Body frame size: validity of self-appraisal
Open Access
- 1 October 1982
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Elsevier in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
- Vol. 36 (4) , 676-679
- https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/36.4.676
Abstract
The validity of self-appraisal of body frame size was investigated in 72 college-aged subjects (39 males and 33 females). Validity was assessed by comparing self-appraised frame size versus the quantitative “HAT” formulation, which includes stature and two trunk diameters. Frame size was also assessed separately, for each subject by an expert rater. Results showed that the expert rater was in error 28% in comparison to the criterion frame size estimation, while 41% of the subjects were in error in assessing their own frame size, in comparison to the HAT criterion. The expert rater and self-appraisal differed by 33%. When analyzed by sex, it was revealed that the females were more inaccurate in assessing their frame size, in comparison to the criterion, than were the males. The consequences of inaccurate frame size assessment, in terms of ideal weight from the Metropolitan tables was discussed. Also, data were presented on a different sample of 103 females classified into percentage fat categories of less than 20%, 20 to 30%, and more than 30% which illustrated no statistical differences in skeletal dimensions, including frame size.This publication has 3 references indexed in Scilit:
- Body size and shape: derivation of the “HAT” frame size modelThe American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1982
- A simplified method for determination of residual lung volumes.Journal of Applied Physiology, 1969
- Anthropometry in Clinical Appraisal of Nutritional StatusThe American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1962