Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status

  • Stanley J. Ulijaszek (a1) and Deborah A. Kerr (a2)
Abstract

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.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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.

      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 Dropbox 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 Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
*Corresponding author: Dr Stanley J. Ulijaszek, fax +44 (0)1865 274699, email stanley.ulijaszek@bioanth.ox.ac.uk
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

E Benefice & RM Malina (1996) Body size, body composition and motor performances of mild-to-moderately undernourished Senegalese children. Annals of Human Biology 23, 307321.

L Blade , R Ward & A Martin (1995) Dissociation between skinfold thickness changes and growth of adipose tissue volume in children and youth. American Journal of Human Biology 7, 529534.

AR Frisancho (1990) Anthropometric Standards for the Assessment of Growth and Nutritional Status. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

L Gerber , JE Schwartz , PL Schnall & TG Pickering (1995) Body fat and fat distribution in relation to sex differences in blood pressure. American Journal of Human Biology 7, 173182.

P Gordon-Larsen , BS Zemel & FE Johnston (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.

CJ Gore , SM Woolford & RG Carlyon (1995) Calibrating skinfold calipers. Journal of Sports Sciences 13, 355360.

J-P Habicht , C Yarbrough & R Martorell (1979) Anthropometric field methods: criteria for selection. In Nutrition and Growth, pp. 365387 [DBM Jelliffe and EFP Jelliffe , editors]. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

FE Johnston , PVV Hamill & S Lemeshow (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.

FE Johnston & RW Mack (1985) Interobserver reliability of skinfold measurements in infants and young children. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 67, 285289.

B Kaur & R Singh (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.

K Klipstein-Grobusch , T Georg & H Boeing (1997) Interviewer variability in anthropometric measurements and estimates of body composition. International Journal of Epidemiology 26, S174S180.

M Lampl (1993) Evidence of saltatory growth in infancy. American Journal of Human Biology 5, 641652.

M Lopez-Blanco , I Izaguirre-Espinoza , C Macias-Tomei & L Saab-Verardy (1995) Growth in stature in early, average, and late maturing children of the Caracas mixed-longitudinal study. American Journal of Human Biology 7, 517527.

RM Malina & PH Buschang (1984) Anthropometric asymmetry in normal and mentally retarded males. Annals of Human Biology 11, 515531.

RM Malina & M Moriyama (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.

AD Martin , DT Drinkwater , JP Clarys , M Daniel & WD Ross (1992) Effects of skin thickness and skinfold compressibility on skinfold thickness measurement. American Journal of Human Biology 4, 453460.

T Martine , AL Claessens , R Vlietinck , G Marchal & G Beunen (1997) Accuracy of anthropometric estimation of muscle cross-sectional area of the arm in males. American Journal of Human Biology 9, 7386.

R Martorell , J-P Habicht , C Yarbrough , G Guzman & RE Klein (1975) The identification and evaluation of measurement variability in the anthropometry of preschool children. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 43, 347352.

WH Mueller & HJ Kaplowitz (1994) The precision of anthropometric assessment of body fat distribution in children. Annals of Human Biology 21, 267274.

WH Mueller & RM Malina (1987) Relative reliability of circumferences and skinfolds as measures of body fat distribution. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 72, 437439.

WH Mueller , WC Taylor , W Chan , H Sangi-Haghpeykar , SA Snider & H Hsu (1996) Precision of measuring body fat distribution in adolescent African American girls from the 'Healthy Growth Study'. American Journal of Human Biology 8, 325329.

S Ohsawa , C-Y Ji & N Kasai (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.

DL Pelletier , JW Low & LAH Msukwa (1991) Sources of measurement variation in child anthropometry in the Malawi maternal and child nutrition survey. American Journal of Human Biology 3, 227237.

CL Pham , WH Mueller , ML Wear , JB Emerson , CL Hanis & WJ Schull (1995) Precision of the one- versus two-handed method of skinfold measurement in the obese. American Journal of Human Biology 7, 617621.

EB Rimm , MJ Stampfer , GA Colditz , CG Chute , LB Litin & W Willett (1990) Validity of self-reported waist and hip circumferences in men and women. Epidemiology 1, 466473.

J Rosique , E Rebato , AG Apraiz & JL Pacheco (1994) Somatotype related to centripetal fat patterning of 8- to 19-year old Basque boys and girls. American Journal of Human Biology 6, 171181.

WDF Smith , DA Cunningham , DH Paterson & JJ Koval (1995) Body mass indices and skeletal size in 394 Canadians aged 55–86 years. Annals of Human Biology 22, 305314.

AM Tomkins (1994) Growth monitoring, screening and surveillance in developing countries. In Anthropometry: the Individual and the Population, pp. 108116 [SJ Ulijaszek and CGN Mascie-Taylor , editors]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SJ Ulijaszek (1997) Anthropometric measures. In Design Concepts in Nutritional Epidemiology, pp. 289311 [BM Margetts and M Nelson , editors]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

SJ Ulijaszek & JA Lourie (1994) Intra- and inter-observer error in anthropometric measurement. In Anthropometry: the Individual and the Population, pp. 3055 [SJ Ulijaszek and CGN Mascie-Taylor , editors]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SJ Ulijaszek & CGN Mascie-Taylor (editors) (1994) Anthropometry: the Individual and the Population. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LD Voss , BJR Bailey , K Cumming , TJ Wilkin & PR Betts (1990) The reliability of height measurement (the Wessex growth study). Archives of Disease in Childhood 65, 13401344.

R Ward & G Anderson (1993) Examination of the skinfold compressibility and skinfold thickness relationship. American Journal of Human Biology 5, 541548.

AN Zavaleta & RM Malina (1982) Growth and body composition of Mexican-American boys 9 through 14 years of age. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 57, 261271.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Nutrition
  • ISSN: 0007-1145
  • EISSN: 1475-2662
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords: