Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-9lvz7 Total loading time: 0.483 Render date: 2021-09-27T07:04:41.758Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Stanley J. Ulijaszek*
Affiliation:
Institute of Biological Anthropology, University of Oxford, 58 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6QS, UK
Deborah A. Kerr
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food Science, Curtin University School of Public Health, GPO Box U1987, Perth WA6001, Australia
*
*Corresponding author: Dr Stanley J. Ulijaszek, fax +44 (0)1865 274699, email stanley.ulijaszek@bioanth.ox.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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.

Type
Review article
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1999

References

Becque, MD, Katch, VL & Moffatt, RJ (1986) Time course of skin-plus-fat compression in males and females. Human Biology 58, 3342.Google ScholarPubMed
Benefice, E & Malina, RM (1996) Body size, body composition and motor performances of mild-to-moderately undernourished Senegalese children. Annals of Human Biology 23, 307321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blade, L, Ward, R & Martin, A (1995) Dissociation between skinfold thickness changes and growth of adipose tissue volume in children and youth. American Journal of Human Biology 7, 529534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branson, RS, Vaucher, YE, Harrison, GG, Vargas, M & Thesis, C (1982) Inter- and intra-observer reliability of skinfold thickness measurements in new born infants. Human Biology 54, 137143.Google Scholar
Brown, KR (1984) Growth, physique and age at menarche of Mexican American females age 12 through 17 years residing in San Diego County, California. PhD Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Buschang, PH (1980) Growth status and rate in school children 6 to 13 years of age in a rural Zapotec-speaking community in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. PhD Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Callaway, CW, Chumlea, WC, Bouchard, C, Himes, JH, Lohman, TG, Martin, AD, Mitchell, CD, Mueller, WH, Roche, AF & Seefeldt, VD (1988) Circumferences. In Anthropometric Standardization Manual, pp. 3954 [Lohman, TG, Roche, AF and Martorell, R, editors]. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books.Google Scholar
Cameron, N (1984) The Measurement of Human Growth. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cameron, N (1986) The methods of auxological anthropometry. In Human Growth: a Comprehensive Treatise, vol. 3, pp. 346 [Falkner, F and Tanner, JM, editors]. New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, N, Hiernaux, J, Jarman, S, Marshall, WA, Tanner, JM & Whitehouse, RH (1981) Anthropometry. In Practical Human Biology, pp. 2752 [Weiner, JS and Lourie, JA, editors]. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Carter, JEL & Schmidt, PK (1990) A simple method for calibrating skinfold calipers. In Proceedings of the Commonwealth and International Conference on Physical Education, Sport, Health, Dance, Recreation and Leisure, vol. 3, part 1, pp. 4953. Auckland, New Zealand: ?????.Google Scholar
Chumlea, WC, Guo,, SKuczmarski, RJ, Johnson, CL & Leahy, CK (1990) Reliability for anthropometric measurements in the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HHANES 1982–1984). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 51, 902S907S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chumlea, WC, Roche, AF & Rogers, E (1984) Replicability for anthropometry in the elderly. Human Biology 56, 329337.Google ScholarPubMed
Dangour, A (1998) Growth of body proportion in two Amerindian tribes in Guyana. PhD Thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Ferrario, M, Carpenter, MA & Chambless, LE (1995) Reliability of body fat distribution measurements. The ARIC study baseline cohort results. International Journal of Obesity 19, 449457.Google ScholarPubMed
Frisancho, AR (1990) Anthropometric Standards for the Assessment of Growth and Nutritional Status. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, L, Schwartz, JE, Schnall, PL & Pickering, TG (1995) Body fat and fat distribution in relation to sex differences in blood pressure. American Journal of Human Biology 7, 173182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, RS (1990) Principles of Nutritional Assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon-Larsen, P, Zemel, BS & Johnston, FE (1997) Secular changes in stature, weight, fatness, overweight, and obesity in urban African American adolescents from the mid-1950's to the mid-1990's. American Journal of Human Biology 9, 675688.3.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gore, C, Norton, K, Olds, T, Whittingham, N, Birchall, K, Clough, M, Dickerson, B & Downie, L (1996) Accreditation in anthropometry: an Australian model. In Anthropometrica, pp. 395411 [Norton, K and Olds, T, editors]. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
Gore, CJ, Woolford, SM & Carlyon, RG (1995) Calibrating skinfold calipers. Journal of Sports Sciences 13, 355360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gruber, JJ, Pollock, ML, Graves, JE, Colvin, AB & Braith, RW (1990) Comparison of Harpenden and Lange calipers in predicting body composition. Research Quarterly 61, 184190.Google Scholar
Habicht, J-P, Yarbrough, C & Martorell, R (1979) Anthropometric field methods: criteria for selection. In Nutrition and Growth, pp. 365387 [Jelliffe, DBM and Jelliffe, EFP, editors]. New York, NY: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heymsfield, SB, McManus, CB, Seitz, SB, Nixon, DW & Andrews, JS (1984) Anthropometric assessment of adult protein–energy malnutrition. In Nutritional Assessment, pp. 2781 [Wright, RA, Heymsfield, S and McManus, CB, editors]. Boston, MA: Blackwell Scientific Publications Inc.Google Scholar
Himes, JH, Roche, AF & Siervogel, RM (1979) Compressibility of skinfolds and the measurement of subcutaneous fatness. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 32, 17341740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, AS, Pollock, ML & Gettman, LR (1978) Intertester reliability of selected skinfold and circumference measurements and percent fat estimates. Research Quarterly 4, 546551.Google Scholar
Jelliffe, DB & Jelliffe, EFP (1989) Community Nutritional Assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, FE, Dechow, PC & MacVean, RB (1975) Age changes in skinfold thickness among upper class school children of differing ethnic backgrounds residing in Guatamala. Human Biology 47, 251262.Google Scholar
Johnston, FE, Hamill, PVV & Lemeshow, S (1972) Skinfold thickness of children 6–11 years, United States. National Health Survey Series II, no. 120, DHEW Publication no. (HSM) 73-1602. Rockville, ML: National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
Johnston, FE, Hamill, PVV & Lemeshow, S (1974) Skinfold thicknesses in a national probability sample of U.S. males and females aged 6 through 17 years. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 40, 321324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, FE & Mack, RW (1985) Interobserver reliability of skinfold measurements in infants and young children. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 67, 285289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaur, B & Singh, R (1994) One year follow-up study of stature, weight, emergence of dentition, and sexual maturation of well-nourished Indian girls from birth to 20 years. American Journal of Human Biology 6, 425436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klipstein-Grobusch, K, Georg, T & Boeing, H (1997) Interviewer variability in anthropometric measurements and estimates of body composition. International Journal of Epidemiology 26, S174S180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lampl, M (1993) Evidence of saltatory growth in infancy. American Journal of Human Biology 5, 641652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, MMC & Ng, CK (1967) Postmortem studies of skinfold caliper measurement and actual thickness of skin and subcutaneous tissue. Human Biology 37, 91103.Google Scholar
Lohman, TG, Boileau, RA & Massey, BH (1975) Prediction of lean body mass in young boys from skinfold thickness and body weight. Human Biology 47, 245262.Google ScholarPubMed
Lohman, TG, Roche, AF & Martorell, R (1988) Anthropometric Standardisation Manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books.Google Scholar
Lopez-Blanco, M, Izaguirre-Espinoza, I, Macias-Tomei, C & Saab-Verardy, L (1995) Growth in stature in early, average, and late maturing children of the Caracas mixed-longitudinal study. American Journal of Human Biology 7, 517527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lourie, JA & Ulijaszek, SJ (1992) Observer error in anthropometry: age dependence of technical error of measurement. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Suppl. 14, 113.Google Scholar
Malina, RM (1995) Anthropometry. In Physiological Assessment of Human Fitness, pp. 205219 [Maud, PJ and Foster, C, editors]. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books.Google Scholar
Malina, RM & Buschang, PH (1984) Anthropometric asymmetry in normal and mentally retarded males. Annals of Human Biology 11, 515531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malina, RM, Hamill, PVV & Lemeshow, S (1973) Selected body measurements of children 6–11 years, United States. Vital and Health Statistics, series 11, no. 123. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Malina, RM & Moriyama, M (1991) Growth and motor performance of black and white children 6–10 years of age: A multivariate analysis. American Journal of Human Biology 3, 599611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, GC, Habicht, J-P & Mueller, WH (1989) Reliability, dependability, and precision of anthropometric measurements: The Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1976–1980. American Journal of Epidemiology 130, 578587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, AD, Drinkwater, DT, Clarys, JP, Daniel, M & Ross, WD (1992) Effects of skin thickness and skinfold compressibility on skinfold thickness measurement. American Journal of Human Biology 4, 453460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martine, T, Claessens, AL, Vlietinck, R, Marchal, G & Beunen, G (1997) Accuracy of anthropometric estimation of muscle cross-sectional area of the arm in males. American Journal of Human Biology 9, 7386.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martorell, R, Habicht, J-P, Yarbrough, C, Guzman, G & Klein, RE (1975) The identification and evaluation of measurement variability in the anthropometry of preschool children. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 43, 347352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meleski, BW (1980) Growth, maturity, body composition and familial characteristics of competitive swimmers 8 to 18 years of age. PhD Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Mueller, WH (1975) Parent-child and sibling correlations and heritability of body measurements in a rural Colombian population. PhD Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Mueller, WH & Kaplowitz, HJ (1994) The precision of anthropometric assessment of body fat distribution in children. Annals of Human Biology 21, 267274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mueller, WH & Malina, RM (1987) Relative reliability of circumferences and skinfolds as measures of body fat distribution. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 72, 437439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mueller, WH & Martorell, R (1988) Reliability and accuracy of measurement. In Anthropometric Standardisation Manual, pp. 8386 [Lohman, TG, Roche, AF and Martorell, R, editors]. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books.Google Scholar
Mueller, WH, Taylor, WC, Chan, W, Sangi-Haghpeykar, H, Snider, SA & Hsu, H (1996) Precision of measuring body fat distribution in adolescent African American girls from the 'Healthy Growth Study'. American Journal of Human Biology 8, 325329.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norton, K & Olds, T (editors) (1996) Anthropometrica. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
Ohsawa, S, Ji, C-Y & Kasai, N (1997) Age at menarche and comparison of the growth and performance of pre- and post-menarcheal girls in China. American Journal of Human Biology 9, 205212.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pederson, D & Gore, C (1996) Anthropometry measurement error. In Anthropometrica, pp. 7796 [Norton, K and Olds, T, editors]. Sydney: University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Pelletier, DL, Low, JW & Msukwa, LAH (1991) Sources of measurement variation in child anthropometry in the Malawi maternal and child nutrition survey. American Journal of Human Biology 3, 227237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pham, CL, Mueller, WH, Wear, ML, Emerson, JB, Hanis, CL & Schull, WJ (1995) Precision of the one- versus two-handed method of skinfold measurement in the obese. American Journal of Human Biology 7, 617621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pheasant, S (1988) Bodyspace. Anthropometry, Ergonomics and Design. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Rimm, EB, Stampfer, MJ, Colditz, GA, Chute, CG, Litin, LB & Willett, W (1990) Validity of self-reported waist and hip circumferences in men and women. Epidemiology 1, 466473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rocha Ferreira, MB (1987) Growth, physical performance and psychological characteristics of eight year old Brazilian school children from low socio-economic background. PhD Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Roebuck, JA, Kroemer, KHE & Thomson, WG (1975) Engineering Anthropometry Methods. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rosique, J, Rebato, E, Apraiz, AG & Pacheco, JL (1994) Somatotype related to centripetal fat patterning of 8- to 19-year old Basque boys and girls. American Journal of Human Biology 6, 171181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, WD, Kerr, DA, Carter, JEL, Ackland, TR & Bach, TM (1994) Anthropometric techniques: precision and accuracy. In Kinanthropometry in Aquatic Sports. A Study of World Class Athletes, Human Kinetics Sport Science Monograph Series vol. 5, pp. 158173 [Carter, JEL and Ackland, TR, editors]. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books.Google Scholar
Schmidt, PK & Carter, JEL (1990) Static and dynamic differences among five types of skinfold calipers. Human Biology 62, 369388.Google ScholarPubMed
Sloan, AW & Shapiro, M (1972) A comparison of skinfold measurements with three standard calipers. Human Biology 44, 2936.Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, WDF, Cunningham, DA, Paterson, DH & Koval, JJ (1995) Body mass indices and skeletal size in 394 Canadians aged 55–86 years. Annals of Human Biology 22, 305314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sonnenschein, EG, Kim, MY, Pasternack, S & Toniolo, PG (1993) Sources of variability in waist and hip measurements in middle-aged women. American Journal of Epidemiology 138, 301309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strickland, SS & Tuffrey, VR (1997) Form and Function. A Study of Nutrition, Adaptation and Social Inequality in Three Gurung Villages of the Nepal Himalayas. London: Smith-Gordon.Google Scholar
Strickland, SS, Tuffrey, VR, Gurung, GM & Ulijaszek, SJ (1993) Micro-economic Consequences of Physique and Physical Performance in South Asia. Overseas Development Administration Project Report R4568. London: Overseas Development Administration.Google Scholar
Tomkins, AM (1994) Growth monitoring, screening and surveillance in developing countries. In Anthropometry: the Individual and the Population, pp. 108116 [Ulijaszek, SJ and Mascie-Taylor, CGN, editors]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulijaszek, SJ (1997) Anthropometric measures. In Design Concepts in Nutritional Epidemiology, pp. 289311 [Margetts, BM and Nelson, M, editors]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulijaszek, SJ & Lourie, JA (1994) Intra- and inter-observer error in anthropometric measurement. In Anthropometry: the Individual and the Population, pp. 3055 [Ulijaszek, SJ and Mascie-Taylor, CGN, editors]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulijaszek, SJ & Mascie-Taylor, CGN (editors) (1994) Anthropometry: the Individual and the Population. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voss, LD, Bailey, BJR, Cumming, K, Wilkin, TJ & Betts, PR (1990) The reliability of height measurement (the Wessex growth study). Archives of Disease in Childhood 65, 13401344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, R & Anderson, G (1993) Examination of the skinfold compressibility and skinfold thickness relationship. American Journal of Human Biology 5, 541548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiner, JS & Lourie, JA (1981) Practical Human Biology. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wellens, RE (1989) Activity as a temperamental trait: relationship to physique, energy expenditure and physical activity habits in young adults. PhD Thesis, University of Texas.Google Scholar
Williamson, DF, Kahn, HS, Worthman, CM, Burnette, JC & Russell, CM (1993) Precision of recumbent anthropometry. American Journal of Human Biology 15, 159167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, WW, Cochran, WJ, Klish, WJ, Smith, EO, Lee, LS, Fiorotto, ML & Klein, PD (1988) Body fat in normal adults estimated by oxygen-18- and deuterium-dilution and by anthropometry: a comparison. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 42, 233242.Google ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (1995) Physical Status: the Use and Interpretation of Anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee. WHO Technical Report Series 854. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
Zavaleta, AN & Malina, RM (1982) Growth and body composition of Mexican-American boys 9 through 14 years of age. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 57, 261271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zerfas, AJ (1985) Checking Continuous Measures: Manual for Anthropometry. Los Angeles, CA: Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Zillikens, MC & Conway, JM (1990) Anthropometry in blacks: applicability of generalised skinfold equations and differences in fat patterning between blacks and whites. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 52, 4551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have Access
595
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *