Revision of the Fully technique for estimating statures

Abstract

The "anatomical" method of Fully (1956 Ann. Legale Med. 35:266-273) for reconstructing stature, involving the addition of skeletal elements from the calcaneus to the skull, has been increasingly used in anthropological and forensic contexts, but has undergone little systematic testing on samples other than the original sample used to develop the technique. The original description by Fully of the method also does not provide completely explicit directions for taking all of the necessary measurements. This study tested the accuracy and applicability of his method, and clarified measurement procedures. The study sample consisted of 119 adult black and white males and females of known cadaveric statures from the Terry Collection. Cadaveric statures were adjusted to living statures, following the recommendations of Trotter and Gleser (1952 Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 10:469-514). We obtained the best results using maximum vertebral body heights (anterior to the pedicles) and measurement of the articulated talus and calcaneus height in anatomical position. Statures derived using the original Fully technique are strongly correlated with living statures in our sample (r = 0.96), but underestimate living stature by an average of about 2.4 cm. Anatomical considerations also suggest that the correction factors applied by Fully to convert summed skeletal height to living stature are too small. New formulae are derived to calculate living stature from skeletal height. There is no effect of sex or ancestry on stature prediction. Resulting stature estimates are accurate to within 4.5 cm in 95% of the individuals in our sample, with no directional bias.

The use of non‐adult vertebral dimensions as indicators of growth disruption and non‐specific health stress in skeletal populations

“…This method does not rely on calculating stature from a single long bone using regression formulae (the “mathematical method”), but instead produces an estimate based upon the measurement of all of those bones that contribute to height (Raxter et al, 2006, 2007; Maijanen, 2009; Auerbach and Ruff, 2010; Auerbach, 2011; Vercellotti et al, 2014). This provides a more accurate method of calculating living stature, as it is not biased by differences in bodily proportions (Maijanen, 2009; Auerbach and Ruff, 2010; Vercellotti et al, 2014).…”

Stature estimation from complete long bones in the Middle Pleistocene humans from the Sima de los Huesos, Sierra de Atapuerca (Spain)

“…Whichever reference population(s) approach is preferred, results clearly vary depending on the model type regression and statistical technique used (Olivier, 1976;Feldesman and Lundy, 1988;jungers, 1988;Feldesman et al, 1990;Aiello, 1992;Konigsberg et al, 1998;Hens et al, 2000;Porter, 2002;Raxter et al, 2006). Indeed, for some authors the choice of reference sample is considered a purely statistical issue (Kendall and Stuart, 1967).…”

Estimation of Stature from Percutaneous Length of Ulna and Tibia in Medical Students of Nagaland

“…Studies [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] have shown that race, age, sex, environment and nutrition affect not only the stature but also different body proportions and the differences found in the present study may be due to these factors.…”

“…[2,3] Though, anatomical method is more accurate, but often complete skeletal remains are unavailable from a crime scene and therefore, the forensic anthropologists as well as medicolegal experts have to reconstruct stature from the relatively less precise mathematical method, which is workable even if only a single long bone is available. [4][5][6] Professor Karl Pearson (1898-99) was the first to introduce correlation calculus for stature prediction from long bones. [6] Stature estimation from long bones length offers an important contribution to identification of unknown remains, as there exists an important relationship between different body parts dimensions and stature, particularly bone lengths.…”