Literature DB >> 11957319

Interobserver errors in anthropometry.

M Kouchi1, M Mochimaru, K Tsuzuki, T Yokoi.   

Abstract

To present basic information on the interobserver precision and accuracy of 32 selected anthropometric measurement items, six observers measured each of 37 subjects once in two days. The data were analyzed by using ANOVA, and mean absolute bias, standard deviation of bias, and mean absolute bias in standard deviation unit were used as measures of bias. By comparing the results of the two days, the effects of the practice on measurement errors were also investigated. Variance was overestimated by more than 10% in five measurements. Interobserver error variance and random error variance were highly correlated with each other. Measures of the bias were significantly correlated with interobserver and especially with random error variances. The interobserver errors were drastically reduced on the second day in the measurement items in which the causes of the interobserver errors could be specified. It was speculated that even when the definitions of the landmarks and measurement items were clear, the ambiguity in the practical procedures in locating landmarks, applying instruments, and so on, permitted each observer to develop his or her own measurement technique, and it in turn caused interobserver errors. To minimize interobserver and random errors, the standardization of measurement technique should be extended to the details of the practical procedures.

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 11957319

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hum Ergol (Tokyo)        ISSN: 0300-8134


  7 in total

1.  Quantification of anatomical variation at the atlanto-occipital articulation: morphometric resolution of commingled human remains within the repatriation documentation process.

Authors:  J Christopher Dudar; Eric R Castillo
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2016-12-15       Impact factor: 2.610

2.  Comparing 3D foot scanning with conventional measurement methods.

Authors:  Yu-Chi Lee; Gloria Lin; Mao-Jiun J Wang
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2014-10-25       Impact factor: 2.303

3.  The Effect of Random Error on Diagnostic Accuracy Illustrated with the Anthropometric Diagnosis of Malnutrition.

Authors:  Emmanuel Grellety; Michael H Golden
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Low Computational-Cost Footprint Deformities Diagnosis Sensor through Angles, Dimensions Analysis and Image Processing Techniques.

Authors:  J Rodolfo Maestre-Rendon; Tomas A Rivera-Roman; Juan M Sierra-Hernandez; Ivan Cruz-Aceves; Luis M Contreras-Medina; Carlos Duarte-Galvan; Arturo A Fernandez-Jaramillo
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 3.576

5.  Three-dimensional geometric morphometric studies of modern human occipital variation.

Authors:  Yameng Zhang; Lynne A Schepartz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Measurement error of mean sac diameter and crown-rump length among pregnant women at Mulago hospital, Uganda.

Authors:  Sam Ali; Rosemary Kusaba Byanyima; Sam Ononge; Jerry Ictho; Jean Nyamwiza; Emmanuel Lako Ernesto Loro; John Mukisa; Angella Musewa; Annet Nalutaaya; Ronald Ssenyonga; Ismael Kawooya; Benjamin Temper; Achilles Katamba; Joan Kalyango; Charles Karamagi
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-05-04       Impact factor: 3.007

7.  Linear Regression vs. Deep Learning: A Simple Yet Effective Baseline for Human Body Measurement.

Authors:  Kristijan Bartol; David Bojanić; Tomislav Petković; Stanislav Peharec; Tomislav Pribanić
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 3.576

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.