Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering (MCM'24)
Barcelona, Spain - August 22-24, 2024
Paper No. ICMIE 102
DOI: 10.11159/icmie24.102

Analysis of Improvements in the Practice of Anthropometry through 3D
Scanning and Photogrammetry at UNITEC
Tyzon Javier García Flores1, Paola Michelle Pascua Cantarero2

Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Tecnológica Centroamericana (UNITEC Honduras)
Distrito Central, Tegucigalpa, Honduras
tyzongarcia@unitec.edu; paola.pascua@unitec.edu.hn
2
Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Tecnológica Centroamericana (UNITEC Honduras)
Distrito Central, Tegucigalpa, Honduras
1

Abstract - At UNITEC Tegucigalpa, it was observed that, during anthropometry laboratory practices, body measurements were obtained
from the subjects measured using traditional methods, where the measurers took the measurements in various ways. This variability
caused fatigue in both the students being measured and the measurers, resulting in delays in obtaining results. Consequently, these results
could have some degree of alteration, which was not conducive to the classroom activity. The objective was to analyze improvements inthe methodology for taking anthropometric measurements through alternative measurement methods, with the participation of 14 students
from the Methods Engineering I class. It was found that the photogrammetry method offered greater reliability (AE = -0.40 cm) comparedto the 3D scanning method (AE = +4.19 cm). The photogrammetry method had the highest percentage of activity by the measuring
student, reaching 100%, and reduced the time by 32.16% (average percentage relative error with AE = -8.13 min) compared to the
traditional method. On the other hand, the 3D scanning method resulted in a greater idle time for the measurer, accounting for 78.82%(7.79 minutes) of the total time.
Keywords: anthropometry, 3D scanning, photogrammetry, fatigue, absolute error

1. Introduction

The issue addressed in this article pertained to the anthropometry laboratory practices, where body measurements wereobtained from the subjects using traditional methods. Measurers employed various techniques, leading to variability thatcaused fatigue for both the students being measured and the measurers. This variability also resulted in delays in obtaining
results, and consequently, these results could have been altered to some extent, which was not conducive to the class activity.
The overarching objective was to analyze improvements in the methodology for taking anthropometric measurements during
the practice sessions at the Industrial and Systems Engineering Laboratory of UNITEC Honduras. This was achieved throughthe application of alternative methods such as 3D scanning and photogrammetry, utilizing Engineering Methods. Three
specific objectives were outlined: firstly, anthropometric measurements were conducted with students from the Methods
Engineering I class, who had limited expertise in body measurements. This involved comparing the traditional method withalternative methods to identify enhancements in the laboratory practice. The evaluation was based on the standard
anthropometric technique, principles of work design, and 23 anthropometric measurements specified in the class guide.
In the second objective, the activity and inactivity times during the anthropometric measurements of the subjects werecompared using both the traditional method and alternative methods, with measurements conducted utilizing the multiple
activity diagram. In the third objective, it was validated that the methodology employed in the current investigation,encompassing both traditional and alternative methods, adhered to good practices. This validation was achieved throughpiloting, inferential statistical analysis utilizing the paired T-test (for anthropometric measurements and total measurementtime), and triangulation by experts.
In relation to this problem, similar studies were found. In the Netherlands, in 2011, a study was conducted on theevaluation of anthropometric precision and reliability using three different three-dimensional scanning systems: Minolta
Vivid 900, CBCT, and Di3D; subsequently, they were compared with physical linear measurements. All 3D scanningsystems proved to be highly reliable (ICC > 0.923-0.999) compared to physical measurements (ICC; 0.964-0.999). Only one
CBCT measurement and one Di3D measurement had a mean absolute error of more than 1.5 mm [1]. Meanwhile, in
Switzerland, a study was conducted in 2017 comparing 3D laser-based photonic scans and manual anthropometric

ICMIE 102-1

measurements of height and waist, hip, buttock, and chest circumferences twice for each of the 123 young Swiss
participants. The Vitus Smart XXL body scanner was used, and the means between both techniques were compared,
revealing significant differences: height was lower by 2.1 cm; while waist, hip, and bust circumference measurements
were greater in the scans by between 1.17 and 4.37 cm [2]. At the regional level, in Mexico, a study was carried out in2016 on the development of a program for anthropometry through photogrammetry. A reduction in time of 53% andcost of 97% was obtained, with photogrammetric technique proving to be the one that reached the lowest time and costfor obtaining anthropometric measurements [3].
This article will consist of the following sections: the first, the introduction, where the definition of the problem,
some international and regional background, and the objectives (general and specific) will be presented; in the second
section, the methodology will be described, where the approach, scope, population, sample, analyzed variables,
instruments, and applied techniques will be presented; in the third section, the results and analysis obtained from eachspecific objective will be shown; in the fourth section, the conclusions; in the fifth section, the applicability; and thesixth section, the evolution of the current work.

2. Methodology

2.1. Focus and scope
For this study, the quantitative approach was employed as the studied phenomena (anthropometric measurements andtime) could be measured [4]. Data were collected, and statistical analyses were conducted to identify behavioral patterns in
the obtained body measurements and the recorded time [5]. The scope of this study aligned with descriptive research, where
the anthropometric measurements of the participants in the involved sample and the presented procedures were analyzed [5].
2.2. Population and sample
The finite population identified for this study was the 14 students (6 men and 8 women) from the Methods Engineering
I class of the Industrial and Systems Engineering degree at UNITEC Tegucigalpa campus during the IV academic period(October-December 2023). The sampling techniques used in this study were as follows: simple random probabilistic
sampling to determine the total sample of participants (14 students); additionally, non-probability convenience sampling was
employed to establish the number of available student meters [6] who used the Blender measurement software and the mobile
application, as explained in the following paragraph. The study was divided into stages. In stage 1 of the alternative 3D
scanning method and photogrammetry, a sample of 9 students (out of the total 14) was defined who volunteered to act as
scanners or photographers of the students measured through the Skanect scanning program and the ImageMeter mobile
application. In stage 2 of both alternative methods, 5 of the 9 students mentioned above played the role of student meters,
participating in the measurement stage using the Blender and ImageMeter programs. The remaining 4 students could notparticipate due to time limitations and schedule discrepancies with the researcher.
2.3. Variables analyzed
The research variables were the following shown in Table 1:
Table 1: Variables analyzed

23 Anthropometric Measurements from the Anthropometry Laboratory Guide
A
B
C
D
E
I
J
K

Vertical reach
HeightHeight of the eyes to the ground
Height of the elbows to the ground
Reach of the arm in front
Length of the footHead width
Shoulder width

Source: Own elaboration

L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S

Hip width
Elbow to elbow distanceHead length
Height from seat
Eye height to seat
Shoulder height to seat
Resting elbow height to seat
Free thigh height

ICMIE 102-2

T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Distance from knee to floor
Seat length
Buttock-knee distance
Bottom height of the leg
Foot buttock distanceLeg buttock length
Hand forearm length

The variables mentioned above were 23 anthropometric measurements—essential determinants of ergonomic
conditions [7]—according to the guide of the Anthropometry Laboratory of the subject of Engineering Methods I. This guidecontained 26 anthropometric measurements, of which 3 were not considered for this research: chest circumference (F), waist
circumference (G) and hip circumference (H). The main reason they were not included in this study was because themeasurement software Blender and the mobile application ImageMeter did not have a tool that could take measurements ofcurved surfaces.
2.4. Instruments and applied techniques
To achieve the objectives outlined in specific objective 1, the following measurement instruments were used in the
traditional method: anthropometers, movable wooden stops for anthropometric measurement, and measuring tapes. For thealternative 3D scanning method, a Kinect v1 sensor was required to capture 3D meshes, along with the Skanect scanningsoftware and the Blender measurement program. In the alternative photogrammetry method, the ImageMeter mobile
application was utilized to obtain images and measurements. To accomplish specific objective 2, a stopwatch was employed
to measure the duration of each proposed method. For data tabulation, the multiple activity diagram was used to graphicallyillustrate the recording of the respective activities of various study objects (measurers and measurement programs
simultaneously) on a common time scale to show the correlation between them [8]. Paired T-test analysis was employed to
study the estimation procedures for the difference of two means when the samples are not independent, and the variances of
the two populations are not necessarily equal [9]. For specific objective 3, the inferential statistical technique of the paired
T-test was utilized to compare the anthropometric measurements obtained by the measuring students in each of thealternative methods with respect to the traditional method; additionally, validation with triangulation by experts was
required. Microsoft Excel was used for the respective analyses in each of the three proposed objectives.

3. Results and analysis

3.1. Anthropometric measurements using the standard anthropometric technique and work designprinciples
3.1.1. Traditional method
Anthropometry is a collection of direct quantitative measurements of the external dimensions of the human body, which
can be used as indirect indicators of body composition [10]. The traditional method of direct measurement is based ondetermining the depths, heights, and widths of different parts of the human body from anatomical points established withmeasuring instruments [11]. Prior to obtaining the final anthropometric measurements using the traditional method, a pilot
project was conducted to identify areas for improvement in the measurement process using physical measurement
instruments (anthropometers, measuring tapes, and movable wooden stops for anthropometric measurement). The movablewooden stops served as reference points for conducting anthropometric measurements.
Following the pilot project, the need to prepare the students with essential instructions became apparent (through threebrief briefings in each of the three methods), as the 14 students were divided into three groups (two groups of five members
and one group of four) on different days (two days), with the aim of achieving better results in the final measurements througha comprehensive explanation of the method. To carry out the practice that would yield the official results, the most suitablemeasurement method identified during the pilot project was applied: three measurers taking measurements of two postures
for the same student until the measurement process was completed. The design of the work allows for analyses to be
conducted that minimize work-related injuries [12]. The work design principles identified in the traditional method were as
follows: provide a comfortable chair for the operator, offer seat adjustability, place all tools and materials within the normal
work area, and arrange tools and materials to allow for the best sequence.
3.1.2. Alternative 3D scanning method
Prior to taking the official anthropometric measurements of the alternative 3D scanning method, as in the traditional
method, a pilot study was carried out to identify points of improvement. As a result of the piloting, 3 final postures were
proposed as described below: first posture, in a standing position aligned to the wall with the right arm extended upward andthe left arm extended forward; second posture, in a standing position aligned to the wall with the elbows at 90 degrees; andthird posture, in a sitting position with the back upright without leaning against a wall, the right foot extended parallel to thefloor supported on a bench or footrest, the left foot with the knee bent at 90 degrees, the elbows at 90 degrees close to the
ICMIE 102-3

body and looking forward. After the piloting, 3 short socializations were carried out with a duration between 15 to 25 minutes,
where the usefulness and correct use of the anthropometric measurement instruments to be used were explained to eachgroup (Kinect sensor, Skanect scanning program and the Blender measurement). This method was carried out in 2 stages:
3.1.2.1. Stage 1: 3D mesh capture via scanning in the alternative scanning method
Stage 1 consisted of scanning the 14 students from the Methods Engineering I class. In this method, the following
instruments were needed: Kinect v1 sensor and the Skanect scanning program. The 3D scanners have the next advantages:
performing several measurements in a short time, manipulation of the individual is minimal, there is precision and fidelityof the results. However, there is a need to train personnel to use the equipment, and such equipment can be expensive [13].
3.1.2.2. Stage 2: Anthropometric measurements via Blender in the alternative method of 3D
scanning
Once the scanning of all the 14 students participating in this study was completed, their anthropometric measurements
were taken through the Blender program in stage 2. The additional work design principles that were identified in the 3D
scanning method were the following (including those shown in the traditional method): adjust the height of the work
surface based on the task being performed and promote postural flexibility.
3.1.3. Alternative photogrammetry method
Prior to taking the final anthropometric measurements of the alternative photogrammetry method, a pilot study was
carried out to identify points of improvement. Subsequently, 3 short socializations were held with a duration between 10 and
15 minutes each, where the usefulness of the ImageMeter mobile application was explained to each group and the “reference
scale” was shown to take anthropometric measurements from an already known dimension. This method was carried out in2 stages:
3.1.3.1. Stage 1: Taking pictures of the alternative photogrammetry method
To obtain these measurements, the photogrammetry method was used, which consisted of taking the measurementof an object, through photographs [14]. In this alternative method, the physical presence of the person is no longer necessary
for the process of taking measurements, and can be done at any time [13]. Stage 1 consisted of taking photographs of the 14
participants. As a result of the piloting, 4 final postures were proposed as described below: first posture, in a standing position
with the back aligned to a wall, with the right arm extended upward and the left arm extended forward; second posture, in astanding position with the back aligned to a wall with the elbows at 90 degrees; third posture, in a sitting position with theback upright without leaning against a wall, the right foot extended parallel to the floor supported on a bench or footrest, theleft foot with the knee bent at 90 degrees, the elbows at 90 degrees close to the body and looking forward; and fourth posture,
in a sitting position with the back upright without leaning on a wall, looking forward and elbows close to the body.
3.1.3.2. Stage 2: Anthropometric measurements via ImageMeter
Once the photographs of all the 14 students participating in this study were completed, their anthropometricmeasurements were taken through the ImageMeter mobile application in stage 2. It is necessary to mention that height (B),head width (J) and height from the seat (O) in this method were used as “reference scales” taken from the measurements
made in the traditional method; therefore, since they are already known dimensions, they were not considered within theanalysis of this method. The work design principles identified in the alternative photogrammetry method were the sameones identified in the alternative 3D scanning method.
After knowing the anthropometric measurements of each alternative method, they were compared with theanthropometric measurements of the traditional method through the following tools: the relative percentage error, which isdefined as the quotient between the EA and the exact value; and the absolute error (EA), which consists of the difference
between the observed value (anthropometric measurements of the alternative 3D scanning method either
photogrammetry) and its expected value (the anthropometric measurements of the traditional method) [15]. It was notedthat the 3D scanning method had a higher average absolute error (+4.19 cm) compared to the photogrammetry method (-0.40 cm). Below are the statistical data calculated from the results obtained from each of the 3 methods in Table 2:

ICMIE 102-4

Table 2: Statistical data of the final anthropometric measurements obtained from men and women in each method analyzed (cm)Statistical data of the final anthropometric measurements obtained from men and women in eachmethod analyzed (cm)Anthropometric measurement
A
B
C
D
E
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Vertical reach
HeightHeight of the eyes to the ground
Height of the elbows to the ground
Reach of the arm in front
Length of the footHead width
Shoulder width
Hip width
Elbow to elbow distanceHead length
Height from seat
Eye height to seat
Shoulder height to seat
Resting elbow height to seat
Free thigh height
Distance from knee to floor
Seat length
Buttock-knee distance
Bottom height of the leg
Foot buttock distanceLeg buttock length
Hand forearm length

Source: Own elaboration

Traditional methodµ196.81164.93152.80101.26
69.62
27.29
15.45
39.58
38.72
39.72
18.77
85.49
74.38
56.30
22.69
16.13
51.71
45.09
56.17
39.20
71.86
105.88
25.26

σ
9.79
7.50
7.24
4.33
4.27
1.79
0.75
2.30
3.72
6.67
0.98
3.53
3.31
2.09
2.61
2.16
2.92
4.79
3.98
1.52
4.18
7.07
2.22

3D Scanning
Methodµ202.38170.47158.48107.67
70.84
31.77
21.87
44.97
43.05
47.03
25.79
87.13
74.17
56.51
22.63
16.91
57.26
49.34
63.08
43.90
77.73
110.82
27.61

σ
6.64
4.77
4.84
4.36
4.91
3.48
4.52
4.20
8.99
8.82
5.18
2.40
2.23
3.60
2.88
1.41
2.72
5.51
5.58
1.71
3.30
3.22
1.34

Photogrammetry
Methodµ203.08165.60153.24
96.54
68.72
27.62
15.26
37.86
37.22
41.66
21.02
84.30
72.44
57.20
22.34
19.32
54.28
43.18
59.80
39.80
68.26
93.38
24.20

σ
13.59
6.28
5.63
3.86
1.27
5.47
4.82
9.20
2.24
2.23
2.11
1.70
3.53
2.03
1.26
2.07
1.78
3.49
4.81
0.79

3.2. Uptime and downtime using the multiple activity diagram
3.2.1. Traditional method
Prior to making the aforementioned multiple activity diagram, time was clocked for each of the anthropometricmeasurements in this method. Three student measurers were required to intervene simultaneously to take anthropometricmeasurements of 1 student measured. The average total time per person in the traditional method was 21.35 min, with a CI
= (19.36 min, 23.33 min). Below is a summary of the results obtained in Table 3:
Table 3: Average activity and inactivity times of measurers in the traditional method (min)Measurers
Measurer 1
Measurer 2
Measurer 3

Average activity and inactivity times of measurers in the traditional method (min)Function
AT (min) IT (min) AP (%)
Tape measurement metric or anthropometer
Use the movable wooden stops for anthropometricmeasurement
Alignment support for movable wooden stops andregistration.

Source: Own elaboration

IP (%)

21.01

0.34

98.43%

1.57%

12.21

9.14

57.20%

42.80%

13.27

8.08

62.14%

37.86%

It was noted that the majority of the work was carried out by the measurer 1, who had a very low percentage of leisure(IP = 1.57%) compared to the other measurers.
ICMIE 102-5

3.2.2. 3D scanning method
Prior to making the aforementioned multiple activity diagram, the time for each of the activities was timed to take theanthropometric measurements of the 3D scanning method. During this method, 1 measuring student was required to takeanthropometric measurements of 1 measured student. The average total time per person in the 3D scanning method was
36.77 min, with a CI = (34.35 min, 39.18 min). Below is a summary (Table 4) with the activity and inactivity times obtained:
Table 4: Activity and inactivity times in the 3D scanning method (min)Average activity and inactivity times of the measuring student and the programs involved in the 3D
scanning method (min)Measurers

Function

AT (min)

IT (min)AP (%)IP (%)

Measurer

Scan and measurement

28.98

7.79

78.82%

21.18%

Skanect Software (Stage 1)

Projection of image to scan

16.97

0.00

100%

0%

Blender Software (Stage 2)

Measurement

19.80

0.00

100%

0%

Source: Own elaboration

The average time in which stage 1 was carried out was 16.97 minutes. It should be noted that, in this stage, themeasured students and the measurer participated. However, for stage 2, only the measuring student was counted, in an
average time of 19.80 minutes.
3.2.3. Photogrammetry method
Prior to making the aforementioned multiple activity diagram, the time for each of the activities was timed to take theanthropometric measurements of the photogrammetry method. During this method, 1 measuring student was required totake anthropometric measurements of 1 measured student. The mean total time per person in the photogrammetry method
was 15.26 min, with a CI = (13.94 min, 16.58 min). Below is a summary (Table 5) with the results obtained:
Table 5: Activity and inactivity times in the photogrammetry method (min)Average activity and inactivity times of the measurer and the ImageMeter mobile application in thephotogrammetry method (min)Measurers

Function

AT (min)

IT (min)AP (%)IP (%)

MeasurerTake photographs and measurement

15.26

0.00

100%

0%

ImageMeter (Stage 1)

Project image to photograph

2.06

0.00

100%

0%

ImageMeter (Stage 2)

Measurement

13.21

0.00

100%

0%

Source: Own elaboration

The average time in which stage 1 was carried out was 2.06 minutes. It should be noted that, in this stage, the measured
students and the measurer participated. However, for stage 2, only the measuring student was counted, in an average time of
13.21 minutes. It could be observed that there was no idle time for both the measurer and the mobile application during bothstages. For comparison purposes, the average AE was calculated, where the observed value was the average total time perperson practicing the proposed alternative methods (3D scanning or photogrammetry); and the expected value was theaverage total time per person of the traditional method. It was noted that the 3D scanning method had an average AE of+13.38 min and the photogrammetry method presented an average AE of -8.13 min compared to the traditional method.
The photogrammetry method reduced the average time per person by 32.16% compared to the time value of the
traditional method. And the 3D scanning method, increased the time by 62.91% compared to the time value of the
traditional method.

ICMIE 102-6

3.3. Validation of the research methodology through piloting, paired test analysis and triangulation byexperts
As explained in previous sections, pilot tests were carried out during each method presented. After knowing theanthropometric measurements obtained, paired T tests were carried out to compare the dimensions obtained by the measuring
students in each alternative method with respect to the traditional method: for the 3D scanning method, it was noted thatthe measurements obtained tended to be lower than those of the instrument method. It was concluded that there was asignificant difference; and for the photogrammetry method, it was concluded that the anthropometric measurements
obtained in this method did not present a significant difference with respect to those obtained in the traditional method. A
socialization was carried out with the professor of the subject, where he stated that the alternative photogrammetry method
was more appropriate given the greater number of advantages it offered. Follow-up and review meetings were held by 3
experts in the area of Methods Engineering during the course of the research, where all 3 agreed that good practices werecarried out to execute the initially proposed methodology, providing greater reliability for this study.

4. Conclusions

In relation to the first objective set, the alternative photogrammetry method offered greater reliability in the resultsof the laboratory practice, taking the mean absolute error of estimation of the anthropometric measurements with respect tothe measurements of the traditional method as a reference (mean AE = -0.40 cm). However, this method had the limitation
that, in stage 2, three reference scales were needed (height, head width, and seat height) which were measured using heightmeasurement instruments of the traditional method. Without these scales, the practice would not be possible. On the other
hand, the alternative 3D scanning method (with mean AE = +4.19 cm) did not require those reference scales (alreadyknown dimensions) to take the anthropometric measurements; therefore, this became an additional advantage of thisscanning method.
Next, related to the second objective, the photogrammetry method presented an improvement by reducing the time by
32.16% (average percentage relative error with an AE = -8.13 min) compared to the traditional method. This method
presented the shortest average total duration time per person with a CI = (13.94 min, 16.58 min) at a 95% confidence level.
The traditional method made evident the high percentage of underutilization by 2 of the 3 measurers. Measurer 1 wasinactive 1.57% of the time; measurer 2 had an average idle time of 42.80% (9.14 minutes) of the total time; and measurer 3
presented idle time for 37.86% (8.08 minutes) of the total time. This method showed greater likelihood of wasted wait times
and wasted talent. The alternative photogrammetry method presented the best percentage of activity by the measuring
student at 100% compared to the other methods. The measuring student was idle for 78.82% (7.79 minutes) during the total
time of the 3D scanning method. Both methods showed the improvement that only 1 measuring student was involved in thepractice without having direct physical contact with the measured student, increasing the comfort level for both the measured
subject and the measurer.
In relation to what was proposed in the third objective, studies of anthropometric measurements that do not consider
prior piloting to identify improvements would have a higher degree of error, since they will not have contemplated potential
improvements in relation to the accuracy of the final measurements to be made. In addition to the above, triangulation byexperts contributed to making the study more reliable. The 3 methods engineering experts assessed this research during its
development. In addition to the three experts, during the final evaluation of the project, a fourth expert conducted a final
check. All of them agreed that the proposed methodology was developed with good practices.
In general, the photogrammetry method presented a greater number of advantages in terms of reliability, time, costand handling of the mobile application; with the disadvantage that reference scales were needed to take the measurements.
The traditional method showed the existence of underutilized personnel; however, through alternative methods thenumber of measurers involved and the percentage of leisure were reduced and postural flexibility was promoted. The research
had good practices through piloting, paired testing and triangulation by experts in relation to the analyzed sample ofparticipating students and the socialization carried out with the Engineering Methods I professor.

5. Applicability

This research project is defined at the proposal level; however, it could be implemented at a partial level in the
Industrial and Systems Engineering Laboratory for anthropometry practices. The study is applicable to other institutions
within the same educational field that have a similar theme in their curriculum.

ICMIE 102-7

6. Evolution of current work

A second stage of this study would consist of the use of the research line of Design of Experiments, where the following
research questions would arise:1) Question 1: What is the appropriate distance between the measured subject and the mobile phone camera to takephotographs of the students to be measured in the photogrammetry method?
2) Question 2: What effect would it have on the final measurement of the photogrammetry method if a different reference
scale other than the anthropometric measurements of the measured subject is taken (using a previously known measurement,
for example, the height of an anthropometric bench)?

References[1] Fourie, Z., Damstra, J., Gerrits, P. O., & Ren, Y. (2011). Evaluation of anthropometric accuracy and reliability using
different three-dimensional scanning systems. Forensic Science International, 207(1), 127-134.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.09.018[2] Koepke, N., Zwahlen, M., Wells, J. C., Bender, N., Henneberg, M., Rühli, F. J., & Staub, K. (2017). Comparison of 3D
laser-based photonic scans and manual anthropometric measurements of body size and shape in a validation study of
123 young Swiss men. PeerJ, 5, e2980. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2980[3] Gallegos, S. C. P., Mejía, G. I., Valles, G. R., Chávez, O. R., Saldaña, N. N., Hernández, A. L. P., & Valdiviezo, I. C.
(2016). Desarrollo de un programa para antropometría por medio de fotogrametría. Cultura Científica y Tecnológica,
57, Article 57. https://erevistas.uacj.mx/ojs/index.php/culcyt/article/view/772[4] Vega, G., Ávila, J., Vega, A., Becerril, A., & Amador, G. (2014). Paradigmas en la investigación. Enfoque cuantitativo
y cualitativo (Vol. 10). https://core.ac.uk/reader/236413540[5] Sampieri, R., Collado, C., & Lucio, M. del P. (2010). Metodología de la Investigación (5ta edición) (5ta ed.). McGraw
Hill.
[6] Sampieri, R., Collado, C., & Lucio, M. del P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación (6ta edición) (6ta ed.). McGraw
Hill.
[7] Milián, L., Moncada, F., & Borjas, E. (2014). Manual de medidas antropométricas (p. 72). Instituto Regional de Estudios
enSustancias
Tóxicas.
https://repositorio.una.ac.cr/bitstream/handle/11056/8632/MANUAL%20ANTROPOMETRIA.pdf[8] Kanawaty, G. (1998). Introducción al estudio del trabajo (4ta ed.). Oficina Internacional del Trabajo.
[9] Walpole, R., Myers, R., Myers, S., & Keying, Y. (2012). Probabilidad y estadística para ingeniería y ciencias (9na ed.).
Pearson.
[10] Rumbo-Rodríguez, L., Sánchez-SanSegundo, M., Ferrer-Cascales, R., García-D’Urso, N., Hurtado-Sánchez, J. A., &Zaragoza-Martí, A. (2021). Comparison of Body Scanner and Manual Anthropometric Measurements of Body Shape:
A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), Article 12.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126213[11] Prado, L., Ávila, R., & Herrera, E. (2005). Factores ergonómicos en el diseño—Antropometría.
[12] Niebel, B., & Freivalds, A. (2009). Ingeniería Industrial—Métodos, estándares y diseño del trabajo (Duodécima
edición). McGraw Hill.
[13] Lescay, R. N., Alonso Becerra, A., & Hernández González, A. (2017). Antropometría. Análisis comparativo de lastecnologías para la captación de las dimensiones antropométricas. Revista EIA, 13(26), 47-59.
https://doi.org/10.24050/reia.v13i26.799[14] Lehmann, G. (1975). Fotogrametría. Reverte.
[15] Boada, A. (2011). Limitaciones de los errores relativos en los pronósticos, una nueva propuesta para cuantificar loserrores porcentuales en predicciones. CONHISREMI, 7, 1-18

ICMIE 102-8