is likely to have both clinical and anthropometric uses.

show abstract

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

Intra- and inter-observer error in anthropometric measurement

Cited by 104 publications

References 0 publications

Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status

Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status

A Cartesian co-ordinate system for representing the second to fifth metacarpals in the human hand

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About