Data from the Series 11 

NATIONAL HEALTH SURVEY Number 143 

BodyDimensionsand 

Proportions,White and 

NegroChildren6-11Years 

UnitedStates 

Presents and discusses data on 20 anthropometric dimensions of 

children 6-11 years of age in the United States, 1963-65. The data 

are analyzed by race as well as age and sex and compare the patterns 

of body growth in Negro and white children in the United States. 

DHEW Publication No. (H RA) 75-1625 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 

Public Health Service 

Health Resources Administration 

National Center for Health Statistics 

Rockville, Md. December 1974 
Series 11 reports present findings from the National Health Examination Survey, which 

obtains data through direct examination, tests, and measurements of samples of the U.S. 

population. Reports 1 through 38 relate to the adult program, Cycle I of the Health 

Examination Survey. The present report is one of a number of reports of findings from the 

children and youth programs, Cycles II and III of the Health Examination Survey. These 

latter reports from Cycles II and III are being published in Series 11 but are numbered 

consecutively beginning with 101. It is hoped this will guide users to the data in which they 

are interested. 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

Malina, Robert M. 

Body dimensions and proportions, white and Negro children, 6-l 1 years, United States. 

(National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and health statistics. Series 11: Data from 

the National Health Survey, no. 143) (DHEW publication no. (HRA) 75-1625) 

Supt. of Dots. no.: HE 20.2210: 11/143. 

Includes bibliographical references. 

1. Children in the United States-Anthropometry. 2. Children-Growth. 3. Negro 

children-Anthropometry. I. Hamill, Peter V. V., joint author. II. Lemeshow, Stanley, joint 

author. III. Title. IV. Series: United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and 

health statistics. Series 11: Data from the National Health Survey. Data from the heahh 

examination survey, no. 143. V. Series: United States. Dept. of Health, Education, and 

Welfare. DHEW publication no. (HRA) 75-1625. [DNLM: 1. Anthropometry-In infancy 

and chiIdhood. 2. Body height-In infancy and childhood. 3. Body weight-In infancy and 

childhood. W2AN 148vk no. 143 19 741 

RA407.3.A347 no. 143 [GN63] 312’.6973s [572] 74-4239 

ISBN O-8406-0011-9 

For saleby the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OEice,Washington, D.C. w402- Price $1.30 
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS 

EDWARD B. PERRIN, Ph.D., Llirector 

PHILIP S: LAWRENCE, Sc.D., Deputy Director 

JACOB J. FELDMAN, Ph.D., Acting Associate Director for Analysis 

GAIL F. FISHER, Associate Directorfor the Cooperative Health Statistics System 

ELIJAH L. WHITE, Associate Directorfor Data Systems 

IWAO M. MORIYAMA, Ph.D., Associate Directorfor International Statistics 

EDWARD E. MINTY, Associate Director for Management 

ROBERT A. ISRAEL, Associate Director for Operations 

QUENTIN R. REMEIN, Associate Director for Program Development 

PAUL E. LEAVERTON, Acting Associate Director for Research 

ALICE HAYWOOD, Information Officer 

DIVISION OF HEALTH EXAMINATION STATISTICS 

ARTHUR J. MCDOWELL, Director 

JEAN-PIERRE HABICHT, M.D., Ph.D., Special Assistant to Director 

PETER V. V. HAMILL, M.D., Medical Advisor 

JEAN ROBERTS, Chief, Medical Statistics Branch 

SIDNEY ABRAHAM, Chief, Nu hition Statistics Branch 

ROBERT S. MURPHY, Chief, Survey Pkrming and Development Branch 

COOPERATION OF THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 

In accordance with specifications established by the National 

Health Survey, the Bureau of the Census, under a contractual 

agreement, participated in the design and selection of the sample, 

and carried out the first stage of the field interviewing and certain 

parts of the statistical processing. 

Vital and Health Statistics-Series 1 l-No. 143 

DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 75-1625 

Library of Congress Catalog Gtrd Number 74-4239 
---------- 

---- 

-------- 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Method------_----_-“--------------------------”-----------“

Results _----__--------------------------------------------------”

Weight andHeight -------_-------_-----------------------------------

Ponderal Index-----------------------------------------------------

Components of Stature: Sitting Height and Subischial Length--------------

Sitting Height/Stature Ratio --------------------____________L_______--

Partitioning the Lower Extremity -----------_L-----_------------------

Partitioning the Upper Extremity I------------------------------------

Biacromial Breadth ----------------_--_____L_______________”

Bicristal Breadth -----------_----I----------------------------------

Biacromial Breadth/Bicristal Breadth Relationship---------------------

Chest Dimensions -----------__-----_-_____c______________----------

Bicondylar Breadth of the Femur ----------_--------------------------

Limb Girths-------------------------------------------------------

Estimated Mid-Arm MuscleCircumference ---_-------_--I__-----------

Torso Girths--------------------------------------------------------

Discussion -_-_--------------------------------------------------------

Summary------------------------------------------------------------" 

References --_--__-------------_____I______________-------------------

List of Detailed Tables ---------------^---------------------------------

Appendix I. Statistical Notes -----------_-_---------------------------

The Survey Design--------------------------------------------------

Notes on Response Rates-------__-_-------_-------------------------

Parameter and Variance Estimation ---__------------_---------------­

,Q.g&ards of R&ability and Precision--------------------------------

Hypothesis Testing ---------------_--__-----------------------------

Appendix II. Techniques of Measurement and Quality Control-------------

Techniques of Measurement ------------I---_---___L________________--

Equipment-----------------------------------------------------.--

Measuring Procedures andDefinitions ----“-“--------_-_------------

Derived Measurements -_---_-------------_____________________---

Indexes and Ratios-----------------------------------------------

Quality Control and Estimation of Residual Measurement Error----------

Monitoring Systems----------------------------------------------

Biases and Controls in Replicate Measurements---------------------

Selection of Replicate Examinees ------__---___--------------------

The Analysis of Replicate Data on Body Measurements---------------

Cycle III Systematic Replicate Procedure ---------------------------

Results of the Replicate Analysis ----_-------_-------_____________I 

Discussion and Summary of Replicate Analysis----------------------

3 

4 

4 

5 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

10 

11 

11 

11 

12 

13 

14 

17 

18 

20 

48 

48 

49 

49 

50 

50 

51 

51 

52 

53 

56 

56 

57 

57 

57 

58 

59 

59 

60 

65 

..: 

Ill1 
BODY DIMENSIONS AND PROPORTIONS, 

WHITE AND NEGRO CHILDREN 6-11 YEARS 

Robert hf. F&l&, Ph.D., Peter 1’. \‘. Hamili, M.D., M.P.H., and Stanley Lemeshow, I\l.S.P.H.a 

This report compares the growth patterns of 

white and Negro childrem for 20 body measurements selected from a survey of U.S. children 

6-11 years of age, Cycle II of the Health Examination Survey. It is the fifth in a series of reports presenting analyses and discussions of data 

on height, weight, and 28 other body measurements 

taken in Cycle II. The first two reports ‘*’ analyzed height and weight by age, sex, race, geographic region, and various socioeconomic indicators. The third report 3 presented data on skinfold thickness. The fourth’ considered data, by 

age and sex, on 21 body measurements performed 

in Cycle II which are specifically useful to those 

concerned with human factors in equipment and 

safety design and in the manufacture of furniture 

and clothing. 

The Health Examination Survey (HES) is conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics 

to collect and analyze health-related data on the 

American people through direct examination of 

selected subjects. It is a succession of separate 

programs, each referred to as a “cycle,” and 

each cycle lasts from 2 to 4 years.5 

Cycle I of HES, conducted from 1959 to 1962, 

obtained information on the prevalence of certain 

chronic diseases and the distribution of anumber 

of anthropometric and sensory characteristics in 

the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the 

conterminous United States aged 18-79 years. 

The general plan and operation of the survey and 

Cycle I are described in two previous reports,5.6 

“Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Texas. 

Austin, Texas; Medical Advisor, Children and Youth Program, 

Division of Health Examination Statistics: and formerly Analytical Statistician, DHES, respectively. 

and most of the results are published in other 

Series 11 reports of Vital and Health Statistics. 

Cycle II, conducted from .July 1963 to December 1965, involved selection and examlnation 

of a probability sample of noninstitutionalized 

children in the United States aged 6-11 years. 

This program succeeded in examining 96 percent 

of the 7,417 children selected for the sample. 

The examination had twoemphases. The first concerned factors related to healthy growth and development as determined by a physician, anurse, 

a dentist, and a psychologist; the second concerned 

a variety of somatic and physiologic measurements performed by specially trained technicians. 

The detailed plan and operation of Cycle II and the 

response results are described inVital and Health 

Statistics, Series 1, Number 5.? A comparable 

examination of data collection for Cycle III, youths 

aged 12-17, was completed in 1970, and the plan 

and operation are described in Series 1, Number 

8.8 

The present report and Series 11, Number 

123 ’ together consider 27 of the 30 body measurements taken in Cycle II, leaving out only the three 

skinfold measurements. Although companion 

pieces, these two reports are very dissimilar in 

purpose and method of analysis. As stated in the 

introduction to Series 11, Number 123: 

The main purpose of the numerous body 

measurements collected in Cycle II was to 

define a norma pattern of growth and development in children in the United States in the 

middle 1960’s (and to describe some of the 

modifying factors). However, the opportunity 

to obtain data on this uniquely representative 

sample of U.S. children for more utilitarian 

1 
purposes as well was not disregarded. In 

Cycle I (adults aged 18-79), 18 body measurements were obtained not only as medical 

and anthropologic correlates to the rest of 

the examination, but also as data for use in 

the consideration of anthropometric factors 

in equipment and safety design and manufacture (furniture, clothing, etc.)... The 21 anthropometric dimensions in this report were 

included in the group of body measurements 

partly for their descriptive value in the growth 

and development battery and partly for their 

use in “human engineering” or “human factors” work. Some of the measures have 

limited value in describing growth and development because they comprise multiple 

layers of tissue, multiple organ systems, 

and/or multiple loci of growth (e.g., waist 

and chest size, thigh clearance, all girths, 

seat breadth). However, many of these dimensions were selected primarily toachieve 

continuity with those measurements taken on 

adults in Cycle I of the HES...4 

That report was descriptive and utilitarian 

in its purposes. Percentile distributions of each 

measurement by age and sex were presented as 

found in the total population of U. S. children irrespective of race. In contrast, the present report is biologically oriented, and the data are 

analyzed separately for white and Negro children. 

In addition to the 20 separate body measurements 

taken in Cycle II, which are listed below, three 

indexes and two derived measurements (each 

based on two or more of the separate measurements) are used in the present comparative 

analysis. 

The 20 separate dimensions presented in 

this report by age, sex, and race are weight, 

stature, sitting height, buttock-knee length, popliteal height, foot length, acromion-olecranon 

length, elbow-wrist length, hand length, biacromial breadth, bicristal breadth, bicondylar breadth 

of the femur, chest breadth, chest depth, upper 

arm girth, lower arm girth, calf girth, chest 

girth, waist girth, and hip girth. 

In addition to gross body size, these dimensions provide measures of upper and lower 

extremity lengths, body breadths across bony 

landmarks, and various extremity and torso 

girths. Extremity length measurements make it 

possible to assess the relative contribution of 

different segments (for instance, the upper arm 

and forearm to total arm length) and thus to better 

describe body proportions. Breadth measurements are indicators of skeletal breadth; when 

taken at several body sites they indicate the contribution of skeletal framework to body build. 

Limb circumferences provide an estimate of relative muscularity and thus an insight into the 

body’s compositiqn. The arm, for example, is 

comprised of successive layers of bone, muscle, 

and fat. When arm circumference is corrected 

for the thickness of the outer layer of subcutaneous fat at the triceps site, an estimate of the 

lean component of the arm’s composition is obtained. (See below.) Trunk circumferences are of 

limited value in estimating body composition except perhaps in extreme cases of undernutrition 

or overnutrition. They may, however, contribute 

to a general appraisal of physique, e.g., the ratio 

of chest and waist circumference. Each of thedimensions is defined and the technique of measurements described in detail in appendix II. 

Two dimensions were derived from the available measurements. First, sitting height was subtracted from stature to provide an estimate of 

subischial length. Subischial, or leg, length enables us to partition stature into two major components: the trunk, head, and neck, which comprise sitting height, and the lower extremity 

length. Second, an estimate of the mid-arm muscle circumference (lean component) was obtained 

by correcting the upper arm circumference for 

the thickness of the triceps skinfold as follows: 

EA4C (estimated muscle circumference) = upper 

arm circumference - r triceps skinfold. In recent 

years the estimated upper arm muscle circum: 

ference is often used as an anthropometric index 

of nutritional status.g-ll 

In addition, three ratios were derived from the 

available measurements: (1) the ponderal index, 

height/w, b to provide an approximation of 

physique on a linearity/laterality continuum; (2) 

the ratio of sitting height to stature, sitting height/ 

stature X 100, to indicate the relative contribution of sitting height (head, neck, and trunk) to 

b In computing this ratio height is cspresscdin inchesand 

weight in pounds, which produces a different result than would 

the use of metric measures. 

2 
total stature; and (3) the ratio of biacromial to 

bicristal breadths, biacromial breadth/bicristal 

breadth X 100, to indicate the relative proportions of shoulder and hip width. The shoulderihip 

ratio is used frequently in studies of body proportions and physique. 

Estimates of the usual parameters for distributions (i.e., mean and standard deviation) are 

used throughout the report except where distributions deviate from normal. The percentile 

values indicate the general nature of the distributions, In general, with the exception of body 

weight and several girths, the dimensions discussed in the present report are normally distributed, or show only slight and inconsistent deviations over the age span under study. Normally 

distributed dimensions are primarily length and 

breadth measurements, which are measured between well-defined bony landmarks-bone-tobone measurements. The distributions of bodl 

weight and of limb and trunk circumference mcasurem(;~nts deviate from the normal over the ages 

studied and are skewed to the right. The positive 

skewness is more apparent for body weight and 

trunk circumferences. Of the three limb circumferences, lower arm circumference is normally 

distributed, while both upper arm and calf circumferences are slightly skewed to the right. The 

skewing of weight and girth measurements reflects the contribution of subcutaneous fat tothese 

dimensions. Subcutaneous fat measured via skinfold thickness is positively skewed in distribution. 3 Hence in this report medians of weight and 

girth measurements are used for comparative 

purposes; however, means and their standard 

errors are also included in the detailed tables 

because these statistics are widely used by others. 

The six new body measurements reported 

here complete the presentation of percentile 

distributions of all 30 body measurements taken 

in Cycle 11. Five of the 30 mcasurcs {height, 

weight, and three skinfolds) were examined by 

socioeconomic and demographic variables, in 

addition to percentile distributions specific for 

age, sex, and race. Is3 W the 25 remaining body 

dimensions, seven were considered useful only 

for Series 11, Number 123:‘(foot, hand, seat, and 

elbow-elbow breadths; thigh clearance; knee 

height; and buttock-poplitcal length). Six are presented for the first time in this report (the three 

extremity girths: calf, upper arm, and lower arm; 

and three bone-to-bone breadths: biacromial, bicristal, and bicondylar). Twelve measurements 

are examined in both reports (sitting height, popliteal height, buttock-knee length, acromionolecranon length, elbow-wrist length, foot length, 

hand length, chest breadth and depth, chest girth, 

waist girth, and hip girth). Height and weight, of 

course, are included in many of these reports. 

METHOD 

At each of 40 Iocations preselected randomly 

throughout the United States,c the children were 

brought to the centrally located mobile examination center for an examination which lasted about 

2 l/2 hours. Six children were examined in the 

morning and six in the afternoon. They were transported to and from school or home. 

[#hen the children entered the examination 

canter, their oral temperature was taken and a 

cursory screening for acute illness was made; if 

illness was detected in a child, he was sent home 

and examined at a later date. The examinees 

changed into shorts, cotton sweat socks, and a 

light, sleeveless top and proceeded to different 

stages of the examination, each one following a . 

different route. There were six different stations 

where examinations were conducted simultaneously, and the stations were exchanged, somewhat 

like musical chairs, so that by the end of 2 l/2 

hours each child had had essentially the same examinations by the same examiners but in 3 different sequence. At three of these stations a pediatrician, 3 dentist, and a psychologist made 

examinations, and at the other three stations 

highly trained technicians performed a number of 

other examinations-chest and hand-wrist 

X-rays, hearing and vision tests, respiratory 

function tests and electrocardiography, a bicycle exercise test, 3 battery of body mcasurem?nts, and 3 grip strength test. 

The recording form for the battery of 30 

body measurements is reproduced in appendix II, 

which also gives details on equipment and measuring technique. All lateral measurements were 

performed on the subject’s right side and recorded by a trained observer. Periodic quality control 

‘See appendixI for sample design. 
observation and training sessions were conducted 

by .the supervisory medical staff and outside consultants to insure continued proficiency and to 

obtain replicate data for the purpose of quantifying 

observer erroF. The results are presented indetail in appendix II. 

As in all the HES reports, age is basically 

defined as age attained at last birthday (verified 

from a copy of the birth certificate in 95 percent 

of the Cycle II examinees). The mean age of each 

category therefore approximates the mi.dpoint of 

the whole year; for instance, the 8-year-oldmale 

group consists of a l-year cohortwhose meanage 

is 8.51 years, while the corresponding female 

sample averages 8.49 years. 

“Race” was recorded as “white,” “Negro,” 

and “other races.” d White children comprised 

85.69 percent of the total, Negro children 13.87 

percent, and children of other races only 0.45 

percent; e The differential response rate by age, 

sex, and race is discussed in appendix I. 

RESULTS 

Weight and Heighi 

Weight and height in the Cycle II sample have 

been discussed at length in previous reports.1,2 

They are included here to provide a more corn.­

plete picture of the anthropometry of American 

. d The. classifkation scheme used in the 1960 census was 

employed here. As described in the report on the operation of 

HES Cycle IL7 this information was obtained at the initial 

household interview by the U.S. Bureau of the Census fieldworker. Its accuracy was checked at the subsequent home visit 

by the HES representative and again at the examination in the 

trailer. A final record check by birth certificate turned up only 

seven inconsistencies, and these were mostly pertaining to the 

category “other races.” Hence the possible extent of misclassification of the variable race is so minimal that it could 

have no effect on the data analyzed in this report. However, 

when comparing the HES findings to those on other variously 

defined racial groupings in the world, the degrees of genetic 

admixture, as discussed first by Herskowitz in 1928’ 2 and later 

by Glass and,L~, l3 by Roberts,14’l 5 and by Reed I6 should be 

taken into consideration. 

eChildren of other races were included in Series 11, Number 123, when all the data were analyzed independently of race 

but are omitted, because they arc so few, when a white-Negro 

dichotomy is used, as in the present report. 

‘Or MALE 

30,-/ 

201 

Ol- I I I I I I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

or I I I I I I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

Figure 1. Median weight of white and Negro children by sex 

and age. 

Negro and white children during middle childhood. 

Both weight and height are measures of gross 

body size and, as expected; increase linearly with 

age between 6 and 12 years (figures 1 and 2, tables 

1 and 2). 

Median body weights for white and Negro boys 

differ only slightly from 6 through 8 years, but 

by 9, 10, and 11 years differences inmedian body 

weights have become greater andare consistently 

larger in white boys. White girls have slightly 

greater median body weights than Negro girls at 

6, 7, 8, and 9 years of age, but at 10 .and 11 years 

the median weights for Negro girls are slightly 

greater. 

Racial differences in average stature are negligible for males, mean statures for Negro boys, 

being slightly greater at 6, 7, and 8 years of age 

and those for white boys slightly greater at 9 and 

10 years. On the other hand, Negro girls have 

consistently greater mean statures than white 

girls in all age groups except the 8-year-old 

group, so that at ages 10 and 11 they are both 

taller and heavier than white girls. 

A 
5 

z 

150-

145 -

140 -

135 -

130 -

125 -

120 -

115k 

or I I I I I I 

6 7 6 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

150 

145 

I40 

135 

130 

125 

120 

115 _,,,,,, 

0 

6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 

AGE 

Figure 2. Mean height of white and Negro children by sex and age. 

Ponderal index 

\‘iewing the relationship of height and weight 

(hcight/%?%$) as expressed in the ponderal index 

(figure 3, table 3) indicates consistently higher 

indexes for Negro children of both sexes than for 

whites. High ponderal indexes suggest linearity 

of physique, while low indexes suggest laterality. 

Thus the foregoing ratio of height and weight indicates a linear physique in Negro children of 

both sexes. The difference between mean ponderal 

indexes of Negro and white boys at each age is 

rather consistent from 6 through 11 years. For 

girls this difference is similarly consistent from 

6 through 9 years, but at 10 and 11 years the in14.0 

MALE 

1 13.5 .- ._--..__-_......_-..... . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-........ ., 

Ei 

12.5 

12.0 s 13.0 I- ...C--‘- ~*..C... -

or I I I I I I 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

14.0 

:: I FEMALE 

P 13.5 

; . . . . . . --.-- . . . ..-........ 

k 13.0 

z” 

2 12.5 - White . . . . . . . Negro 

12.0 

or I I I I I I 

6 7 a 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

Figure 3. Mean ponderal index of white and Negro children by 

sex and age. 

dcxes for Negro and white girls approach each 

other. Note, however, that it is at these two ages 

that Negro girls are heavier than white girls. 

Nevertheless, the mean ponderal indexes for 

Negro girls at every age except 10 are higher 

than those for white girls. 

Components of Stature: Sitting Height and 

Subischial Length 

Partitioning standing height into sitting height 

(figure 4, table 4) and subischial length, or stature minus sitting height (figure 5, table 5), illustrates the well-established racial difference in the 

components of stature: Negroes are longer 

Iegged and shorter trunked; conversely, whites 

are shorter Iegged and longer trunked. This is 

true for both sexes, the difference between racial 

groups being generalIy consistent over the age 

range studied. 
Sitting Height/Stature Ratio 

*Or MALE The ratio of sitting height to stature (sitting 

height/standing height X 100) is consistently higher in white children of both sexes (figure 6, table 

6). This ratio indicates that a significantlygreater percentage of standing height is contributed by 

~0~ 

or I 6 7 

I 

8 

I 

9 

I 

10 I 11 _I

12 

the sitting height (head, neck, and trunk) and less 

by subischial or leg length in white than in Negro 

children, while of course the opposite is true AGE for Negro children. The ratio of sitting height to 

acr stature decreases in a parallel manner with increasing age from 6 to 11 years, indicating a 

greater contribution of the lower extremities to 

stature with advancing age during middle childhood in children of both racial groups. 

Or I I I I I I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

Figure 4. Mean sitting height of white and Negrochildren by sex 

and age. 

80-

MALE 

70 -

60 - -..* 

LY 

-5. ---..........* a... L1 51 . . . . 

--*........... .._ E t 

50 - E 5o!z 

or6 7 

I 8 I 9 

I 10 

I 11 

I 12 

I or 7 

I 8 

I 9 

I 10 I 11 

! I 6 12 

AGE AGE 

80 

2 FEMALE 

s 

~ I,/ 

5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -* .....***s 

E a... 

.. . . . . . Negro j, 50 L- 2 

:: 50 I or I I I I I I

or 6 7I 8I 9

I 10I I I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

11 12 AGE 

AGE 

Figure 5. Mean subischial length of white and Negro children by Figure 6. Mean sitting height/stature ratio of white and Negro 

sex and age. childrm by sex and age. 

6 
Partitioning the Lower Extremity 

Although traditional bone-to-bone landmark 

measurements of the lower extremity were not 

taken, two measurements used primarily for 

“human engineering” or “human factors” research purposes provide an approximation of 

racial differences in the components of lower 

extremity length. Buttock-knee length, though 

affected by fatty tissue deposits over the buttocks, 

provides a rough approximation of thigh or upper 

leg length; popliteal height providzs an approximation of lower leg length. Buttock-knee length 

is consistently longer in Negro girls than in white 

girls, the mean differences being smaller at 6, 

7, and 8 years than at 9, 10, and 11 (figure 7, 

table 7). The buttock-knee length of boys shows 

no consistent pattern of differences over the age 

range studied. Although Negro boys have longer 

buttock-knee length measurements at 6, 7, and 8 

or I I I I I J 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

55r FEMALE -

or I I I I I I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

Figure 7. Mean buttock-knee length of white and Negro children 

by sex and age. 

years, differences between Negro and white boys 

are negligibIe at 9, 10, and 11 years. Popliteal 

height is consistently greater in Negro children 

of both sexes over the age span, with the difference between means at each age group being very 

consistent (figure 8, table 8). 

The data for buttock-knee length andpopliteal 

height, though both are only approximate measurements, suggest that the greater length of the lower 

extremity in Negro children is due especially to 

a longer lower leg, the differences in upper leg 

length being minor and inconsistent. This generalization is in agreement with recent observations on Negro and white children utilizing traditional bony landmarks, which givemoreprecise 

measurements.‘7 

Foot lengfh is likewise consistently greater 

in Negro children of both sexes over the age range 

studied (figure 9, table 9). Again, the difference 

between means at each age is very consistent. 

MALE 

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

FEMALE 

7 8 9 10 11 12 

6 AGE 

Figure 8. Mean popliteal height of white and Negro children by 

sex and age. 

7 
b 

23-

18 ­

l’t 

or I I I I I 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

g f 22-

1

5 21 -

B 

5 20-

E 

P 19-

4 

2 18-

0r I I I I I I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

Figure 9. Mean foot length of white and Negro children by sex 

and age. 

02 35 MALE 

pi 

-White 

. . . ..blegro 

Figure 10. Mean acromion-olecranon length of white and Negro 

children by sex and age. 

Partitioning the 

Upper Extremity 

A generally similar racial pattern to that 

observed for the lower extremity is evident for 

the upper extremity. Acromion-olecranon length 

(upper arm length) is consistently greater in 

Negro girls from 6 to 11 years (figure 10, 

table 10). In boys, however, the pattern of differences is not consistent. Negro boys have longer 

upper arms at 6, 7, 8, and 11 years of age, while 

white boys have longer upper arms at 10 years. 

25 -

MALE 

24 -

23 -

18 -

17 -

or I I I I I I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

25 c 

24 -

23 -

22 -

21 -

20 -

19 -

18 -

17!x 

or I I I I I I 

6 7 8 9 10 11 _ 12 

AGE 

Figure 11. Mean elbow-wrist length,of white and Negro children 

by sex and age. 

8 
Mean acromion-olecranon lengths in Negro and 

white boys are identical at 9 years of age. It 

should be noted that a similar pattern of mean 

differences between Negro and white boys and 

girls is apparent for buttock-knee length. Elbowwrist lerqt/l (lower arm or forearm length) is 

consistently greater in Negro children of both 

sexes from (1 through 11 years (figure 11, table 

ll), and the difference between means is rather 

consistent at each age group. 

Hand len.@ is also consistently longer in 

Negro children of both sexes (figure 12, table 12). 

The difference between means at each age is very 

consistent. 

Negro children of both sexes have longer upper extremities than do whites. This difference is 

largely due to the longer forearms and hands of 

Negro children, just as their longer lower extremities are especially due to longer lower legs. (This 

is considered in more detail in the discussion.) 

or I I I I I I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

17r 

01 I I I I I I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

Figure 12. Mean hand length of white and Negro children by sex 

and age. 

Biacromial Breadth 

Negro boys have slightly wider measurements 

of bony breadth of the shoulders at each age except 9 years (figure 13, table 13). Biacromial 

breadths of Negro girls are only slightly higher 

than those of white girls at 6 and 7 years (and 

are the same at age 8). At 9, 10, and 11 years, 

however, the difference between h’egro and white 

girls is greater, perhaps only reflecting the 

larger body size of the Negro girls at these ages 

(see figures 1 and 2). 

33 

r MALE 

25t 

or6 7

I 8 I 9 1 10 1 11 

I 12 I 

AGE 

33r 

32 -

31 -

30 -

23 -

28 -

27 -

26 -

25L. 

or 1 I I , I I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

Figure 13. Mean biacromial breadth of white and Negro children 

by sex and age. 

9 
Bicristal Breadth 

The bony breadth across the iliac crests is 

consistently larger in whites of both sexes over 

the age span studied (figure 14, table 14). Also, 

the difference between means at each age group 

is rather consistent from 6 through 11 years in 

males and 6 through 9 years in females. At 10 

and 11 years the difference between bicristal 

breadth means in Negro and white females becomes slightly smaller than at the younger ages, 

although average bicristal breadth is still larger 

in white females. Thus, even though Negro girls 

are generally larger in overall body size than 

white girls, especially at 10 and 11 years of age, 

white girls have wider bicristal breadths over the 

entire age span studied. 

24 MALE 

23 F 

AGE 

-White 

--..I Nsgro 

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

Fi@re 14. Mean bicristal breadth of white and Negro children by 

sex and age. 

Biacromia!, Breadth/Bicristal Breadth 

Relationship 

The ratio of shoulder to hip breadth (biacromial breadth/bicristal breadth X 100) is consistently higher in Negro children of both sexes 

over the age range studied (figure 15, table 15). 

The higher ratio indicates that Negro children 

have more slender pelves relative to their shoulders than white children. Conversely, the lower 

ratio indicates that ,white children have broader 

hips relative to their shoulders than Negro children. 

The magnitude of the biacromial/bicristaI 

ratio decreases with age in an almost parallel 

manner in Negro and white girls, indicating a 

greater widening of the breadth across the iliac 

crests relative to the breadth of the shoulders. 

The ratio in white boys is almost constant between 

6 and 11 years. In Negro boys the ratio at 6, 7, 8, 

and 11 years of age is almost constant, but at 9 

and 10 years of age it shows a sharp increase. 

Whether this fluctuation in the ratio is only due to 

sampling variation in the smaller Negro sample 

is not clear. 

160 

r 

. ..‘f Negro male / f.. 

,...-* 5 

I... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*_*-*.. ‘.. *..*** 5.. 

f.. 

-e----C %* 

-c ‘% #----, 

\ . 

Figure 15. Meen biacromial breadth/bicristal breadth ratio of 

white end Negro children by sex and age. 

10 
Chest Dimensions 

Chest breadth is, on the average, slightly but 

consistently greater in white children of both sexes 

from 6 through 11 years (figure 16, table 16). 

Chest depth, on the other hand, shows noconsistent pattern of racial differences over the age 

span studied (figure 17, table 17). Interestingly, 

Negro children of both sexes have slightly higher 

mean values at 6 years of age; thereafter mean 

values for the chest depth measurement are generally slightly larger in white children. 

MALE 

“r 

L 

or I I 1 I I I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

23 FEMALE 

22 c 

0r I I I 1 I I 

6 7 8 e 10 11 12 

AGE 

Figure 16. Mean chest breadth of white and Negro children by 

sex and age. 

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

16 r FEMALE 

or I I I I I I 

6 7 8 Q 10 11 12 

AGE 

Figure 17. Mean chest depth of white and Negro children by sex 

and age. 

Bicondylar Breadth of the Femur 

This measurement across the condyles of 

the femur shows only negligible differences between Negro and white children of both sexes 

from 6 through 11 years (table 18). 

limb Girths 

Median vahtes for Uppev arm girth are consistently larger in white boys and girls from 6 

through 11 years (figure 18, table 19), and the 

difference between medians at each age is rather 

consistent. The significance of differences between Negro and white children for this girth 

measurement will be considered in the discussion. 

In lower arm girth, medians for white boys are 

slightly though consistently larger than those for 

Negro boys from 6 through 11 yearsofage. White 

girls have larger lower arm girth medians at 6, 

7, and 8 years of age, but from 9 through 11 years 

11 
22r 

or-- 7

l 8 

I’ 9 I 10 

I 11 I 12 

I 6 AGE 

Figure 18. Median upper arm girth of white and Negro children 

by sex and age. 

no differences between Negro and white girls are. 

apparent in this measurement (figure 19, table 

20). 

Calf girth shows a pattern similar to that 

for upper arm girth. At all ages white boys and 

girls have larger medians for calf girth than their 

Negro counterparts (figure 20, table 21). Thedifferences between medians for Negro and white 

boys are relatively small at 6, 7, and 8 years but 

greater at 9, 10, and 11 years. Differences between the medians for Negro and white girls are 

generally consistent over the age span under study. 

21 FEMALE 

-White 

.-...Negro 

or I I I I I I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

Figure 19. Median lower arm girth of white and Negro children 

by sex and age. 

Estimated Mid-Arm Muscle Circumference 

The upper arm girth corrected for the thickness of the triceps skinfold f provides an estimate 

of the mid-arm muscle or lean circumference of 

the arm. As noted earlier, this estimated measurement is widely used in public health surveys. 

Although the estimated circumference is generally indicated as being a muscle circumference, 

it should be noted that bone tissue, the humerus, 

is also included. The significance of the contribution of bone to this measurement, which is 

impoftant in racial comparisons, is considered 

at length in the discussion. 

fCompa.rison of skinfold thicknessesin the Negro and white 

samplediscussedhere is treatedin detail in anotherreport.3. 

12 
MALE 

AGE 

AGE 

Figure 20. Median calf girth of white and Negro children by sex 

and age. 

Differences in estimated muscle or lean circumference of the arm between Negro and white 

children of both sexes are small; nevertheless, 

they are consistent. Negro boys and girls have, 

on the average, consistently larger estimated 

muscle or lean circumference of the arm than 

whites from 6 through 11 years (figure 21, table 

22). Thus the larger upper arm girth of white 

children noted earlier appears to be due to more 

subcutaneous fat at the triceps site in white children from 6 through 11 years. 

Torso Girths 

White children of both sexes have consistently larger median values for chest .@9h than 

Negro children from 6 through 11 years of age 

(figure 22, table 23). With the exception of the 

i 

or I I I 1 I I 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 

4GE 

lgr FEM4LE 

or- I I I I I 1 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

Figure 21. Mean estimated mid-arm muscle circumference of 

white and Negro children by sex and age. 

‘7 

=t 

0r I I I I I I 

6 7 a 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

73 r FEMALE 

or I I I I I I 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

Figure 22. Median chest girth of white and Negro children by 

sex and age. 

13 
65 r MALE 

or I I I I I I 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

Y-- FEMALE 

0r I I I I I I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

Figure 23. Median waist girth of white and Negro children by 

sex and age. 

,,,, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

60 r FEMALE 

75 

60 

- White 

.-.--. Negro 55 

0 

6 9 10 11 12 

AGE 

Figure 24. Median hip girth of white and Negro children by sex 

and age. 

9-year-old sample, white boys also have larger 

waist girth measurements than Negro boys (figure 

23, table 24). Differences in median values for 

waist girth between Negro and white girls, however, are not consistently apparent over the ages 

studied. Hip gidh shows a pattern similar to that 

for chest girth: white boys and girls have consistently larger medians for this measurement 

from 6 through 11 years of age (figure 24, table 

25). Median values for both chest and hip girths 

in girls show a pattern of decreasing racial differences with increasing age; so at 10 and 11 

years of age differences between medians are 

small. These observations are probably related 

to the greater overall body size of Negro girls at 

these ages. 

DISCUSSION 

Patterns of growth as shown in a series of 

anthropometric dimensions and indexes were 

analyzed in a large, representative sample of 

U.S. Negro and white children 6 through 11 years 

of age. The data are cross-sectional (i.e., different children are represented at each age level) 

and are thus affected by the limitations of crosssectional studies. In addition, emphasis is placed 

on comparisons of mean or median values for 

Negro and white children, despite considerable 

overlap between races in each age and sexgroup. 

Nevertheless, the present data provide updated 

anthropometric information which are reliable 

estimates of American Negro and white children 

of both sexes during middle childhood. 

The Cycle II data for Negro and white children generally agree with existing data for contemporary as well as for earlier samples. It is, 

however, difficult to make precise comparisons 

with most other studies on account of sampling 

and other methodological differences. One difference is that the HES data are grouped by chronological age, and so the average age is the midpoint of the year. For example, 6-year-old children range from 6.00 to 6.99 years, with the mean 

at approximately 6.5 years. In two recent studies 

of Negro and white children which include theage 

period under study>7118’children are grouped into 

yearly categories, with the whole year as the midpoint. In those studies 6-year-olds are classified 

as children aged 5.50 to 6.49 years, with the mean 

14 
at approximately 6,O years. Each of the two procedures refers to the 6-year-old age group, but 

the definitions are different. 

Other technical difficulties in making comparisons relate to definition of sites and techniques of measurement. For example, upper extremity measurements used in the present report 

were made between specific landmarks (e.g., 

acromion to olecranon). Krogman’s measurements of upper extremity segments were derived 

by subtraction of measurements made at specific 

landmarks above floor level; for instance, acromial height minus radial height gives upper arm 

length. l7 

It should be further noted that buttock-knee 

length and popliteal height, two of the measurements used in this report to partition the segments of the lower extremity, are essentially 

human engineering measurements. Because these 

measurements are made from surface to surface 

with light contact, they are confounded to some 

extent by variation in soft tissues. Therefore 

’buttock-knee length and popliteal height provide 

only an approximation of actual segmental lengths 

and are not as precise as measurements using 

traditional bony landmarks. 

Although there are some overall body size 

differences between Negro and white children 

during middle childhood, especially in girls, the 

major anthropometric differences between American Negro and white children are essentially in 

the proportions of the trunk and limbs. In comparison with white children, Negro children have 

shorter trunks, more slender hips and chests, 

longer lower extremities (especially a longer 

lower leg), and longer upper extremities (especially a longer forearm and hand). Conversely, 

in comparison with Negro children, white children have longer, thicker trunks, wider hips, 

shorter lower extremities, and shorter upperextremities. These dimensional and proportional 

differences between American Negro and white 

children were noted as far back as 1929 by 

Todd,i9 and are well documented in other studies 

of children and adults.‘7P20-24Further, such proportional differences have been reported to occur 

prenatally during the first trimester. 25-27 This 

implies that genetic factors affect skeletal dimensions: onets racial background predisposes 

the skeleton to certain proportions. 

In an attempt to assess racial differences in 

the limb segments comprising the upper andlower extremities, the normal deviates for these 

segments were analyzed. For each age and sex 

group, the normal deviate 

was computed. Instead of its usual use in statements of probability levels, this measure is used 

here as an indicator of reIative magnitudes. The 

larger the deviate, the greater the difference 

between whites and Negroes, since by dividing by 

the standard error of the difference, the problem 

of difference in relative magnitude is eliminated. 

Results of this analysis are presented in table 26. 

A distinct pattern suggesting a proximaldistal gradient emerges for the three segments 

of the upper extremity. Differences between Negro 

and white children are least marked for the upper 

arm segment (acromion-olecranon length) and 

most marked for hand length, with the values for 

the forearm segment (elbow-wrist length) being 

intermediate. This pattern of racial differences 

for the upper limb segments is apparent in all 

age groups except the a-year-old boys and girls, 

in whom the deviation from a proximal-distal 

pattern was very slight. 

In contrast to the proximal-distal gradient 

of racial differences in the upper limb segments, 

there is no consistently apparent pattern for the 

segments of the lower extremity in boys. The 

pattern for girls, however, is similar to that 

noted for the upper extremity (table 26); Differences between Negro and white children of both 

sexes are consistently least marked for thigh 

length (buttock-knee length). The pattern of differences for the lower leg and foot is not clear 

in boys. In all but one age group of girls (the 9-

year-old group), however, racial differences are 

most marked for foot length, with the value for 

lower leg length (popliteal height) being intermediate. 

The preceding observations on the lower extremity are in part a function of the measurements used and in part a function of the mechanics 

of the lower extremity. It should be carefully 

noted that two of the measurements of lower ex15 
tremity segments are only indirect measures of 

segment length. Buttock-knee length, for example, 

is affected to some extent by the deposition of 

subcutaneous fat on the buttocks and also includes 

the thickness of the patella or knee cap. (See 

appendix II for discussion of measurement methods.) Hence it is not a true measure of thigh or 

femoral length. Similarly, popliteal height is an 

indirect measure of lower leg length. Because it 

is measured as the distance from the footrest to 

the popliteal fossa, it includes not only the tibia, 

the major bone of the lower leg, but also the bones 

of the ankle, especially the talus and calcaneus. 

Thus this measurement is not an accurate indicator of lower leg length per se. 

In addition to measurement technique, the 

functional mechanics of the upper and lower extremities limit direct comparisons of their respective segment lengths. The foot, for example, 

is adapted as a weight-bearing unit in the upright 

posture, while the hand is adapted as primarily a 

prehensile organ, Thus the foot joins the remainder of the lower extremity at a 90-degree angle, 

while the hand is a continuous extension of the 

forearm. 

Racial differences in girths are affected to a 

large extent by variation inamount of subcutaneous 

fat. This is especially apparent for upper arm 

girth. When corrected for the thickness of the 

triceps skinfold, the difference between Negro and 

white children in upper arm girth is seen to be 

due to an excess of triceps fat in white children. 

Comparing figures 18 (upper arm girth) and 21 

(estimated muscle circumference of the arm), 

one can note a reversal in the positions of Negro 

and white children. White children have consistently larger arm girths, but Negro children have 

consistently larger estimated muscle or leancircumferences of the arm. Similar observations 

have been made by Malina,18 for a sample of Negro and white Philadelphia elementary school 

children studied longitudinally over a l- year 

period. 

As indicated earlier, correcting the upper 

arm girth for the thickness of the triceps skinfold results in what is generally termed the estimated mid-arm muscle circumference. The 

significance of the contribution of bone tissue to 

this estimated circumference is important in 

making racial comparisons. Data comparing the 

breadth of the humerus (determined from a radiograph) in Negro and white children are lacking. 

Garn” and Smith and Risek,” however, reported 

little difference in periosteal diameters of the 

second metacarpal, but did note greater cortical bone thickness among adult Negroes of both 

sexes than among the corresponding white groups. 

This seems to suggest that adult Negroes have 

more cortical bone for the same periosteal diameter of bone. However, it is difficult to make 

inferences from measurements of second metacarpal width to the humerus; results of a study 

comparing radiographic bone breadth measurements of the second metacarpal, second metatarsal, humerus, and tibia indicated little predictive relationship from one bone to the other 

in a sample of white children aged 6 to 16.30>31 

It is difficult to make inferences from one 

skeletal area to another. The available data on 

bone width measurements of the second metacarpal indicate little consistent racial difference, 

if any, in total width at the midshaft level. If the 

same is true for the humerus, the corrected arm 

circumference data would then indicate slightly 

but consistently greater muscularity in the upper 

arms of Negro compared with white children. 

Data from samples of Olympic athletes indicate 

a generally similar trend. Using radiographic 

techniques, Tanner 21 found that Negro athletes 

had slightly more muscle and bone tissue and 

less fat in the upper arm and thigh compared to 

white athletes; although in the calf they also had 

less fat and more bone tissue, they had less 

muscle than whites. Thus this sample of Negro 

athletes had substantially smaller calf muscles 

relative to muscular development in the arm and 

thigh than did white athletes. 

Special -consideration should be given to the 

comparison of Negro and white girls. On the 

average, Negro girls are taller than white girls 

from 6 through 11 years of age and are heavier 

at 10 and 11 years of age. Cycle II data also show 

a reduction in the difference between median girths 

of Negro and white girls at ages IO and 11. It 

would be interesting to find out if there is a,maturational difference between Negro and white girls 

at these ages. Malina, 32 for example, noted Negro 

girls advanced over white girls in skeletal maturity from 9 through 12 years of age. Todd33 

in 1931 reported somewhat similar observations, 

16 
noting greater variability between Negro and 

white girls than between boys. Todd’s small 

sample of Negro girls (r1=72) were frequently 

skeletally advanced compared to his larger sample 

of white girls. 

The report assessing skeletal maturity of the 

Cycle II sample of children 6-11 years of age, 

which is currently in preparation, will contribute 

substantially to this question. 

SUMMARY 

Patterns of growth in 20 measured anthropometric dimensions, two derived dimensions, 

and three ratios are reported and discussed for 

U.S. white and Negro children 6 through 11 years 

of age. The 20 dimensions reported by age, sex, 

and race are weight, stature, sitting height, buttock-knee length, popliteal height, foot length, 

acromion-olecranon length, elbow-wrist length, 

hand length, biacromial breadth, bicristal breadth, 

bicondylar breadth of the femur, chest breadth, 

chest depth, upper arm girth, lower arm girth, 

calf girth, chest girth, waist girth, and hip girth. 

The two dimensions derived from available 

measurements are estimated leg (subischial) 

length and estimated mid-arm muscle circumference. The three ratios are the ponderal index, 

the ratio of sitting height to stature, and the ratio 

of biacromial (shoulder) to bicristal (hip) width. 

These national estimates are based on crosssectional data, which limit the analyses to attained size rather than velocities of growth. Emphasis is place upon comparisons of age- and 

sex-specific’means and medians for Negro and 

white children. 

All dimensions reported here increase 

almost linearly with age from 6 through 11 years 

in Negro and white children, both male and female. Although there are some overall body size 

differences (height and weight) between Negro and 

000 

white children during middle childhood, especially 

in girls, the major anthropometric differences 

between Negro and white children are differences 

in the proportions of the trunk and limbs. Negro 

children, on the average, have shorter trunks, 

more slender hips and chests, longer lower extremities (especially longer lower iegs), and 

longer upper extremities (especially longer forearms and hands) than white children. White children, conversely, tend to have longer, thicker 

trunks, wider hips, and shorter lower and upper 

extremities than Negro children. 

Limb (arm, forearm, and calf) and torso 

(chest, waist, and hip) girths are generally larger 

in white children over the age range studied. There 

are, nevertheless, exceptions, and the differences 

between Negro and white childrenare not apparent 

over all ages from 6 through 11 years. For instance, Negro girls are taller and heavier than 

white girls, especially at 10 and 11 years, and 

this is reflected in a reduction of median girth 

differences between Negro and white girls at 

these ages. Much of the racial difference in girths 

is explained by differences in the amount of subcutaneous fat. This is especially apparent for arm 

girth; when the arm circumference is corrected 

for the thickness of the triceps skinfold, it is 

obvious that the girth differences between Negro 

and white children are due essentially to alarger 

amount of triceps fat in white children. In fact, 

when corrected for the thickness of the t,riceps 

skinfold, estimated mid-arm muscle (including 

bone) circumference is consistently larger in 

Negro children. 

The conclusions derived from these HES data 

generally agree with most other anthropometric 

comparisons of American white and Negro children; the statistics provide current, comprehensive, and reliable national estimates of body dimensions for American Negro and white children 

of both sexes during middle childhood. 

-

17 
REFERENCES 

‘National Center for Health Statistics: Height and weight 

of children, United States. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS 

Pub. No. lOOO-Series 11-No. 104. Public Health Service. 

Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Sept. 1970. 

‘National Center for Health Statistics: Height and weight 

of children: socioeconomic status, United States. Vital and 

Health Stattitics. Series 11-No. 119. DHEW Pub. No. (HSM) 

73-1601. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Oct. 

1972. l 

‘National Center for Health Statistics: Skinfold thickness 

of children 6-11 years, United States. Vital and He&k Statistics. Series II-No. 120. DHEW Pub. No. (HSM) 73-1602. 

Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Oct. 1972. 

‘National Center for Health Statistics: Selected body 

measurements of children 6-l 1 years, United States. Vital and 

Health Statistics. Series 11-No. 123. DHEW Pub. No. (HSM) 

73-1605. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 

1973. 

‘National Center for Health Statistics: Plan and initial 

program of the Health Examination Survey. Vital and Health 

Statistics. PHS Pub. No. IOOO-Series l-No. 4. Public Health 

Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, July 

1965. 

‘National Center for Health Statistics: Cycle 1 of the 

Health Examination Survey, sample and response, United 

States, 1960-1962. Vita! and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 

1000~Series 1 l-No. 1. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Apr. 1964. 

‘National Center for Health Statistics: Plan, operation, and 

response results of a program of children’s examinations. Vital 

and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000~Series l-No. 5. Public 

Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Oct. 1967. 

‘National Center for Health Statistics: Plan and operation 

of a Health Examination Survey of U.S. youths 12-17 years of 

age. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000~Series 

I-No. 8. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Sept. 1969. 

‘Jelliffe, D. B.: The assessment of the nutritional status of 

the community. WHO Monog. Ser. No. 53, 1966. 

“Jelliffe, D. B.: The arm circumference as a public health 

index of protein-caloric malnutrition of early childhood, in E. 

F. Jelliffe and D. B. Jelliffe, eds., J. Trap. Pediutr. Mon,ograph 

No.8. 15:177-260, 1969. 

l1 Robinow, M.: Field measurement of growth and development, in N. S. Scrimshaw and J. E. Gordon, eds., IllalnutriCon, Learning and Behavior. Cambridge, Mass. The M.I.T. 

Press, 1968. pp. 409-424. 

“Herskowitz, M. J.: The American Negro, a Study in Racial 

Crossing. New York. A1fred.A. Knopf, 1928. 

’ ‘Glass, B., and Li, C. C.: The dynamics of racial 

intermixture-an analysis based on the American Negro. Am. J. 

Hum. Genet. 5:1-20, 1953. 

14Roberts, D. F.: The dynamics of racial intermixture in the 

American Negro-some anthropological considerations. Am. J. 

Hum. Genet. 7:361-367, 1955. 

’5 Roberts, D. F., and Hioms, R. W.: The dynamics of racial 

intermixture. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 14:261-277, 1962. 

IbReed, T. E.: Caucasian genes in American Negroes. 

Science 165(3895):762-768, Aug. 22, 1969. 

’ 7Krogman, W. M.: Growth of head, face, trunk, and limbs 

in Philadelphia white and Negro children of elementary and 

high school age. Monogr. Sot. Res. Child Deu. 35(3), Serial No. 

136,197O. 

18Malina, R. M., Growth, Maturation, and Performance of 

Philadelphia Negro and White Elementary School Children. 

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 

Philadelphia. 1968. -

“Todd, T. W.: Entrenched Negro physical features. Hum. 

Viol. 1:57-69, 1929. .I 

20Metheny, E.: Some differences in bodily proportions 

between American Negro and white male college students as 

related to athletic performance. Res. Q. 10:41-53, 1939. 

21’ranner, J. M.: The Physique of the Olympic Athlete. 

London. George Allen and Unwin, 1964. 

22Malina, R. M.: Growth and physical performance of 

American Negro and white children. Clin. Pediutr. 

8(8):476-483, Aug. 1969. 

23Malina, R: M.: Biological substrata, in K. S. Miller and R. 

M. Dreger, eds., Comparatiue Studies of Blacks and Whites in 

the United States. New York. Seminar Press, 1973. pp. 53-123. 

**Long, L., and Churchill, E.: Anthropometry of USAF 

Male Basic Trainees-Contrasts of Several Subgroups. Paper prepared for a meeting of the American Association of Physical 

Anthropologists, 1968. Mimeographed. 

25Schultz, A. H.: Fetal growth in man. Am. J. Phys. Anthropal. 6:389-399, 1923. 

26Schultz, A. H.: Fetal growth of man and other primates. 

Q. Rev. Biol. 1:465-521, 1926. 

27Schultz, A. H.: Proportions, variability and asymmetries 

of the long bones of the limbs and the clavicles in man and 

apes. Hum. Biol. 9:281-328, 1937. 

28Gam, S. M.: The course of bone gain and the phases of 

bone loss. O&hop. Clin. North Am. 3:503-520, 1972. 

2gSmith, R. W., Jr., and Risek, J.: Epidemiologic studies of 

osteoporosis in women of Puerto Rico and SoutheasternMichigan 

with special reference to age, race, national origin and to other 

related or associated findings, Clin. Orthop. 45:31-48, 1966. 

18 
30Johnston, F. E., and Malina, R. M.: Correlations of midshaft breadths and compact bone thickness among bones of the 

upper and Iower extremities of children aged 6 to 16 years. 

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. n.s. 32:32-327, 1970. 

31h~lalina, R. hl.: Quantification of fat, muscle and bone in 

man. Clin. Orthop. 65:9-38, 1969. 

“Malina, R. M.: Skeletal maturation studied longitudinally 

over one year in American whites and Negroes six through 

thirteen years of age. Hum. Biol. 42(3):377-390, Sept. 1970. 

33Todd, T. W.: Differential skeletal maturation in relation 

to sex, race, variability and disease. Child Dev. 2:49-65, 1931. 

34Nationaf Center for Health Statistics: Replication: An 

approach to the analysis of data from complex surveys. V’itaI 

nnd Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000~Series ~-NO. 14. 

Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Apr. 1966. 

35 Hertzberg, I-I. T. E.: The Conference on Stamiartiization 

of Anthropometric Techniques an? Terminology. Am. J. Pkys. 

Antkropol. 28(l): l-16, Jan. 196% 

36National Center for Health Statistics: Quality control in a 

National Health Examination Survey. Vital and IIealtk Statistics. Series ~-NO. 44. DHEW Pub. No. (HSM) 72-1023. 

Washingon. U.S. Government Printing Office, Feb. 1972. 

19 
LIST OF DETAILED TABLES 

Page 

Table 1. Weight of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean,

standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65----------------------------------------------------------------- 22 

2. Height of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean,

standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United 

states, 1963-65----------------------------------------------------------------- 23 

3. Ponderal index of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, 

mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, Unit-d St-t-s, 1963-65---------------------------------------------------------- 24 

4. Sitting height of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, 

mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65------------------------------ ---------------------------- 25 

5. Subischial length of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size,mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percent- iles, United States, 1963-65------------------------ ---------------------------- 26 

6. Sitting height/stature ratio (times 100) of children by race, sex, and age at 

last birthday: sample size,mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, 

and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 -------------------------------- 27 

7. Buttock-knee length of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation,standard error of the mean,' and selected percent- iles, United Stat-s, 1963-65---------------------------------------------------- 28 

8. Popliteal height of children by race,sex, and age at last birthday: sample size,

mean,standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles,

United States, 1963-65 ______________-_____-------------------------------------- 29 

9. Foot length of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, 

mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65---------------------------------------------------------- 30 

10. Acromion-olecranon length of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected

percentiles, United Stat-s, 1963-65--------------------------------------------- 31 

11. Elbow-wrist length of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample

siqmean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percent- iles, United States, 1963-65------------------------- ---------^----------------- 32 

12. Hand length of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, 

mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65------------------------ _____-------------^--------------- 33 

13. Biacromial breadth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample

size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65--------------------- --------------------------- 34 

14. Bicristal breadth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample 

size, mean, standard deviation,standard error of the mean, and selected percent- iles, hited States, 1963-65---------------------- ------------------------------ 35 

15. Biacromial breadthlbicristal breadth ratio (times 100) of children by race, sex,

and age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error 

of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65------------------- 36 

16. Chest breadth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sampie size, 

mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, Unit-d States, 1963-65---------------------------------------------------------- 37 

20 
LIST OF DETAILED TABLES-Con. 

Table 17. 

18. 

19. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

Chest depth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, 

mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65----------------------------------------------------------

Bicondylar breadth of the femur of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and 

selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65------------------------------------

Upper arm girth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, 

mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United St-t-s, 1963-65----------------------------------------------------------

Lower arm girth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, 

mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65----------------------------------------------------------

Calf girth of children by race,sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean,

standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65-----------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated mid-arm muscle circumference of children by race, sex, and age at last 

birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and 

selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65------------------------------------

Chest girth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, 

mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65----------------------------------------------------------

Waist girth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, 

mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selefted percentiles, United States, 1963-65----------------------------------------~-----------------

Hip girth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean,

standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65-----------------------------------------------------------------

Normal deviates of differences between measurements of various components of the 

extremities of white and Negro children and ranking of normal deviates within 

sex and age groups--------------------------------------------------------------

Page 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

21 
Table 1. Weight of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard

deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age n N x s s-, 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 

WRITE In kilograms 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 489 1,787 22.0 3.39 0.18 17.4 18.2 19.9 23.7 25.9 7 years----------------- 551 1,781 24.8 4.11 0.21 19.4 20.5 22.2 2: 26.7 29.8 8 years----------------- 537 1,739 27.8 5.03 0.25 21.3 22.5 24.5 2711 29.9 34.1 

g years----------------- 525 1,730 31.4 6.91 0.47 23.5 24.6 26.9 29.9 38.7 10 years---------------- 509 1,692 33.9 6.63 0.30 25.5 26.8 29.6 32.7 %!: 42.3 11 years---------------- 542 1,662 38.6 8.32 0.40 28.8 30.1 33.2 36.7 42:3 49.1 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 461 1,722 21.6 3.79 0.25 16.4 17.5 19.3 21.1 23.3 25.9 28.9 7 years----------------- 512 1,716 24.3 4.17 0.20 18.7 19.5 21.4 23.5 26.5 29.9 31.6 8 years----------------- 498 1,674 5.21 0.26 20.8 21.9 23.9 26.8 30.1 34.4 37.9 9 years----------------- 494 1,663 %X 6.84 0.42 22.8 24.3 26.6 29.9 34.6 41.8 45.7 10 years---------------- 505 1,632 35:o 7.97 0.44 24.8 26.2 34.1 39.4 11 years---------------- 477 1,605 39.8 8.75 0.36 28.6 30.0 E . 38.2 44.9 zi . % . 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 84 289 21.8 3.21 0.37 17.5 18.1 19.5 21.3 23.4 26.4 28.2

7 years----------------- 286 24.0 2.89 19.4 20.1 21.9 24.0 26.2 28,l 28.8 8 years -__-__-___ ---_--- :; 279 27.5 3.67 x5 22.4 22.9 24.9 27.2 29.4 31.9 34.4 9 years----------------- 269 29.4 5.57 0177 21.8 22.9 28.5 32.2 37.3 39.7 10 years---------------- ;t 264 32.4 5.36 0.72 26.4 z 42.2 11 years---------------- 83 255 36.8 6.29 0.50 f:+ . 29.5 32:4 21". %:: -. ";:*:. 48.7

Girls 

6 years----------------- 281 21.1 2.95 0.36 15.9 19.0 21.2 22.7 24.8 26.3

7 years----------------- ;: 284 23.7 3.97 0.47 19.2 z*; 21.1 22.8 25.6 28.4 30.3 8 years----------------- 113 281 27.0 6.05 0.37 19.3 20:4 22.4 26.1 29.7 34.5 38.3 g years----------------- 84 265 31.2 6.74 0.62 23.0 24.6 26.5 29.4 34.6 42.0 44.8 10 years---------------- 266 35.7 9.02 0.89 25.2 26.3 29.0 34.4 39.5 48.1 11 years---------------- ;1 253 41.1 1.51 1.45 27.4 28.6 33.3 38.4 46.0 59.3 '69"; . 

NOTE: 1~~=sample size; Nzestimated number of children in population in thousands; A

f =mean;­

s = standard deviation; SP -standard error of the mean. 

22 
Table 2. Height of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard

deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 

Percentile Race, sex, n N x s s,-. 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 

In centimeters 

6 years----------

7 years----------

8 years----------

9 years----------

10 years---------

11 years---------

1,787 

1,781

1,739

1,730 

1,692 

1,662 

118.5 

124.5

129.8

135.5

140.3 

145.7 

5.15 

5.52 

5.70 

6.77 

6.62

6.69 

0.30 

0.38 

0.29 

0.50 

0.37 

0.30 

110.4 111.7 115.0

115.5 117.7 120.8 

123.1 126.2

:22 126.9 131.6

129: 4 131.6 136.4

134.6 137.3 141.1 

118.4 

124.3 

129.7 

:2;- : 

145:B 

121.8 

EE

140:2 

144.6 

150.5 

125.7 

131.8

137.1

143.4

148.5 

154.2 

127.8

134.4

138.8

145.4 

151.3 

156.9 

Girls 

6 years----------

7 years----------

8 years----------

9 years----------

10 years---------

11 years---------

1,722 

1,716 

1,674 

1,663 

1,632 

1,605 

117.7 

123.4

129.4

135.1 

140.8 

147.3 

5.47 

5.86 

6.19 

6.72 

7.00 

7.89 

0.32 

0.17 

0.39 

0.36 

0.34 

0.27 

108.3 110.4 114.4 

113.5 116.2 119.6 

121.4 125.6

K 127.1 130.6 

129: 6 132.1 135.7 

135.1 138.7 142.7 

x 

129: 7 

135.3 

140.7 

147.3 

121.5

127.2

133.5 

139.6 

145.6 

152.5 

124.6 

130.5 

137.1 

144.4 

149.7 

157.4 

126.4

132.7 

138.9 

145.9 

152.7 

159.4 

and age 

NEGRO 

Boys 

ij years---------- 119.1 5.11 0.72 111.3 112.7 115.4 118.6 122.8 125.5 129.5 

7 years---------- “2% L25.2 5.50 0.59 118.4 121.3 124.8 129.9 131.9 134.5 8 years---------- 279 L31.3 5.33 0.57 ::z 125.0 127.7 130.8 134.8 139.4 140.7 

9 years---------- 269 135.0 6.46 0.67 125:3 127.1 130.5 135.0 139.8 143.5 144.7 

10 years--------- 264 139.6 7.92 0.97, 127.8 129.7 133.4 140.6 144.5 151.6 

11 years--------- 255 145.7 8.08 0.50 134.5 136.1 141.6 146.0 149.8 :2*: . 159.2 

Girls 

6 years---------- 281 5.75 0.86 106.5 111.7 114.6 118.5 122.5 126.5 127.5 

7 years---------- E-6 5.55 115.7 117.6 120.3 125.1 128.2 131.6 8 years---------- % 129:4 6.69 “0% 118.7 120.8 124.5 132.8 138.8 :2"2-1 

9 years---------- 265 7.80 0:90 125.3 132.8 ::x 142.6 149.8 15O:B 

10 years--------- 266 :2:*2 9.25 0.65 129.2 z:: 138.3 142:l 146.4 155.0 155.9 

11 years--------- 253 149: 2 7.42 0.69 136.2 140:3 144.5 148.4 154.8 160.4 161.7 

NOTE: ?l = sample size; N= estimated number of children in popuLation in :housands; x= mean; 5 = standard deviation; Sji= standard error of the mean. 

23 
---- 

Table 3. Ponderal index of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean,

standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age n N x s 5; 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 

-

WHITE Ponderal index 

Boys 

(j years-----------------

7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

9 years-----------------

10 years----------------

489 

551 

537 

525 

509 

1,787

L,781 

:% 

1:692 

12.8 

12.9 

13.0 

13.1 

13.2 

0.41 

0.44 

0.48 

0.60 

0.53 

0.02 

0.02 

0.02 

0.05 

0.02 

12.0 12.1 

12.0 12.1 

12.0 12.2 

11.9 12.1 

12.1 12.2 

12.4 12.7 

12.4 12.9 

12.6 

12.6 3 

12.8 1313 

13.3 

13.5 

13.6 

13.6 

13.7 

13.7 

13.8 

13.8 

13.9 

13.9 

13.8 

13.9 

13.9 

13.9 

11 years---------------- 542 1,662 13.1 0.60 0.03 12.0 12.2 12.7 13.3 13.6 13.9 % . 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 461 L,722 12.8 0.45 0.02 12.0 12.1 12.4 12.8 13.3 13.7 7 years----------------- 512 1,716 12.9 0.50 0.03 12.0 12.1 12.4 12.9 13.5 13.8 %E 8 years-------- --_-_ 498 13.0 0.55 0.03 12.0 12.1 12.5 13.6 13.8 13:9 9 years-------- _--- - --__ 494 xz 0.03 11.9 12.1 12.5 23 13.6 13.9 14.0 10 years---------------- 505 L:632 :E! FE38 0.03 11.9 12.2 12.6 1312 13.6 13.9 14.0 11 years---------------- 477 1,605 13:1 0:68 0.03 11.9 12.1 12.6 13.2 13.7 14.0 14.4 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 84 289 12.9 0.36 0.03 12.1 12.2 12.5 13.0 13.4 13.6 13.7 7 years----------------- 286 13.1 0.37 0.05 12.5 12.6 12.8 13.2 13.6 13.9 14.0 8 years----------------- :z 279 13.2 0.36 0.03 g; 12.6 12.9 13.3 13.7 13.9 14.0 9 years----------------- 269 13.3 0.07 12.4 13.7 13.9 14.1 10 years---------------- i-2 264 13.3 E 0.06 12:o 12.3 E E*: 13.8 14.0 14.3 11 years---------------- 83 255 13.3 0:65 0.06 12.1 12.4 13:o 13:4 13.8 14.0 14.2 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 281 13.0 0.34 0.05 12.3 12.4 12.6 13.0 13.4 13.6 13.7 7 years----------------- Zf 284 13.2 0.48 0.04 12.1 12.2 12.8 13.3 13.6 13.8 13.9 8 years----------------- 113 281 0.57 11.8 12.1 12.6 13.2 13.6 13.9 9 years----------------- 84 265 :z-: k% 12.1 12.4 13.0 13.4 14.0 :t*iL! 10 years---------------- 266 13:1 EE 0107 11.2 12.0 13.3 Ez 14.1 14:3 11 years- -__-----_--_--- 2 253 13.2 0174 0.09 11.6 12.1 3 . L 13.4 13:8 14.1 14.3 

NOTE: n = sample size; N=estimated number of children in population in thousands; X - mean; S = standard deviation; s,- = standard error of the mean. 

In computing this ratio height is expressed in inches and weight in pounds, which produces a 

different result than would the use of metric measures. 

24 
Table 4. Sitting height of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 mean, 

-

I 

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age n iv x s sjz 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 

WHITE In centimeters 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

9 years-----------------

10 years----------------

11 years----------------

489

551 

537 

525 

z; 

1,787

1,781

1,739

1,730 

xi;, 

65.0 

67.2 

69.5

71.6 

73.3 

75.6 

2.68

2.74 

2.94 

3.15

3.07

3.10 

0.13

0.15 

0.12 

0.19 

0.20

0.13 

60.4

63.0

65.1 

66.4 

68.3

70.6 

61.4

64.C 

65.7 

67.4 

;;:; 

63.2 

65.4

67.6 

69.6 

71.4

73.5 

65.1

67.2 

69.6 

71.6 

73.3

75.5 

66.7 

68.9 

71.5 

73.7

75.4 

77.7 

68.5

70.8

73.3 

75.6 

77.3 

79.6 

69.7

71.8 

74.3

76.7 

78.7

80.7 

Girls 

6 years-----------------

7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

9 years-----------------

10 years----------------

11 years----------------

461 

512 

498 

494

505

477 

1,722

1,716

1,674

1,663

1,632

1,605 

64.2

66.4 

68.8

71.1 

73.5

76.5 

3.00 

2.99 

2.89

3.19 

3.39

3.96 

0.18

0.12 

0.13 

0.17

0.14 

0.15 

59.2 

61.5

63.7 

65.8

68.2 

70.4 

60.4

62.6 

64.8

67.1 

69.2 

72.0 

62.3 

64.3

67.1 

68.9

71.1 

74.2 

64.3 

z-z 

71:1 

73.5

76.2 

66.1 

68.4

70.8 

73.4 

75.7

78.8 

68.2 

70.4

72.4 

75.3

77.6

81.6 

69.1 

71.4

73.3 

76.3

79.1 

83.7 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 289 63.2 2.48 0.35 59.2 59.7 63.2 64.8 68.1 7 years----------------- 782 286 65.6 2.58 0.29 61.6 62.3 z-2 65.6 67.5 70.1 8 years----------------- 279 67.8 2.81 0.29 63.5 64.3 66:2 67.5 69.4 72.7 9 years----------------- 3: 269 69.3 3.69 0.40 63.7 64.5 66.7 68.6 71.7 75.8 10 years---------------- 65 264 70.9 3.54 0.33 64.8 66.1 68.3 70.6 77.5 11 years---------------- 83 255 73.4 3.36 0.37 67.8 68.7 71.4 73.6 :2-i. 79.3 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 72 281 62.3 2.78 0.35 57.4 58.8 60.4 62.3 64.5 66.2 66.6 7 years----------------- 284 64.9 3.05 0.40 60.0 61.2 62.7 54.7 67.0 69.3 70.5 8 years----------------- 14: 281 66.6 0.26 61.5 62.4 56.3 68.6 71.5 73.4 9 years----------------- 265 69.6 E 64.2 % 71.6 75.5 10 years---------------- 7”; 266 71.9 3177 b% 66.3 E 69:3 :4-: 74.4 :ti 78.9 11 years---------------- 84 253 75.1 G.08 0:38 68.3 69:3 72.5 7513 78.4 80:3 81.4 

NOTE: 12 = sample size; N= estimated number of children in population in thousands; x= mean; S = standard deviation; Sii = standard error of the mean. 

25 
---------- 

--- 

Table 5. Subischial length of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean,

standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 

I I I 

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age a N 1 8 s sj3 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 

WHITE In centimeters 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 489 1,787 53.6 3.24 0.20 48.5 49.6 51.5 53.3 55.7 7 years----------------- 551 1,781 57.2 3.53 0.25 53.1 55.0 57.1 59.2 z-9” 59.4

63.7 8 years----------------- 537 1,739 60.3 3.44 0.18 2: 55.9 58.2 60.3 62.5 6417 65.7 9 years----------------- 525 1,730 63.9 4.52 0.33 5713 59.1 61.3 64.1 66.6 69.0 70.3 10 years---------------- 509 1,692 66.9 4.33 0.21 60.2 61.6 64.3 67.0 69.7 72.2 73.7 11 years---------------- 542 1,662 70.1 4.43 0.21 63.0 64.8 67.5 70.1 73.1 75.4 77.0 

Girls 

6 years------- 461 53.5 3.47 0.18 48.2 49.3 51.1 53.5 55.7 57.7 7 years----------------- 512 x2 57.0 3.81 0.16 51.1 52.4 54.8 56.9 59.3 61.3 E 

g years----------------- 498 11674 60.5 4.29 54.5 56.0 58.2 60.5 63.2 65.6 67:0 9 years----------------- 494 1,663 64.0 4.32 E4 57.4 59.0 61.4 63.7 66.7 70.1 71.2 10 years---------------- 505 1,632 67.3 4.32 0:24 60.5 61.7 64.2 67.1 70.3 74.5 11 years---------------- 477 1,605 70.9 5.21 0.23 63.8 65.6 68.3 70.9 73.8 :::i 77.8 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 289 51.4 52.1 53.3 55.5 58.2 7 years----------------- 286 :z x69 :-";7" 54.5 55.3 56.8 59.3 61.8 %-ii % 8 years----------------- 279 63:5 3:34 0:34 57.7 59.0 60.7 64.0 65.9 6717 6817 9 years----------------- 269 65.7 3.83 0.57 59.5 60.6 63.6 65.7 68.3 71.0 71.8 10 years---------------- 264 68.7 0.72 60.1 63.1 66.4 69.5 72.1 75.3 76.1 11 years---------------- 255 72.2 2-E . 0.50 65.4 66.9 70.1 72.4 75.3 78.3 79.2

Girls 

6 years----------------- 72 56.2 3.59 0.57 50.3 51.4 53.5 56.5 59.0 7 years----------------- ;:z 59.7 3.22 0.25 54.9 55.5 57.2 59.5 62.1 E: %-5' 8 years-----------------

9 years----------------- 1;; 

z: 

62.7 

z:: 

0.32 56.1 58.0 60.0 62.8 65.3 68:2 71:1

84 67.9 0.56 60.1 62.0 64.5 67.5 71.1 75.1 77.4 10 years---------------- 77 266 69.9 7:06 0.54 62.4 65.2 67.2 70.8 73.6 77.2 79.1 11 years---------------- 84 253 74.0 4.18 0.41 67.3 68.5 71.1 73.6 77.3 79.8 81.3 

NOTE: n = sample size; N= estimated number of children in population in thousands;x = mean; S = standard deviation; Sz = standard error of the mean. 

26 
---- 

Table 6. Sitting height/stature ratio (times 100) of childrenbyrace, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percent­ iles, United States, 1963-65 

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age n N x s sz 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 

-

WHITE Sitting height/stature ratio 

Boys 

6 years----------------- $89 L,787 1.33 0.06 53.1 53.6 54.4 55.3 56.2 57.2 7 years----------------- 551 L,781 :E 1.34 0.07 52.2 52.8 53.7 54.5 55.4 22; 56.5 8 years----------------- 537 L,739 53:6 1.20 0.05 52.1 52.4 53.2 54.1 54.7 55:5 55.9 9 years----------------- 525 L ,730 52.9 1.66 0.10 51.2 51.6 52.4 53.3 54.2 54.8 55.4 10 years---------------- 509 52.3 1.41 0.06 50.8 51.2 51.9 52.7 53.6 54.3 54.7 11 years------~--------- 542 E, 51.9 1.36 0.06 50.4 51.0 51.5 52.3 53.2 53.8 54.5 

Girls 

6 years------------ - $61 L,722 54.6 1.54 0.08 52.8 54.2 56.8 57.3 7 years----------------- 512 L,716 53.8 1.51 0.08 52.1 55E 53.4 55.8 56.5 8 years----------------- $98 L,674 53.2 1.79 0.12 51.4 52:l 52.8 55.8 9 years----------------- $94 L,663 1.45 0.08 51.4 52.2 55.2 10 years---------------- 505 2: 1.28 0.06 ZY: 51.1 11 years---------------- 477 t%, 52:0 1.92 0.10 50:2 50.6 ::-:. :z . 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 289 1.39 0.10 51.2 51.7 52.6 53.6 7 years----------------- 286 :;-fl 1.19 0.14 51.0 51.3 52.1 52.8 z*; 8 years----------------- 279 51:6 1.24 0.10 50.0 50.4 51.3 52.2 52:8 9 years----------------- 269 51.4 1.51 0.27 49.7 50.2 50.9 51.7 52.6 10 years---------------- 264 50.8 2.26 0.26 49.3 50.2 52.2 11 years---------------- 255 50.5 2.35 0.29 tB'-:. 49.3 50.1 :t; . 51.5 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 281 52.6 1.23 0.17 51.2 51.6 52.2 52.8 55.5 7 years----------------- 284 52.1 1.18 0.10 50.7 51.2 51.7 52.5 54.6 8 years----------------- 281 0.10 49.6 50.2 53.9 9 yeara----------------- 265 :23 0.19 48.8 49.3 2; 2: 53.6 10 years---------------- 266 2:77 0.35 48.8 49.2 49:9 51:1 53.4 11 years---------------- 253 1.23 0.14 49.0 49.3 50.1 50.7 51.6 53.3 

NOTE: n = sample size; N-estimated number of children in population in thousands; x= mean; 8 -standard deviation; Sz = standard error of the mean. 

27 
Table 7. Buttock-knee length of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, 

mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 

u Percentile 

Race, sex, and age n N 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 

WHITE In centimeters 

Boys 

fj years---------------- 489 1,787 37.1 2.79 0.20 31.7 35.6 37.3 38.9 40.7 41.5 7 years---------------- 551 1,781 39.6 3.00 0.26 33.7 38.0 39.8 41.5 44.4 8 years---------------- 537 1,739 41.6 3.21 0.26 35.7 40.2 41.7 43.6 E 46.3 9 years---------------- 525 44.0 3.46 37.8 41.9 46.1 4718 49.5 10 years..-------------- 509 x;; 45.9 3.48 E 40.0 $24 48.2 49.9 50.9 11 years--------------- 542 11662 48.2 3.45 0:24 42.2 ti-; . 48:3 50.5 52.5 53.7 

Girls 

6 years---------------- 461 1,722 37.5 2.86 0.23 32.3 33.7 36.1 37.8 39.5 40.8 7 years---------------- 512 1,716 39.7 3.07 0.24 34.4 35.8 38.2 39.9 41.7 2.: 8 years---------------- 498 1,674 42.3 3.09 0.19 37.2 38.7 40.5 42.5 44.4 tc2 4714 9 years---------------- 494 1,663 44.6 0.26 38.6 40.4 42.6 44.6 47.1 48:9 50.2 10 years--------------- 505 1,632 46.8 EZ 0.28 40.4 42.2 44.4 47.2 49.4 51.1 52.5 11 years--------------- 477 1,605 49.4 3147 0.22 43.8 45.3 47.3 49.4 51.7 53.8 55.6 

NEGRO 

Boys 

fj years---------------- 84 289 37.7 3.38 0.72 30.6 31.8 36.2 38.2 40.3 41.5 41.9 7 years---------------- 286 40.3 3.48 32.8 34.6 38.9 40.6 42.4 44.3 45.2 8 years---------------- :z 279 42.3 3.54 E; 35.6 36.8 40.3 42.8 46.4 9 years---------------- 269 43.8 3.75 pi z-1 41.5 z-4 :z 4817 E 51:3

38.6 "4:-z %-: 10 years--------------- 2 264 46.1 4.02 11 years--------------- 83 255 48.3 3.91 0:67 40:2 44.3 4617 4816 50.7 52:5 53.8 

Girls 

6 years---------------- 281 37.8 3.76 0.81 30.4 32.5 35.2 38.6 42.2 7 years---------------- E 284 40.4 3.44 0.56 33.1 35.3 39.2 40.7 44.1 :5-: 8 years---------------- 113 281 42.8 3.78 0.50 35.6 37.7 40.6 43.1 47.5 48:9 9 years---------------- 84 265 45.9 4.10 0.74 38.6 40.5 43.2 46.1 53.1 10 years--------------- 266 48.4 3.96 0.82 41.7 46.3 48.4 2; 56.2. 11 years--------------- 87; 253 51.0 4.67 0.78 41.8 tz . 48.3 51.1 5714 57.9 '. 

NOTE: n = sample size; N= estimated number of children in population in thousands; X= mean; S = standard deviation; SX = standard error of the mean. 
Table 8. Popliteal height of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 

Race, sex, and age n N 

7 ' ' " 5th , lOth, 25t:;::::'rth 9Oth, 95th 

WHITE In centimeters 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 489 1,787 29.1 1.77 0.08 26.3 26.8 z-: 29.2 30.3 31.4 32.1 7 years----------------- 551 1,781 30.9 1.93 0.13 27.9 28.5 30.9 32.2 33.5 34.3 8 years----------------- 537 1,739 32.4 1.94 0.13 29.1 31:2 32.5 33.7 34.8 35.6 9 years----------------- 525 34.1 2.16 0.13 30.7 E 32.7 34.2 35.5 36.8 37.7 10 years---------------- 509 :2i'9: 35.7 2.20 0.12 32.1 3218 34.3 35.7 37.3 38.8 39.6 11 years---------------- 542 1:662 37.2 2.30 0.12 33.5 34.3 35.6 37.2 38.8 40.2 41.0 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 461 1,722 28.8 1.75 0.07 25.8 26.5 27.6 28.8 30.1 31.0 31.7 7 years----------------- 512 1,716 30.5 1.93 0.08 27.4 28.1 29.2 30.4 31.7 32.9 33.7 ; y~~~~"""""------- 498 1,674 32.3 2.01 0.13 29.0 31.1 32.4 33.6 34.7 35.6 ----------_----__ 494 1,663 34.0 2.26 0.12 30.2 z-: 32.5 33.9 35.4 37.2 37.9 10Yyears---------------- 505 1,632 35.5 2.48 0.15 31.6 $1: 38.8 39.7 11 years---------------- 477 1,605 37.4 2.58 0.14 33.2 . E . x . ~~~: . 40.5 41.4

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 84 289 30.2 1.92 0.31 27.1 28.1 28.8 30.1 31.4 33.2 33.8 7 years----------------- 286 32.1 1.98 0.29 29.1 29.7 30.6 31.9 33.6 34.7 35.5 8 years-----------------

9 years----------------- :; 279 33.9 1.95 0.18 31.0 31.4 32.5 33.9 35.3 36.7 37.5 269 35.4 2.12 0.22 32.0 33.0 34.0 35.2 36.9 38.4 38.8 10 years---------------- ;32 264 36.8 2.26 0.28 33.1 34.1 35.3 36.8 38.5 39.6 40.3 11 years---------------- 83 255 38.4 2.16 0.18 35.1 35.6 36.8 38.5 39.8 41.3 42.2 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 281 2.03 0.30 26.4 27.2 28.7 29.7 31.5 33.4 7 years----------------- ;: 284 '3?z 1.96 0.19 29.2 30.4 31.7 33.2 Pi 35.2 8 years----------------- 113 281 33:2 2.35 0.25 29.7 '3:-z 31.7 33.1 34.5 36:3 9 years----------------- 84 265 35.7 2.39 0.24 31.9 32:5 34.0 35.7 37.6 38.8 :;*: 10 years---------------- 266 36.9 2.37 0.35 33.1 33.7 35.3 36.9 38.4 39.6 40:3 11 years---------------- ii 253 38.5 2.66 0.38 34.2 35.1 36.4 38.4 $0.4 41.7 43.3 - i 

NOTE: 

s = standard 

n = sample size; N-estimated number of children in population in thousands; x -mean; deviation; sX=standard error of the mean. 

29 
Table 9. Foot length of childrenbyrace, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and sllected percentiles, United. States, 1963-65 -

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age n N 8 s sg 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 

WHITE In centimeters 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 489 1,787 17.9 1.01 0.06 16.2 16.5 17.2 17.8 18.6 19.4 19.8 7 years----------------- 551 1,781 18.8 1.05 0.06 17.1 17.4 18.1 18.8 19.6 20.4 20.8 8 years----------------- 537 1,739 19.6 1.20 0.07 17.7 18.1 18.7 19.6 20.5 21.3 21.7 9 years----------------- 525 1,730 20.7 1.23 0.07 18.5 19.1 19.9 20.6 21.5 22.4 22;8 10 years---------------- 509 21.4 1.30 0.06 19.2 20.0 20.4 22.4 23.2 11 years---------------- 542 :%; 2 22.3 1.34 0.07 20.1 20.4 21.3 %i . 23.2 24.1 ;2*:.

Girls 

6 years----------------- 461 1,722 17.7 1.07 0.08 15.7 16.2 17.1 17.7 18.5 19.2 19.6 7 years----------------- 512 1,716 18.5 1.06 0.04 16.6 17.1 17.7 18.5 19.3 19.9 20.5 

g years----------------- 498 1,674 19.4 1.14 0.06 17.4 18.1 18.5 19.5 20.3 21.0 21.5 9 years----------------- 494 1,663 20.3 1.20 0.06 18.2 18.6 20.4 21.9 22.5 10 years---------------- 505 1,632 21.1 1.33 0.06 19.1 19.4 :E 21.2 %: 22.8 23.3 11 years---------------- 477 1,605 22.0 1.27 0.06 20.0 20.3 21:1 21.9 22:9 23. 7 24.2 

NEGRO 

Boys 

fj years----------------- 289 18.5 1.07 0.17 16.7 17.1 17.7 19.2 20.5 7 years----------------- 286 19.5 1.02 0.12 17.5 18.0 18.7 :z-: 20.2 E 21.3 8 years----------------- 279 20.4 1.06 0.14 18.8 19.1 19.6 20:4 21.2 22:o 22.4 9 years----------------- 269 21.2 0.12 18.9 19.4 20.3 21.2 22.8 24.1 10 years---------------- 264 22.0 :-zi 20.1 20.3 20.9 22.1 %Z 23.6 23.9 11 years---------------- 255 22.9 1:20 2::. 20.7 21.2 22.1 23.1 23:6 24.3 24.8 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 18.4 1.10 0.14 16.4 17.1 17.6 19.3 19.8 20.2

7 years----------------- % 19.3 0.10 17.6 17.8 18.6 :z 20.1 20.7 21.0 

g years----------------- 281 20.0 Ei 0.10 18.2 18.4 20:1 21.8 22.4 9 years-------- _-_- -_-_- 265 21.2 1:40 0.18 18.8 19.2 E 21.0 % 23.2 23.7 10 years---------------- 266 22.2 1.20 20.5 21:3 22.2 23:l 23.8 24.4 11 years---------------- 253 22.7 1.52 Fx. ;Oo*: . 20.6 21.5 22.7 23.8 24.9 25.3

NOTE: ?8 = sample size; N = estimated number of children in population in thousands;x = mean; 

S = standard deviation; Sg = standard error of the mean. 
Table 10. Acromion-olecranon length of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size. mean. standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United 

States, 1963-65 

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age n hr x s sg 

WHITE 

6 years-----------------

7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

9 years-----------------

10 years----------------

11 years----------------

489 

551 

537 

525 

509 

542 

1,787 

1,781

1,739

1,730

1,692

1,662 

23.7 

25.0 

26.2 

27.6 

28.6 

30.0 

1.31 

1.37 

1.39 

1.60 

1.66 

1.85 

0.08 

0.08 

0.08 

0.11 

0.07 

0.08 

21.5 

22.6 

23.9 

25.1 

25.8 

27.2 

22.1 

23.2 

24.4 

25.5 

26.4 

27.7 

Girls 

6 years-----------------

7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

9 years-----------------

10 years----------------

11 years----------------

461 

512 

29’4” 

505 

477 

1,722 

1,716 

1,674 

1,663 

1,632 

1,605 

2x 

26:l 

27.5 

28.8 

30.4 

1.41 

1.41 

1.57 

1.61 

1.88 

1.88 

0.09 

0.04 

0.08 

0.09 

0.09 

0.08 

21.2 

22.3 

23.5 

25.1 

25.9 

27.4 

21.5 

22.8 

24.2 

25.4 

26.5 

28.2 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 84 289 24.1 1.32 0.16 22.2 22.4 

7 years----------------- 286 25.2 1.58 0.15 22.7 23.1 

8 years-----------------

9 years-----------------

:; 279 

269 

26.9 

27.6 

1.16 

1.52 

0.15 

0.24 o;*g 25.3 25.4 

10 years---------------- 6’4 264 28.2 1.88 0.22 ;5:2 26.2 

11 years---------------- 83 255 30.2 1.64 0.15 27.8 28.2 

Girls 

6 years-----------------

7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

9 years-----------------

E 

113 

84 

281 

284 

281 

265 

23.9 

25.4 

26.4 

28.2 

1.44 

1.35 

1.68 

1.74 

0.16 

0.14 

0.15 

0.16 

21.3 

23.3 

23.8 

24.7 

22.0 

24.0 

24.3 

26.1 

10 years---------------- 266 29.7 1.85 26.6 27.3 

11 years---------------- E 253 31.1 2.00 X-E. 27.7 28.3 

5th 10th 25th 50th 

In centimeters 

22.7 23.6 

24.1 25.1 

25.3 26.3 

26.4 27.5 

28.7 fs7.: . 30.1

22.5 23.5 

23.6 24.6 

25.2 26.2 

26.4 fE 22;::30:4 

23.2 24.1 

24.0 25.3 

26.2 27.0 

26.6 27.6 

27.3 28.3 

29.0 30.1 

23.1 24.1 

24.4 

25.2 t2; 

27.1 28:l 

28.4 29.6 

30.0 31.0 

75th 90th 95th 

24.6 25.6 25.9 

25.9 26.7 27.4 

27.2 28.1 28.7 

28.6 29.8 30.5 

29.8 30.8 31.4 

31.2 32.3 33.0 

24.5 25.3 25.8 

25.7 26.5 26.8 

27.2 28.3 29.0 

28.6 29.7 30.4 

30.1 31.3 31.8 

31.8 32.9 33.6 

25.1 25.9 26.6 

26.3 27.6 28.2 

28.4 28.8 

f87-: 29.6 29.9 

2917 30.6 30.8 

31.3 32.7 33.5 

24.9 25.7 26.2 

26.4 27.4 27.8 

27.5 28.8 29.6 

29.4 30.6 31.1 

30.9 32.2 32.8 

32.6 33.8 34.3 

NOTE: n = sample size; N - estimated number of children in population in thousands; x = mean; 

S = standard deviation; sz - standard error of the mean. 

31 
Table 11. Elbow-wrist length of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, 

mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 

Race, sex, and age n N 

WHITE In centimeters 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 489 1,787 18.2 0.97 0.05 16.5 17.0 17.4 18.2 18.8 19.6 19.9 7 years----------------- 551 1,781 19.2 1.11 0.07 17.4 17.8 18.4 19.2 19.8 20.7 21.1 8 years----------------- 537 1,739 20.0 1.15 0.08 18.1 18.5 19.3 20.1 20.8 21.6 21.9 9 years----------------- 525 1,730 21.1 1.22 0.08 19.1 19.4 20.2 21.1 21.8 22.7 23.3 10 years---------------- 509 1,692 21.8 0.07 19.7 20.2 21.1 21.8 22.8 23.6 23.9 11 years---------------- 542 1,662 22.8 z::. 0.05 20.5 21.1 22.0 22.8 23.7 24.7 25.3 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 461 1,722 17.7 1.02 0.06 16.0 16.3 17.1 17.7 18.5 19.1 19.6 7 years----------------- 512 1,716 18.7 1.16 0.05 17.0 17.3 18.0 18.6 19.5 20.2 20.7 8 years----------------- 498 1,674 19.7 1.15 0.05 17.7 18.2 19.7 20.6 21.4 21.7 9 years----------------- 494 1,663 20.7 1.21 0.07 18.8 19.2 x 20.6 21.6 22.5 22.9 10 years-------- _--_____ 505 1,632 21.7 1.35 0.05 19.5 20.1 20:7 21.7 22.7 23.6 24.0 11 years---------------- 477 1,605 22.9 1.44 0.06 20.5 21.1 21.9 22.8 23.8 24.8 25.4 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 289 19.0 1.05 0.16 17.1 18.3 18.8 19.7 20.5 20.8 7 years----------------- 286 20.1 1.16 0.12 18.3 :z 19.2 19.9 20.8 21.8 22.4 8 years----------------- 279 21.0 1.13 0.13 19.2 19:5 20.2 21.0 21.8 22.7 23.1 9 years----------------- 269 21.9 0.14 20.1 20.3 20.9 21.7 22.7 24.5 10 years---------------- 264 22.6 x 0.20 20.6 21.2 21.8 22.6 23.5 %2-i 24.8 11 years---------------- 255 23.8 1:23 0.11 21.7 22.2 23.1 23.8 24.6 25:3 25.8 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 281 18.6 1.11 0.17 16.4 17.1 18.1 18.7 19f5 20.0 20.5 7 years----------------- 284 19.6 1.10 0.10 18.0 18.2 18.8 19.6 21.0 21.6 - g years----------------- 281 20.6 1.34 0.11 18.6 19.1. 19.6 20.5 E 22.4 23.1 9 years----------------- 265 22.0 1.42 0.13 19.6 20.1 21.1 21.9 23:l 23.9 24.5 10 years---------------- 266 1.42 0.18 21.3 22.1 22.9 24:l 25.9 11 years---------------- 253 fZ . 1.59 0.22 2: . 22.2 22.9 24.3 25.4 f2; . 26.9 

NOTE: fi= sample size; N= estimated number of children in population in thousands; I= mean; 

s = standard deviation; S2 = standard error of the mean. 

32 
Table 12. Hand length of children by race, sex, sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and 

and age at last birthday: selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 - -

-

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age n N x s sz 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 

WHITE In centimeters 

BOYS 

6 years----------------- 489 1,787 12.9 0.68 0.04 11.7 12.1 12.4 13.1 13.6 13.9 16.5 7 years----------------- 551 1,781 13.5 0.71 0.04 12.2 12.4 13.1 13.5 14.0 14.6 14.3 8 years----------------- 537 1,739 14.1 0.81 12.5 13.1 13.5 14.7 15.3 14.8 

9 years----------------- 525 1,730 14.6 0.78 E$ 13.2 13.5 14.2 :t-; 15.2 15.7 15.6 

10 years---------------- 509 1,692 15.1 0.82 0:04 13.7 14.1 14.5 15:1 15.7 16.3 15.9 

11 years---------------- 542 1,662 15.7 0.87 0.03 14.2 14.4 15.1 15.6 16.3 16.8 17.3 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 461 1,722 12.8 0.70 0.04 11.4 11.8 12.2 13.4 13.8 14.2 7 years----------------- 512 1,716 13.3 0.76 0.03 12.1 12.3 12.8 z 13.8 14.4 14.7 8 years----------------- 498 1,674 0.76 0.05 12.4 13.0 13.3 1318 14.5 14.9 15.4 

9 years----------------- 494 1,663 :2-z 0.77 0.04 13.2 13.4 14.1 14.5 15.1 15.7 16.0 

10 years---------------- 505 1,632 15:1 0.86 0.04 13.5 14.4 15.2 15.7 16.4 

11 years---------------- 477 1,605 15.9 0.91 0.04 14.3 x f 15.2 15.8 16.6 17.2 x . 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years-----------------

7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

9 years-----------------

10 years----------------

11 years----------------

84 

:; 

2

83 

289

286 

f6'Z 

264

255 

13.6 

14.2

14.7

15.2 

15.7

16.3 

0.66 

0.71

0.73 

0.83 

0.84

0.76 

0.09

0.09

0.10 

0.07 

0.11

0.07 

12.3 

13.1

13.5 

13.8 

:i-:. 

12.6

13.2 

13.7

14.1 

14.4

15.2 

13.1

13.6 

14.2

14.5 

15.1

15.8 

13.6 

:23 

15:2 

15.7

16.4 

14.1 

14.7

15.4 

i5.7 

16.4

16.8 

14.6

15.3 

15.7

16.5 

16.8

17.4 

14.8 

15.7

15.8 

16.9 

17.0

17.7 

Girls 

6 years-----------------

7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

9 years-----------------

10 years----------------

11 years----------------

E 

113

84 

2 

281 

24 

265

266 

253 

13.6 

14.1

14.6 

15.5

16.0 

16.6 

0.85 

0.72

0.89

1.01

1.00 

1.06 

0.09

0.09 

0.08

0.08 

0.08

0.12 

12.1

13.0

13.1 

13.9 

14.3

15.0 

12.3

13.1 

13.3

14.2 

15.0 

15.2 

13.0 

13.5

13.8

14.6

15.3 

15.8 

13.6 

14.2

14.5

15.4

15.8 

16.6 

14.3

14.6 

15.3

16.2

16.6 

17.5 

14.7

15.2 

15.9

16.8

17.3 

18.3 

14.8

15.5

16.4 

17.3

17.8 

18.5 L L 

NOTE: n= sample size; N = estimated number of children in population in thousands; x= mean; S = standard deviation; $ = standard error of the mean. 
Table 13. Biacromial breadth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, 

mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 

Race, sex, and age n N 

WHITE - In centimeters

Boys 

6 years----------------- 26.1 27.2 28.1 28.8 7 years----------------- i51 1,781 27.3 1.57 0.09 24.7 

689 II1,787 26.0 1.59 0.09 23.4 24.1 2: 27.3 28.4 29.5 30.1 8 Yeats----------------- 537 1,739 28.4 1.76 0.10 2.4 2713 28.4 30.7 31.4 9 years----------------- j25 1,730 29.6 1.92 0.11 %:-"d 2714 28.4 29.5 '32: 32.2 32.9 10 years---------------- 509 1,692 30.4 1.97 0.12 27:3 28.2 29.4 30.5 31:7 33.6 11 years---------------- j42 1,662 31.8 2.06 0.13 28.8 29.4 30.5 31.8 33.1 2: . 35.3 

Girls 

6 years----------------- ~61 1,722 1.53 0.09 23.3 24.0 24.7 25.7 26.7 28.5 7 years----------------- 512 4x 1.54 0.06 24.5 26.0 27.8 %*I: 29.6 8 years----------------- c98 :2:: 28:l 1.62 0.09 25.4 E 27.1 E, 29.4 30:5 30.8 9 years----------------- c94 L:663 29.2 1.87 0.09 26.3 2711 28.1 29:3 30.5 31.6 32.3 10 years---------------- jO5 1,632 30.4 1.93 0.09 27.4 28.1 30.4 31.7 33.1 33.7 11 years---------------- i77 1,605 31.8 2.23 0.10 28.6 29.3 ;z*;. 31.7 33.3 34.6 35.5 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 84 289 26.3 1.95 0.27 24.2 25.0 26.2 27.4 29.0 29.5 7 years----------------- 79 286 27.4 0.17 42.5' 25.3 26.4 27.3 28.4 29.5 30.0 8 years----------------- 79 279 28.9 % 0.22 2517 26.9 27.7 30.1 30.9 31.6 9 years----------------- 269 2:oo 0.25 26.3 27.0 28.3 4E 3X.1 31.9 10 years---------------- 2 264 5x 1.57 0.27 28.4 29.1 29.6 30:8 32.1 33.1 3E 11 years---------------- 83 255 32:0 1.90 0.16 28.9 30.0 30.8 32.1 33.0 34.3 3516 

Girls 

6 years _-_--_--_ _ ---_-__. 281 26.0 1.73 0.23 23.2 23.7 25.7 28.5 28.9 7 years----------------- 284 27.2 1.52 0.18 25.1 25.3 ;"e-: 27.2 f?2 30.1 8 years----------------- 281 28.1 2.01 0.25 25.5 26.1 26:7 9 years _____--_---__ _-__ 265 29.8 2.00 0.22 26.6 27.3 28.3 z*: g:; %3 31.5

3215 33.4 1 10 years---------------- 266 31.1 2.14 0.28 27.1 28.4 29.7 31:2 32:6 33.6 34.1 11 years---------------- 253 32.3 2.47 O&29 28.8 29.4 30.5 32.2 34,.4 35.6 35.9 _-

NOTE: n = sample size; N= estimated number of children in population in thousands;X = mean;

S = standard deviation; S2 = standard error of the mean. 
Table 14. Bicristal breadth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, 

mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States,

1963-65 -

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age n N w s sz 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 

WHITE In centimeters 

Boys 

6 years-----------------

7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

9 years-----------------

10 years----------------

11 years----------------

489

551

537

525 

::z 

1,787

1,781

1,739 

x;

1;662 

18.2 

19.0

19.8 

20.7

21.3

22.3 

0.08 :-“3:0.07

1:61 0.07

1.90 0.11

2.02 0.09

2.16 0.08 

16.1 

16.8

17.3

18.2

18.4 

19.5 

16.5 

17.3 

17.9

18.7 

19.2

20.2 

17.3 

18.1

18.7 

19.6 

;t: * 

18.2 

19.1

19.7

20.6

21.2

22.2 

19.2

19.8

20.6 

21.6

22.3 

23.4 

19.8 

20.7

21.6

22.7 

23.4 

24.8 

20.4

21.2 

22.4 

23.9

24.4 

25.9 

Girls 

6 years-----------------

7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

9 years-----------------

10 years----------------

11 years----------------

461 

512

498 

494

505

477 

1,722

1,716

1,674

1,663

1,632

1,605 

18.2 

19.0

20.0

21.0 

z-2. 

1.44 0.08 

1.47 0.06

1.86 0.11

2.01 0.12

2.13 0.12

2.46 0.11 

16.1 

16.5 

17.2

18.1 

E: . 

16.5 

17.1 

18.0

18.7 

19.4

20.5 

17.3 

18.1 

18.8

19.7

20.5

21.6 

18.2 

19.1 

20.1

20.8

21.7

23.2 

19.2

20.0

21.1

22.3 

23.1

24.7 

20.1 

20.9

22.4 

23.8

25.0

26.6 

20.7 

21.6 

23.0

24.8

26.2 

27.7 

NEGRO 

Boys 

fj years----------------- 84 289 17.1 1.05 0.19 15.6 16.3 17.0 17.7 18.5 19.1 7 years----------------- 286 17.8 1.07 0.14 E 16.3 17.0 17.7 18.5 19.3 20.0 8 years----------------- :; 279 18.8 1.21 0.17 16:5 17.0 18.0 19.0 19.6 20.2 20.7 

9 years----------------- 269 19.1 1.60 0.37 16.4 17.1 18.1 18.8 20.3 21.3 21.9 

10 years---------------- i4, 264 19.6 1.66 0.31 17.2 17.6 18.5 19.5 20.6 21.8 22.7 

11 years---------------- 83 255 20.9 1.56 0.13 18.6 19.2 20.1 20.7 21.8 22;8 23.5 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 281 1.27 14.9 16.2 17.0 17.8 18.7 19.1 7 years----------------- ii5 284 :z 1.43 XI 15.7 E-1 17.0 17.7 18.6 19.5 20.3 8 years--------~-------- 113 281 18:6 1.81 0:lS 16.2 16:6 17.3 18.3 19.7 21.3 22.6 

9 years--------~-------- 84 265 19.7 1.78 0.27 17.1 17.5 18.4 19.5 20.8 21.9 22.8 

10 years---------------- 266 21.3 2.39 0.25 17.8 18.6 19.6 21.1 22.8 24.5 25.1 

11 years-------~~------- ii 253 22.4 2.65 0.33 19.0 19.4 20.5 21.7 23.9 26.3 27.6 - 1 I 

NOTE: n = simple size; N= es t'imated number of children in population in thousands; x= mean; 5 = standard deviation; Sz = standard error of the mean. 

35 
---- 

Table 15. Biacromial breadth/bicristal breadth ratio (times 100) of children by race, sex, and 

age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 - - -

Percentile

Race, sex, and n N x s Sf 

age 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 

WHITE Biacromial breadthlbicristal~breadth ratio 

Boys 

6 years ---_ -___ $89 1,787 143.6 8.65 0.41 131.4 134.1 138.4 143.9 149.1 154.1 158.3 J years-------- 551 1,781 144.0 8.26 0.41 131.6 134.2 138.9 144.7 149.5 157.4 8 years _---_-_- 537 1,739 144.2 9.98 0.48 131.1 134.3 139.5 144.8 ES 158.8 9 years --_- ---_ 525 143.6 9.39 0.41 130.6 134.2 138.8 SE 15413 157.7

10 years------- 509 x; 144.1 12.64 0.86 129.5 133.3 138.5 E44* ; 150:2 155.7 159.8

11 years------- 542 1:662 143.1 11.12 0.60 126.8 131.3 137.2 144:2 149.8 155.0 158.8 

Girls 

6 years ---_-_ -_ 461 1,722 9.02 0.53 128.2 131.7 136.7 153.2 157.2 7 years-------- 512 1,716 :E? 8.64 0.41 128.6 131.9 137.1 ZKi 152.9 156.6 8 years ------..- $98 1,674 141:4 10.19 0.57 130.3 147:2 155.2 159.5 9 years-------- $94 1,663 139.5 10.72 0.47 E1 128.1 x 146.1 151.8 156.6

10 years------- 505 1,632 139.5 9.69 0.68 123:4 128.2 133: 7 146.5 152.4 155.1

11 years------- $77 1,605 137.7 12.62 0.52 120.5 125.6 131.7 143.8 150.6 155.3 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years -___-- -_ 84 289 11.27 1.79 140.3 149.3 164.4 166.0 J years-------- 79 286 ::“4*: 8.94 140.0 ;E E: %'; 167.2 170.4 8 years --_----- 79 279 153:9 7.91 "0% 142.0 146:0 :$?; 153:3 160:4 164.8 167.5 9 years-------- 269 155.7 9.19 1:98 142.1 144.5 g:; 156.3 162.1 166.5 174.0

10 years------- 6’2 264 157.9 11.85 1.49 143.8 145.6 156.4 162.4 182.1 199.0

11 years------- 83 255 153.2 9.23 1.29 136.8 140.4 147:2 153.8 161.2 165.2 166.4 

Girls 

6 years-------- 281 153.2 9.41 0.65 141.4 142.5 145.7 153.6 158.2 166.6 168.6 J years-------- ;i 284 153.8 10.54 1.68 139.4 140.6 146.1 160;4 8 years -___ 113 281 151.6 11.11 1.38 133.8 138.9 159;6 E5"G zi;*5" 9 years -___- -__ 84 265 152.0 8.80 1.69 138.4 141.5 %: 158.4 164: 7 168:9 

10 years------- 266 146.9 12.10 1.19 129.9 134.3 137:9 156.7 162.7 166.8 

11 years------- iI 253 145.2 11.03 1.33 127.6 132.6 139.2 154.1 158.3 162.2 

I 

NOTE: n= sample size; N= estimated number of children in population in thousands; x= mean; 

s = standard deviation; sji = standard error of the mean. 
Table 16. Chest breadth of children by race, sex, and age at Last birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 - -

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age n 1Y x s SF 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th

L 

WHITE In centimeters 

Boys F 

6 years----------------- 489 1,787 18.4 1.16 0.09 16.4 17.0 17.6 18.4 19.2 19.9 20.5 7 years----------------- 551 1,781 19.0 1.17 17.1 17.5 18.3 19.1 19.8 20.6 21.1 8 years----------------- 537 1,739 19.8 1.36 x! 18.0 18.2 18.9 19.7 20.7 21.6 22.1 9 years----------------- 525 1,730 20.6 1.60 0:10 18.3 18.8 19.6 20.5 21.6 22.6 23.3 10 years---------------- 509 1,692 21.0 1.41 0.07 19.0 19.3 20.2 21.0 21.9 22.8 23.6 11 years---------------- 542 1,662 22.1 1.60 0.10 19.9 20.3 21.1 21.9 23.1 24.4 24.9 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 461 1,722 17.9 1.23 0.08 16.1 16.3 17.1 17.8 18.6 19.5 19.9 7 years----------------- 512 1,716 18.6 1.29 0.09 16.6 17.1 17.8 18.5 19.4 20.0 20.7 8 years----------------- 498 1,674 19.2 1.22 0.07 L7.3 17.7 18.4 19.3 20.1 20.9 21.6 9 years----------------- 494 L,663 20.0 1.59 0.08 18.0 18.2 18.9 19.8 21.9 22.9 10 years---------------- 505 1,632 20.8 1.82 0.11 18.3 18.7 19.6 20.7 E 23.2 24.3 11 years---------------- 477 1,605 21.7 1.77 0.07 19.1 19.6 20.5 21.6 22:8 24.1 25.2 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 18.3 1.11 0.18 16.3 16.8 17.4 18.3 19.0 19.9 20.5 7 years----------------- ;z 18.7 1.31 0.17 L7.2 L7.4 18.0 18.6 19.4 20.1 21.2 8 years----------------- 279 19.6 1.01 0.13 La.1 La.4 19.1 19.6 20,.3 20.8 21.2 9 years----------------- 269 20.2 1.30 0.13 La.1 18.4 19.2 20.3 21.3 22.1 22.6 10 years---------------- 264 20.7 1.24 0.19 L9.1 !9.2 19.7 20.6 21.6 22.8 23.3 11 years---------------- 255 21.7 1.42 0.18 L9.4 20.0 20.6 21.6 22.6 23.5 24.0 

Girls 

6 years--------;-------- 281 17.7 1.05 0.14 16.0 L6.2 16.8 17.7 18.5 19.1 19.6 7 years----------------- E 284 18.2 1.58 0.21 16.3 16.8 L7.3 18.1 19.1 19.7 20.1 8 years----------------- 113 281 19.1 1.66 0.21 17.1 17.3 18.1 18.9 19.9 21.2 21.7 9 years----------------- 84 265 19.7 1.43 0.16 L7.7 18.2 18.8 Lg.6 20.6 21.7 22.6 10 years---------------- 20.5 1.48 0.17 18.2 18.6 Lg.6 20.6 21.5 22.5 22.8 11 years-------~-------- 2 2! 21.6 2.05, 0.25 L9.0 19.4 20.3 21;3 22.9 24.4 26.7 - - * 

NOTE: n = sample size; N= estimated number of children in population in thousands; 8= mean; S = standard deviation; SE = standard error of the mean. 

37. 
Table 17. Chest depth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age 72 N x s sz 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th - _I 

WHITE In centimeters 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 489 1,787 13.3 1.19 0.11 11.5 12.0 12.4 13.2 14.1 14.8 15.3 7 years----------------- 551 1,781 13.7 1.29 0.12 11.8 12.2 13.0 13.6 15.4 15.9 8 years----------------- 537 1,739 14.2 1.43 0.10 12.2 12.5 13.3 14.2 :Ki 15.8 16.7 9 years----------------- 525 1,730 14.7 1.52 0.08 12.6 13.1 13.7 14.6 15:6 16.6 17.6 :; ~~~=~---------------- 15.0 1.43 13.3 14.1 16.8 17.6 ------------me-- :z :%; > 15.7 1.58 Lx? . EZI. 14.0 14.7 :;:i :E . 17.8 18.7

G= 

6 years----------------- 461 1,722 12.8 1.08 0.07 11.5 12.2 12.7 13.6 14.4 14.8 7 years----------------- 512 1,716 13.3 1.30 0.09 ::+ 12.0 12.4 13.3 14.8 15.5 8 years----------------- 1,674 13.7 1.31 0.07 11:8 12.2 12.7 13.7 :";-: 15.6 16.3 

9 years----------------- z 1,663 14.2 1.63 0.09 12.1 12.4 13.2 14.1 15:2 16.5 17.4 

10 years---------------- 505 1,632 14.7 1.70 0.12 12.3 12.8 13.5 14.5 15.7 16.9 17.9 

11 years---------------- 477 1,605 15.4 1.81 0.10 13.1 13.3 14.2 15.3 16.7 17.8 18.6 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 

8 years-----------------

9 years-----------------

10 years----------------

11 years----------------

:9' 

;2

83 

286 

2;

264 

255 

:2*:

14:5 

14.5 

15.2 

1.12

1.18 

1.44

1.42 

1.30 

K

0:31 

0.23 

0.18 

12.1

12.2

12.3 

13.1 

13.2 

12.2 

12.6 

12.9

13.2 

13.6 

12.8 

:if-i 

13:7 

14.4 

13.5

14.2

14.5 

14.4 

15.3 

14.4 

:z 

15:2 

16.3 

15.3 

:2: 

16:2 

16.8 

15.7

16.0

16.8 

16.6 

17.4 

Girls 

6 years-----------------

7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

9': 

113 

281 

284 

281 

13.1

13.1 

13.5 

1.43

1.14 

1.26 

0.21 

0.20 

0.18 

11.4 

11.1 

11.6 

11.8 

11.5 

12.1 

12.3 

12.3 

12.5 

12.8 

13.1 

13.4 

13.6 

13.8 

14.4 

14.4 

14.7 

14.9 

14.8 

15.2 

16.3 

9 years-----------------

10 years----------------

11 years----------------

84 

;I 

265

266 

253 

13.9 

14.7

15.1 

1.38 

:2:: . 

0.14 

0.16

0.26 

12.1 

12.5 

12.3 

12.3 

12.8 

12.7 

13.0 

13.6 

14.1 

13.8 

14.5 

14.8 

14.8 

15.6

16.3 

15.7 

16.8 

17.7 

16.3 

18.3

20.0 

years-----------------

7 years-----------------

84 289 13.5 1.13 0.30 11.7 12,.1 12.6 13.5 14.4 14.9 15.7 

NOTE: n = sample size; N = estimated number of children in population in thousands; X= mean; 

s = standard deviation; Sji= standard error of the mean. 

38 
Table 18. Bicondylar breadth of the femur of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 

- 1 

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age n N I”

s sz 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 

WHITE In centimeters 

10 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 7 years----------------- 8 years----------------- 9 years----------------- 10 years---------------- 11 years----------------

489 

551 

537

525 

509

542 

1,787

1,781

1,739

1,730

1,692

1,662 

1.14 

0.58

0.64 

0.73 

E. 

0.06 

0.05

0.05 

0.04 

0.05 

0.06 

6.60 

7.04 

7.09

7.20 

7.36 

7.84 

6.90 

7.12 

7.23 

7.44 

7.77

8.10 

7.20 

7.37

7.62 

8.09 

8.22

8.43 

7.54 

7.78

8.24 

8.48 

8.62 

9.07 

7.8E 8.56 

a.41 8.76 

8.65 9.00

8.87 9.63 

9.75

;:2 10.31 

8.76 

8.87 

9.51

9.88 

10.09 

10.71 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 7 years----------------- 8 years----------------- 9 years-----------------

461 

512

498 

494 

1,722 

x:: 

11663 

0.53 

0.58

0.63 

0.74 

0.05 

0.04

0.04 

0.05 

6.17

6.40 

7.01 

7.08 

6.34

6.80 

7.09 

7.19 

6.84 

E 

7153 

7.34 

7.54

7.78 

8.18 

7.70 8.13 

7.88 a.57

8.45 8.82 

8.71 

8.53 

8.78 

9.23 

9.73 

years---------------- 505 1,632 0.77 0.06 7.17 7.38 8.05 8.49 9.07 Kl 9.89 11 years---------------- 477 1,605 0.79 0.04 7.40 7.83 8.25 8.68 9.39 9187 10.44 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 0.54 3.16 6.65 6.81 7.20 7.62 8.20 8.56 8.68 7 years----------------- fs8Z 0.51 3.10 6.87 7.06 7.28 7.65 8.23 8.65 a.79 8 years----------------- 279 0.60 3.09 7.20 7.30 7.59 8.16 8.60 8.86 9.50 

9 years----------------- 269 0.66 3.09 7.24 7.48 8.09 a.47 8.85 9.51 9.74 

10 years---------------- 264 0.62 3.09 7.76 7.83 a.13 8.49 8.84 9.54 9.78 

11 years---------------- 255 0.63 3.08 6.01 8.09 8.36 8.81 9.50 9.88 10.36 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 281 0.43 1.07 5.41 6.85 7.30 7.64 7.84 8.01 

7 years----------------- ;: 284 0.60 3.10 5.41 7.12 7.47 7.82 8.49 '8.75 

8 years----------------- 113 281 0.78 1.10 5.82 7.34 7.79 8.52 9.10 9.57 

9 years----------------- 84 265 0.78 I.10 5.86 7.54 8.23 8.69 9.32 9.71 

10 years---------------- 266 0.89 1.09 7.20 8.04 a.49 9.09 9.82 LO.59 

11 years---------------- iI 253 0.95 1.13 7.65 a.25 8.65 9.48 .0.51 11.02 

NOTE: 72 = sample size; N= estimated number cf children in population in thousands; XC mean; 

s = standard deviation; St = standard error of the mean. 

39. 
-- 

Table 19. Upper arm girth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 -

Race, sex, and age n N 

WHITE In centimeters 

BOYS 

fj years-----------------

7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

9 years----------------- 10 years----------------

11 years----------------

$89

551 

537

525

509 

542 

1,787

1,781

1,739

1,730

1,692

1,662 

17.6 

18.3

19.0 

19.9

20.4

21.6 

1.61 

1.90

2.24 

2.66 

;:;ti 

0.10 

0.12 

0.12

0.16 

0.13

0.14 

15.3 

15.7 

:2: 

;;:; . 

15.8

16.2 

16.7

17.2

18.0

18.8 

16.5 

17.1

17.6

18.3 

18.8

19.7 

17.5

18.2 

18.7 

:;*:

21:2 

18.5

19.3

20.3

21.1 

g;.; . 

19.7

20.7

21.8

23.4 

;;.z . 

20.6 

21.7 

23.5

25.8 

25.5

27.3 

Girls 

6 years-----------------

7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

9 years----------------- 10 years---------------- 11 years----------------

461 

512

498

494 

505 

477 

1,722

1,716

1,674

1,663

1,632

1,605 

17.7

18.3 

19.3

20.2 

20.9

21.7 

1.86 

2.04

2.32

2.70 

2.93 

2.99 

0.15

0.10

0.12 

0.15 

0.20 

0.17 

15.1 

15.7

16.2

16.6 

16.9 

17.6 

15.6 

16.2 

16.8 

17.3 

17.5

18.3 

16.4 

17.0

17.7 

18.4 

18.8 

19.6 

17.5

18.2

19.0 

19.7

20.6 

21.5 

18.8 

19.5

20.8 

21.8 

22.8

23.6 

19.9 

21.2

22.4 

24.1 

24.9

26.1 

20.9

22.1

23.8 

25.7

26.5 

27.4 

NEGRO 

BOYS 

6 years----------------- 84 289 17.4 1.55 0.28 15.1 16.3 18.5 19.6 20.5 

7 years----------------- 79 286 17.7 1.28 0.18 15.6 :x 16.9 :z g.6' g.2 19.9

8 years----------------- 279 18.5 0.16 16.1 17:o 18:5 21.2 

9 years----------------- :z 269 19.1 :-:: 0.28 16.3 17.1 % 18.7 20:3 22:8 23.8 

10 years---------------- 264 2107 0.27 16.6 17.5 18:5 19.5 20.9 22.2 24.2 

11 years---------------- :: 255 :E . 2.27 0.26 17.2 18.1 19.3 20.4 22.3 23.7 24.7 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 281 17.1 0.20 14.7 15.2 16.0 ;;.; g.; 20.1 

7 years----------------- 9': 284 17.9 % 0.25 15.3 15.6 16.5 E-f 21.8 

8 years----------------- 113 281 18.8 ;:g 0.17 15.3 15.7 16.8 18:3 2017 2213 23.7 

9 years----------------- 84 265 0.24 17.7 20.8 22.8 24.8

10 years---------------- 266 E 3:22 0.42 E ::*i 18.4 :;*: 22.1 24.8

11 years---------------- 2 253 21:5 3.54 0.51 17:2 1717 19.3 20:8 23.2 27.0 z9'. -L 

NOTE: 12 = sample sire; N = estimated number of children in population in thousands;x = mean; 

s = standard deviation;SR = standard error of the mean. 
Table 20. Lower arm girth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean,

standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 -

I I I 

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age n N I

x s SE 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 

WHITE In centimeters 

Bz 

6 years----------------- 489 1,787 17.4 1.32 0.08 16.0 16.6 17.4 18.2 18.9 19.8 7 years----------------- 551 1,781 18.0 1.40 0.08 :z 16.3 17.2 18.0 18.8 19.8 20.6 8 years----------------- 537 1,739 18.7 1.59 0.09 16:3 16.9 17.6 18.6 19.6 20.8 

9 years----------------- 525 1,730 19.4 1.74 0.11 16.9 17.3 18.3 19.3 20.4 21.7 2: 

10 years---------------- 509 1,692 1.61 0.08 17.4 18.0 18.7 19.7 20.9 22.1 22:9

11 years---------------- 542 1,662 :E . 1.83 0.09 18.2 18.7 19.6 20.6 21.8 23.5 24.3 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 461 17.1 0.10 15.1 15.5 16.3 17.1 17.8 18.8 7 years----------------- 512 x 17.5 :-2; 0.07 15.5 16.1 16.6 17.5 18.5 19.5 K 8 years----------------- 498 11674 18.3 1147 0.07 16.1 16.5 17.4 18.3 19.3 21:2 9 years----------------- 494 1,663 19.0 1.78 0.10 16.4 17.1 17.9 18.8 20.2 %!*s 22.4 10 years---------------- 505 1,632 19.7 1.91 0.12 17.1 17.4 18.4 19.7 20.9 2211 22.9 11 years---------------- 477 1,605 20.5 1.90 0.10 17.5 18.2 19.1 20.4 21.8 23.1 23.9 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years-----------------

7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

9 years-----------------

84 

:; 

289 

286 

279 

269 

17.2 

17.7 

18.4 

19.0 

1.30 

1.09 

1.26 

1.59 

0.26 

0.14 

0.17 

0.20 

15.2 

15.8 

16.3 

17.0 

15.5 

16.2 

16.7 

17.2 

16.3 

17.1 

17.5 

17.9 

17.3 

17.6 

18.4 

18.8 

18.2 

18.6 

19.3 

20.2 

19.3 

19.4 

20.2 

19.7 

19.7 

20.8 

21.8 

10 years---------------- 2 264 19.6 1.50 0.20 17.4 18.0 18.6 19.5 20.6 %E 22.5 

11 years---------------- 83 255 20.4 1.70 0.20 17.6 18.3 19.3 20.3 21.7 22:7 23.3 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 281 16.6 1.11 0.14 14.9 15.2 15.9 16.6 17.4 18.0 18.6 7 years----------------- ii; 284 17.4 1.78 0.18 15.2 15.6 16.4 17.4 18.3 19.0 20.2 8 years----------- -__-_ - 113 281 18.0 1.70 15.3 15.7 16.8 17.8 19.2 20.4 21.3 

9 years----------------- 84 265 19.0 1.82 i?:: 15.9 17.1 17.7 18.8 20.1 21.5 22.7 

10 years---------------- 266 2.02 0:24 16.6 17.3 18.4 19.7 20.8 23.0 23.8 

11 years---------------- zi 253 :;-:. 2.47 0.37 17.4 17.9 18.8 20.4 22.0 24.3 25.6 

NOTE: ?t = sample size;N = estimated number oE children in population in thousands; x= mean; S = standard deviation; Sz = standard error of the mean. 

41 
Table 21. Calf girth of children byrace, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 -

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age 12 N x 

75th 90th 95th 

WHITE 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 7 years-----------------

8 years----------------- 9 years----------------- 10 years---------------- 11 years~---------------

$89 

551 

537 

525

509

542 

1,787 23.6 

1,781 24.7 

1,739 25.7

1,730 26.8

1,692

1,662 27,6

29.0 

24.7 

25.8 

2: 

29:3

30.6 

26.1 

27.3 

28.7 

30.4

30.7 

32.8 

27.1 

28.4 

29.9

31.8 

E . 

Girls 

6 years-----------------

7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

9 years----------------- 10 years---------------- Jl years----------------

461

512

498 

494 

505 

477 

x3

1:674 

1,663

1,632

1,605 

92.2 

25:8 

27.0 

27.9 

29.2 

26.3

27.4

28.8 

30.5 

31.5 

33.3 

~Z 

30:o 

31.7 

32.7 

34.3 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years-----------------

7 years----------------- 8 years-----------------

9 years-----------------

10 years----------------

11 years----------------

289

286

279 

269 

264

255 

23.2

24.2 

25.5

26.2 

fi-P. 

24.3 

;z-:

2717 

28.5 

29.9 

27.8

26.6

28.1 

29.6 

30.3 

31.7 

26.6 

27.4 

28.9

30.7 

31.7 

32.5 

Girls 

6 years-----------------

7 years----------------- 8 years----------------- 9 years----------------- 10 years---------------- 11 

97:

113 

84 

281 

284

281 

265

266 

253 

23.2 

24.2 

25.4 

19: 

29:1 

24.3

25.2 

27.1 

28.1 

30.1 

31.3 

25.3

26.3 

29.3 

30.4 

31.8 

34.8 

26.1 

26,7 

2;

33:9 

35.9 -- L 

s Sf 

5th 10th 25th 50th 

In centimeters 

1.87 0.12 20.8 21.3 22.3 

2.14 0.12 21.6 22.3 23.3 

2.35 0.14 22.3 23.1 24.3

2.65 0.16 24.1 25.1 

2.49 0.14 2.4 24.7 26.0

2.82 0.16 2512 26.0 27.2 

1.93 0.14 20.6 21.3 22.4

1.98 0.11 21.7 22.3 23.3

2.21 0.11 22.6 23.3 24.3 

2.53 0.14 23.4 24.1 25.2 

2.70 0.17 24.0 24.5 26.1 

2.87 0.16 25.1 25.6 27.3 

1.78 0.30 20.3 20.7 22.1 

2.13 21.3 22.0 22.7

X-E 22.9 23.3 24.2

E8 0:30 22.7 23.4 24.5 

2:30 0.30 23.7 24.3 25.6

2.42 0.27 24.5 25.2 26.8 

1.49 0.17 21.0 21.3 22.2 

1.86 0.24 21.5 22.1 22.8 

2.71 0.21 21.5 22.2 23.5 

2.54 0.25 22.5 23.2 24.8 

3.24 0.28 23.6 24.2 25.4 

3.55 0.38 24.3 24.9 26.5 

23.5

24.6 

25.6

26.5 

;;-z. 

23.6 

22 

2617 

27.9 

28.9 

23.3

24.2

25.5 

25.7 

26.8 

27.9 

23.1 

24.3

24.9

26.2 

27.6 

years- ____c_-_---_--_ tz 28.6 -

S 

NOTE: 12 = sample size; N=

standard deviation; 

estimated number of children = sp = standard error of the mean. 

42 

in population in thousands; x= mean; 
Table 22. Estimated mid-arm muscle circumference of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday:

Unitedsample size, mean, standard deviation, standard errorofthe mean,and selected percentiles, States, 1963-65 

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age n 8 s sz 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 

WHITE In centimeters 

Boys 

6 years-----------------

7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

g years-----------------

10 years----------------

11 years----------------

489 

551 

537

525 

::2' 

1,787

1,781

1,739

1,730

1,692

1,662 

15.0

15.6 

16.1 

16.6 

17.1 

18.0 

1.21 

1.30 

1.49 

1.57 

1.54 

1.73 

0.06

0.09 

0.07

0.08 

0.08

0.09 

13.1 13.3 14.0

13.4 13.9 14.6

14.0 14.3 15.1

14.1 14.7 15.6

15.0 15.3 16.1

15.5 16.1 16.0 

14.8 

15.5

16.0 

16.6 

17.0 

17.9 

15.8

16.4 

16.9 

17.6 

18.0 

19.0 

16.7 

17.3 

17.9 

18.6 

18.9

20.3 

17.2 

17.8 

18.7 

19.3

19.8 

21.1 

Girls 

6 years-----------------

7 years-----------------

8 years-----------------

g years----------------- 10 years---------------- 11 years----------------

461 

512 

498 

494

505

477 

1,722

1,716

1,674

1,663

1,632

1,605 

14.5 

14.9 

E 

16:8

17.7 

1.20 

1.38

1.51 

1.62

1.85

2.01 

0.10

0.06 

0.07

0.09

0.12

0.14 

12.5 13.0 13.7

13.0 13.3 14.1

13.4 13.8 14.5

13.7 14.2 15.1

14.1 14.6 15.6

14.8 15.2 16.2 

14.5

14.8 

15.5 

:t *: 

17:4 

15.3 

15.7

16.5 

17.1

17.9

18.8 

16.2 

16.7

17.5

18.2

19.1

20.3 

16.8

17.3

18.2

19.1 

19.9

21.5 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years-----------------

7 years-----------------

84 289 15.2 1.34 0.31 13.1 13.4 14.1 15.2 16.2 17.1 17.7

286 15.7 1.18 0.17 13.5 14.1 14.9 15.7 17.1 17.8 8 years----------------- :; 16.2 1.19 0.12 14.7 15.4 16.2 22 17.9 18.5 9 years----------------- 74 2; 16.8 1.58 0.19 E-63 15.1 15.6 16.6 LB:1 18.8 19.7 10 years---------------- 264 17.4 1.43 0.22 15:o 15.6 16.5 17.4 18.3 19.3 19.8 11 years---------------- :: 255 18.1 1.61 0.17 15.3 15.9 17.2 18.1 19.1 20.4 20.9 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 281 14.6 1.25 0.17 12.5 12.8 13.6 14.7 15.6 16.3 16.7 7 years----------------- iis 284 15.3 1.73 0.24 13.0 13.3 14.2 15.2 16.2 17.2 17.7 8 years----------------- 113 281 15.8 1.74 0.16 13.2 13.5 14.4 15.6 16.8 18.2 18.8 9 years----------------- 84 265 16.3 1.61 0.14 14.0 14.3 15.2 16.3 17.2 18.6 19.3 10 years---------------- 77 266 17.4 2.16 0.29 14.2 15.0 15.8 17.0 18.7 20.3 21.5 11 years---------------- 84 253 18.1 2.34 0.35 15.1 15.6 16.6 17.7 19.2 20.8 23.1 

NOTE: n = sample size; N= estimated number of childreninpopulationin thousands X= mean; S = standard deviation; sp = standard error of the mean. 

43 
---- --- ---- 

Table 23. Chest girth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 

Percentile I 

Race, sex, and age n x s % 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th -

WRITE In centimeters 

Boys 

6 yeass----------------- 489 1,787 58.7 3.50 0.17 54.2 54.9 56.4 58.4 60.6 63.1 64.4 7 years----------------- 551 1,781 60.9 4.08 0.23 55.5 56.5 58.3 60.5 62.9 65.8 68.2 8 years----------------- 537 1,739 63.3 4.90 0.29 57.3 60.1 62.5 65.7 68.8 71.8 9 years----------------- 525 1,730 66.3 5.92 0.41 59.3 E:: 62.5 65.4 68.6 72.8 10 years----- 509 1,692 67.6 60.4 61:8 64.3 67.2 70.1 ::*8' 11 years---------------- 542 1,662 71.3 21: E% . 63.8 65.2 67.3 70.1 74.2 ?303-39 . 83:3

Girls 

6 years----------------- 1,722 57.0 3.94 0.20 51.8 52.8 54.5 56.7 59.1 61.3 63.8 7 years----------------- 1,716 59.0 4.21 0.23 53.3 56.3 58.5 64.6 67.3 8 years----------------- 1,674 61.9 5.16 0.20 55.5 :"8*"; 58.3 61.4 2:: 68.1 71.8 9 years----------------- 1,663 64.6 5.93 0.33 57.3 5813 60.6 63.5 68:o 72.7 76.9 10 years---------------- 1,632 67.2 6.67 0.37 58.6 60.0 62.5 66.4 71.0 76.6 80.0 11 years---------------- 1,605 70.6 7.12 0.33 60.4 62.6 65.6 69.5 75.5 80.3 83.2 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 289 58.0 3.22 0.61 53.4 54.7 55.5 57.8 60.3 62.6 63.7 7 years----------------- 286 59.8 2.75 0.38 56.5 57.9 59.7 63.5 64.9 g years----------------- 279 62.4 2.89 0.38 z-z 59.2 60.4 62.2 % 65.7 67.5 9 years----------------- 269 64.1 4.48 5715 58.7 64.0 6712 70.8 71.7 10 years---------------- 264 66.0 4.17 Es2 60.8 61.4 3 65.5 68.2 72.4 11 years---------------- 255 68.3 4.77 0:46 61.4 63.0 6517 67.5 70.1 73.7 E:B 

Girls 

6 years----------------- 72 281 55.9 2.91 0.38 51.2 52.2 54.1 55.8 58.3 59.7 61.3 7 years----------------- 284 3.88 0.53 53.3 53.8 55.0 57.1 60.3 62.3 63.7 8 years-----------------

9 years-----------------

233 281 z-i 5.01 

ii% 

53.8 54.9 56.6 59.2 

2; 

66.9 68.6 265 63:2 5.61 56.5 57.3 58.9 63.1 70.9 75.6 10 years---------------- 78; 266 66.2 6.64 0:73 60.2 61.8 65.4 69:0 73.2 81.0 11 years---------------- 84 253 69.7 7.09 0.97 E . 61.6 64.3 69.1 74.2 80.7 83.8 -

NOTE: 12 = sample size; N= estimated number of children in population in thousands; .$'= mean; S = standard deviation; SR = standard error of the mean. 

44 
----------------- 

----------------- 

Table 24. Waist girth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean. and selected percentiles. United States. 1963-65 

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age II N 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 

WRITE In centimeters 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 489 1,787 53.0 4.20 0.20 47.4 48.4 50.3 52.5 54.9 58.3 60.2 7 years----------------- 551 54.5 4.64 0.26 47.9 49.6 51.7 54.1 56.7 59.7 61.7 8 years----------------- 537 x; 56.4 5.64 0.30 49.5 50.7 53.0 55.8 58.7 62.5 66.1 g years----------------- 525 ::g 58.3 6.33 0.43 51.3 52.3 54.4 57.3 60.5 66.3 71.5 10 years---------------- 509 59.5 6.08 0.29 53.4 55.3 58.4 62.3 67.2 72.3 11 years---------------- 542 1:662 62.4 7.27 0.30 :2-2' . 55.5 57.7 60.6 65.5 71.6 77.5

Girls 

6 years----------------- 461 1,722 51.8 4.58 0.24 45.4 46.8 49.1 51.6 53.9 56.9 7 years----------------- 512 1,716 53.1 4.54 0.29 47.2 48.3 50.2 52.5 55.5 59.0 E-5 8 years----------------- 498 1,674 54.9 5.34 0.24 47.7 49.4 51.6 54.0 57.4 61.7 66:l g years----------------- 494 1,663 57.1 5.87 50.1 50.9 53.3 56.1 59.9 65.3 68.4 10 years---------------- 505 1,632 58.2 6.38 E1 50.4 51.5 54.1 57.3 61.3 65.8 71.4 11 years---------------- 477 1,605 60.1 6.45 0:31 52.1 53.1 55.5 59.3 63.6 69.0 72.5 

NEGRO 

Boys 

6 years----------------- 84 289 52.4 4.28 0.63 48.3 49.7 51.7 54.7 57.8 60.6 7 years----------------- 286 53.4 3.15 0.58 t?; 49.4 51.8 53.6 55.2 57.4 59.0 8 years :; 279 55.3 3.85 0.45 49:7 50.6 52.9 54.9 57.8 61.1 63.0 9 years----------------- 74 269 56.2 0.58 49.3 50.8 53.1 57.8 58.8 61.6 64.3 10 years---------------- 264 57.7 t-'2: 52.3 52.6 55.2 57.4 63.9 67.4 11 years---------------- 2 255 60.0 5:25 i-i:: . 53.1 55.1 57.1 59.5 25:: 65.3 72.5

Girls 

6 years----------------- 281 3.28 0.38 45.5 46.7 51.8 7 years----------------- '99 284 2-Z 4.11 0.55 47.5 48.4 z-z 52.2 E :7'-: E 8 years----------------- 113 281 5418 5.47 0.36 47.8 50:8 53.7 58:3 61:7 63:9 g years 265 56.8 5.27 0.52 51.0 2% 53.4 56.7 58.5 64.2 67.8 10 years---------------- E 266 58.3 5.57 0.59 51.1 5217 54.7 56.8 60.9 64.7 71.5 11 years------------~--- 84 253 60.9 8.80 1.22 53.0 53.5 56.2 58.8 63.1 68.6 78.4 

NOTE: n = sample size; N= estimated number of children in population in thousands; a = mean; 

s = standard deviation; $ = standard error of zhe mean. 

45 
Table 25. Hip girth of children by race, sex, and age at last birthday: sample size, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and selected percentiles, United States, 1963-65 

Percentile 

Race, sex, and age n N w 5 sz 

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th -

WHITE In centimeters 

Boys 

fj years----------------

7 years----------------

8 years----------------

9 years----------------

10 years---------------

11 years---------------

489 1,787 551 1,781 537 1,739 52.5 1,730 509 1,692

542 1,662 

58.3 

61.1

64.2

67.3 

69.4 

73.5 

4.82 

5.24

5.93

7.23 

6.54

7.49 

0.37 

0.35

0.42 

E 

0:43 

51.4 

53.7

56.5

58.3

60.6 

63.0 

52.5

55.4 

57.7

59.6

62.4 

65.6 

55.1

57.8

60.4 

62.6

65.0 

68.3 

58.0

60.5 

63.7

66.1 

68.5 

72.4 

61.1

63.8

67.2 

70.6

73.4 

77.5 

64.5 

67.7 

:Ei 

7814 

83.8 

66.6 

69.8

75.1

81.7

80.9 

88.1 

Girls 

6 years----------------

7 yeara----------------

8 years----------------

9 years------ -______ 

10 years---..-----------

11 years---------------

--_ 

461 

512 

498

494

505 

477 

59.1

62.3 

65.7

68.9 

72.4

76.6 

5.21 

5.55

6.14 

7.12 

7.89

8.25 

0.34

0.32 

0.36

0.49 

0.57

0.46 

51.1 

54.6

56.2 

59.1

61.2

64.6 

53.1

56.1 

z; 

~~:~ . 

55.6

58.3 

61.7

63.7 

66.7

71.0 

58.8

61.6

65.4 

68.0 

71.8

75.7 

62.3

65.8 

69.3 

73.7 

76.9

82.2 

65.6

69.6 

73.5 

79.2

82.7

87.4 

67.6

72.5 

76.7

81.6 

86.3 

92.0 

NEGRO 

Boys 

fj years---------------- 84 289 56.2 3.86 0.39 51.1 51.5 53.4 56.3 58.4 61.3 63.1

7 years---------------- 286 3.34 52.8 54.1 56.2 58.5 61.4 62.5 63.1 8 years---------------- :9' 279 2-; 4.74 E 55.2 56.5 60.1 62.8 68.6 71.0 9 years---------------- 269 64:9 6.14 1:04 57.3 58.1 60.3 64.7 22 72.5 77.9 10 years--------------- 2 264 67.4 5.79 0.84 58.8 59.9 64.3 66.7 70:1 75.3 78.9 11 years--------------- 83 255 70.9 6.32 0.88 61.1 62.0 66.8 70.8 74.7 78.0 80.2 

Girls 

fj years---------------- 72 281 57.2 4.44 0.64 49.7 51.1 54.4 60.3 63.5 64.5

7 years---------------- 93 284 60.0 5.67 0.71 53.3 54.2 56.4 :x 62.4 66.6 70.5 8 years---------------- 113 281 64.3 6.90 0.53 54.5 55.9 59.3 63:6 69.0 73.4 76.9 9 years---------------- 84 265 67.8 7.53 0.85 58.1 59.6 62.6 66.7 71.4 77.6 79.8 10 years--------------- 266 72.4 a.55 0.88 60.1 61.9 66.9 71.5 76.8 83.8 86.7

11 years--------------- ia 253 77.1 10.56 1.64 63.4 64.9 70.4 74.9 81.8 91.5 100.7 

NOTE: ?k= sample size; N= estimated number of children in population in thousands; x= mean; S = standard deviation; 5% = standard error of the mean. 

46 
Table 26. Normal deviates of differences between measurements of various components of 

the extremities ofwhite and Negro children and ranking of normal deviates within sex 

and age groups 

Lower extremity Upper extremity 

Sex and age I I 

Pop- Hand Elbow- Acromion- Foot . . 

length ~~~~$ B"E::c,k - length yeiiEh olecranon 

length length 

Boys Normal deviate 

6 years------------------------- -3.13 -3.52 -0.81 -6.14 -4.80 -2.61

7 years------------------------- -4.64 -3.65 -1.12 -7.45 -6.47 -1.42

8 years------------------------- -5.14 -6.44 -0.98 -6.24 -6.64 -4.08

9 years------------------------- -3.66 -4.87 $0.17 -7.61 -5.42 10 years------------------------ -3.57 -3.52 -0.22 -5.01 -3.61 +1.9; 11 years------------------------ -4.50 -5.82 -0.20 -8.77 -7.96 -1.47 

Girls 

6 years------------------------- -4.44 -3.66 -0.31 -8.23 -4.98 -2.50

7 years------------------------- -7.12 -6.18 -1.15 -8.41 -8.38 -5.37

8 years------------------------- -5.14 -3.35 -0.97 -6.96 -7.17 -1.49

9 years------------------------- -6.46 -10.57 -8.78 -3.75

10 years------------------------ I;-;; -3.54 2 % -9.79 -7.41 -3.86

11 years------------------------ -3:59 -2.74 -1:98 -6.48 -6.09 -2.50 

Boys Rank of normal deviate 

6 years-------------------------

7 years-------------------------

8 years-------------------------

9 years-------------------------

10 years------------------------

11 years------------------------

Girls 

tj years-------------------------

7 years-------------------------

8 years-------------------------

9 years-------------------------

10 years------------------------

11 years------------------------ 1 

47 
APPENDIX I 

STATISTICAL NOTES 

The Survey Design 

The sampling plan of the second cycle of the HES 

followed a highly stratified, multistage probability design in which a sample of the U.S. population (including 

Alaska and Hawaii) from the ages of 6 through 11 

years inclusive was selected. Excluded were those 

children confined to an institution or residing upon any 

of the reservation lands set up for the American Indians. 

In the first stage of this design, the nearly 2,000 

primary sampling units (PSU’s), geographic units into 

which the United States was divided, were grouped into 

357 strata for the use of the Health Interview Survey 

and the Current Population Survey of the U.S. Bureau 

of the Census and were then further grouped into 40 

superstrata for use in Cycle 11of the HES. 

The average size of each Cycle 11stratum was 4.5 

million persons, and all strata fell between the limits 

of 3.5 and 5.5 million. Grouping into 40 strata was 

done in a way that maximized homogeneity of the PSU’s 

included in each stratum, particularly with regard to 

the degree of urbanization, geographic proximity, and 

degree of industrialization. The 40 strata were classified into four broad geographic regions (each with 10 

strata) of approximately equal population and crossclassified into four broad population density groups 

(each having 10 strata). Each of the resultant 16 cells 

contained either two or three strata. A single stratum 

might include only one PSU (or only part of a PSU as, 

for example, New York City, which represented two 

strata) or several score PSU’s. 

To take account of the possible effect that the rate 

of *population change between the 1950 and the 1960 

Census might have had on health, the 10 strata within 

each region were further classified into four classes 

ranging from those with no increase to those with the 

greatest relative increase. Each such class contained 

two or three strata. 

One PSU was then selected from each of the 40 

stiata. A controlled selection technique was used in 

which the probability of selection of a particular PSU 

was proportional to its 1960 population. In the controlled selection an attempt was also made tomaximize 

the spread of the PSU’s among the States. While not 

every one of the 64 cells in the 4x4x4 grid contributes 

a PSU to the sample of 40 PSU’s, the controlled selection technique ensured the sample’s matching the 

marginal distributions in all three dimensions andbeing 

closely representative of all cross-classifications. 

Generally, within a particular PSU, 20 ED’s (census enumeration districts) were selected with the 

probability of selection of a particular ED proportional 

to its population in the age groups 5-9 years in the 1960 

Census, which by 1963 roughly approximated the population in the target age group for Cycle II. A similar 

method was used for selecting one segment (cluster 

of households) in each ED. Eadh of the resultant 20 

segments was either a bounded area or a cluster of 

households (or addresses). All of the children in the 

age range properly resident at the address visited 

were EC’s (eligible children). Operational considerations made it n’ecessary to reduce the number of prospective examinees at any one location to a maximum 

of 200. The EC’s to be excluded for this reason from 

the SC (sample child) group were determined by systematic subsampling. If one of the sample children had a 

twin who was not a sample child, this other twin was 

brought in for examination, and while the results were 

recorded for use in a special substudy of twins, this 

twin was qot included in the 7,119 children under the 

present analysis.

The total sample included 7,417 children 6-11 

years of age of whom 96 percent were finally examined. 

These 7,119 examined children represented theroughly 

24 million children in the United States who met the 

general criteria for inclusion in the sampling universe 

as of mid-1964. 

All data presented in this publication are based on 

“weighted” observations. That- is, data recorded for 

each sample child are inflated in the estimation process 

to characterize the larger universe of which the sample 

child is representative. The weights used in this inflation process are a product of the reciprocal of the 

probability of selecting the child, an adjustment for 

nonresponse cases, andapoststratifiedratioadjustment 

which increases precision by bringing survey results 

into closer glignment with known U.S. population figures 

by color and sex for single years of age 6-11. 

In the second cycle of the HES the sample was the 

result of three stages of selection-the single PSU 

40 
from each stratum, the 20 segments from each sample 

PSU, and the sample children from the eligible children. 

The probability of selecting an individual child is the 

product of the probabilities of selection at each stage. 

Since the strata are roughly equal in population 

size and a nearly equal number of sample children were 

examined in each of the sample PSI-I’s, the sample 

design is essentially self-weighting with respect to the 

target population; that is, each child 6-11 yearsold had 

about the same probability of being drawn into the 

sample. 

The adjustment upward for nonresponse is intended 

to minimize the impact of nonresponse on final estimates by imputing to nonrespondents the characteristics 

of “similar” respondents. Here “similar” respondents 

were judged to be examined children in a sample PSU 

having the same age (in years) and sex as children not 

examined in that sample PSU. 

The poststratified ratio adjustment used in the 

second cycle achieved most of the gains in precision 

which would have been attained if the sample had been 

drawn from a population stratified by age, color, and 

sex and made the final sample estimates of population 

agree exactly with independent controls prepared by the 

U.S. Bureau of the Census for the noninstitutional population of the United States as of August 1, 1964 (approximate midsurvey point) by color and sex for each 

single year of age 6-l 1. The weights of every responding 

sample child in each of the 24 age, color, and sex 

classes are adjusted upward or downward so that the 

weighted total within the class equals the independent 

population control. 

A more detailed description of the sampling plan 

and estimation procedures is included in earlier reports of the Vk’al and Health Statistics series.6*7 Series 11, No. 1,” describes the techniques used in Cycle 

I, which are similar to those of Cycle III. 

Notes on Response Rates 

There were 7,417 children aged 6-11 years selected for examination. Of these, 7,119 were actually 

examined, which made an overall response rate of just 

under Qh percent. The response rate by sex and l-year 

age group is shown below. 

Age Boys I

Girls 

96.5 94.9

96.5 95.5

95.2 97.0

97.6 94.8 

95.1 ‘9::; 95.6 

Total--------------------- 96.5 95.5 

NOTE:Thelist of referencesfollowsthetext. 

It can be seen that only at age 8 years was the response 

rate for girls better than that for boys. 

A similar analysis can be done by age, race, and 

sex as shown below: 

Boys Girls 

Age 

Negro White Negro White 

--------------___ 97.7 96.3 97.3 94.7

;~~-------~ 97.5 96.3 98.9

8___-------------- 97.5 95.0 99.1 ;:-: ____------------- 98.7 97.4 100.0 ;$; ~&--------- 98.5 96.8 97.5 ll---------------- 98.8 95.8 98.8 95:o 

Total -------__-___ 98.1 96.2 98.7 94.9 

A striking difference in response is readily seen. Negro children responded better than their whitecounterparts at every age group, and 9-year-old Negro girls 

had an extraordinary loo-percent response rate. 

Parameter and Variance Estimation 

As each of the 7,119 sample children has an 

assigned statistical weight, all estimates of population 

parameters presented in HES publications are computed 

taking this weight into consideration. Thus,t?, the estimate of a population mean,“r,” is computed as follows: 

3?=& wi xi/z wi, where Xi is the observation or 

measurement taken on the ith person and wi is 

the statistical weight assigned to that person. 

The HES has an extremely complex sampling plan, 

and obviously the estimation procedure is, by the very 

nature of the sample, complex as well. Amethod is required for estimating the reliability of findings which 

“reflects both the losses from clustering sample cases 

at two stages and the gains from stratification, ratio 

estimation, and poststratification.” 35 

The method for estimating variances in the HES 

is the half-sample replication technique. The method 

was developed at the U.S. Bureau of the Census prior 

to 1957 and has at times been given limited use in the 

estimation of the reliability of results from thecurrent 

Population Survey. This half-sample replication technique is particularly well suited to the HES because 

the sample, although complex in design, is relatively 

small (7,119 cases) and is based on but 40 strata. This 

feature permitted the development of a variance estimation computer program which produces tables containing desired estimates of aggregates, means, or 

distributions, together with a table identical in format 

but with the estimated variances instead of the estimated statistics. The computations required by the 

method are simple, and the internal storage require49 
ments are well within the limitation of the IBM 360-50 

cdmputer system utilized at the National Center for 

Health Statistics. 

Variance estimates computed for this report were 

based on 20 balanced half-sample replications. A half 

sample was formed by choosing one sample PSU from 

each of 20 pairs of sample PSU’s. The composition of 

the 20 half samples was determined by an orthogonal 

plan. To compute the variance of any statistic, this 

statistic is computed for each of the 20 half samples. 

Using the mean as an example, this is denoted 57;. 

Tieen, the weighted mean of the entire, undivided sample 

(X )is computed. The variance of the mean is the mean 

square deviation of each of the 20 half-sample means 

about the overall mean. Symbolically, 

and the standard error of the mean is the square root 

of this. In a similar manner, the standard error of 

any statistic may be computed. 

A detailed description of this replication process 

by Philip J. McCarthy, Ph.D., has been published:5 

Standards of Reliability and Precision 

All means, variances, and percentage&-appearing 

in this report met defined standards before they were 

considered acceptably precise and reliable. 

The rule for reporting means and percentiles consisted of two basic criteria. The first criterion was 

that a sample size of at least five was required. If this 

first criterion was met, then the second criterion, 

that the coefficient of variation [i.e., the standard 

error of the mean divided by the mean( was to 

be less than 25 percent, must have been demonstrated. 

Thus, if either the sample size was too small, or the 

variation with respect to the mean was too large, the 

estimate was considered neither precise nor reliable 

enough LO meet the standards establisheb. for publication. 

NOTE: The list of referencesfdows the text. 

000 

Hypothesis Testing 

Classically, to test the difference between two 

means (or, put differently, to test whether two samples 

could have been drawn from the same population), one 

could set up a test statistic which would utilize the 

means and standard errors of the means as computed 

from the samples. The statistic 

1- z2 

=-J&T 2 2 

3 i I’ 

would then be compared to a table of normal deviates 

to determine the probability of obtaining values of the 

test statistic as extreme or more extreme than that 

computed, if in fact the two population means were 

equal. 

Because of the many breakdowns of the HES sample, innumerable tests of this nature could be performed. With each new test, the brobability of rejecting a hypothesis incorrectly may be .05; but if 10 such 

tests are performed, the probability of making at least 

one mistake somewhere in those 10 tests is closer to 

0.60. This last “overall error rate” will get increasingly .large as the number of such tests increases, 

Therefore, while the data necessary to do I tests are 

provided in the tables of this report, no such tests 

were performed by the authors. 

It was decided to place the greatest emphasis on 

a relationship remaining consistem over both sexes 

and all ages under consideration. In other words, to 

say, for instance, that “girls have bdtiock-knee lengths 

greater than boys for aU. ages between 6-11 years” has 

far more meaning and interpretability than to say “the 

mean butt&k-knee length for 6-year-old girls is significantly greater than the corresponding mean for 6-

year-old boys,” as determined by a normal deviate. 

In these analyses con-&ten@, rather than a statement 

about a succession of individual probability levels, is 

the factor considered most important in demonstrating . relationship. 

50 
-- 

----- 

APPENDIX II 

TKHNIQUES OF MEASUREMENT 

Techniques of Measurement 

Trained observers made all measurements, reading 

them to the nearest millimeter (tenth of a centimeter). 

All measurements were read aloud to a recorder, who 

repeated aloud each number back to the observer as it 

was recorded in the proper space on the record form. 

AND QUALITY CONTROL 

This repetition served both as a doublecheck on the 

measurement and to reduce recording errors. 

Measurements were performed in a reguIar sequence to minimize the number of go&ion changes the 

child was required to make. The sequence is illustrated 

on the measurement recording form (figure I). It 

should be noted that not all the measurements taken in 

HEALTH EXAMlNIirKm m-11 

JREMENTS 

lco­

-W 

U-m. 

*.Po. ,,‘- T.l.1, 

- -*-

-.- -0-

- --•-

- -0-

-. -*-

-•-

- -•-

- -•-

I -*-

- -•, 

- -*-

I -*--

- -ahKASUREWENT5 MOT WYC OR SIDE VlMEDuoi(y which ad riw - ..__ -.....-.--._-... _--..- _...____-___ 

51 
the survey are reported in the present report. The three 

skinfolds, for example, have been analyzed and reported 

already, while other specific reports are still in preparation. 

All of the technicians were experiencedx-ray technicians who had been trained in anatomy andthe identification of specific body landmarks. In addition, X-ray 

technicians, both by disposition and training, tend to 

workwell with people and are skilled in giving the examinee verbal orders along with the necessary handling 

to achieve proper positioning. 

Each technician received more than a month of 

intensive training before being considered minimally 

proficient in making body measurements. In this training, he became skilled with the equipment, the precise 

locations of the body at which the measurements were 

to be taken, and the technique of measurement itself. 

The major sources of measurement error areimproper 

positioning of subject’s body, improper selection of 

specific body landmarks, and improper application of instrument (for instance, not perpendicular when measuring a diameter or circumference, or improperly 

compressing the soft tissue over bony landmarks). 

Incorrect reading of the instrument (usually transposition of numbers) also occurs with discouraging 

frequency. When these errors were mostly overcome, 

the new technician’s data were carefully compared with 

those of the other three technicians and the two supervisors before they were officially accepted as recorded 

data. 

As was emphatically stated by Hertzberg when summarizing the Conference on Standardization of Anthropometric Techniques and Terminology in 1968,36 every 

effort must be made to insure accuracy of measurement 

and standardization of procedure if the data are to be 

useful. The preceding discussion sketches the chief 

procedures used to reduce both systematic andvariable 

measurement error. As discussed in the lengthy subsequent section, “Quality Control and Estimation of 

Residual Measurement Error,” the absolute amount of 

systematic error can never truly be known unless one 

agrees on the “perfect measurer with perfect equipment perfectly applied, etc.” A good estimate of the 

residual variahle measurement error can, however, be 

achieved by replicate examinations for both inter- and 

intra-ohscrver variability. 

In the subsequent pages, the equipment, measurements, and specific procedures used’in the survey are 

described and illustrated. Next the quality control procedures which were used to monitor the bodymeasurements are discussed extensively. 

Equipment 

The mcusuring equipment con;;isted of several 

anthropometers, small sliding calipers. steel tapes, and 

a measuring table with an ndjustablc footrest. 

NOTE: The list of referencesfollows the test. 

52 

Figure II. Anthropcnnetric instruments used in Health Examination Survey, United States, 1968-65. A: anthropometer;B: 

sliding caliper; C: steel tape. 

The anthropometer (figure II) was used tomeasure 

various body lengths, heights, and breadths. It is a rod 

consisting of four sections and two crossbars, or measuring arms. One of the crossbars is fixed, while the 

other is movable. The anthropometer is calibrated in 

centimeters amd millimeters. It has two scales, one 

reading from the top down and the other from the bottom 

up. In this survey, a section of one anthropometer was 

fitted with a base for stabilizing purposes (to avoid 

tilting when making various height measurements), while 

another was fitted into the sliding backboard of the 

measuring table, 

The small sliding caliper (figure II) was used to 

measure hand length and breadth. It consists of a flat 

metal bar upon which a slide moves. One of the crossbars is fixed, while the other is movable. The small 

sliding calipers are calibrated in centimeters and 

millimeters. 

The steel tape (figure II) was used to measure 

various body circumferences. It is a flexible tape with 

a spring rewind and it is scaled in centimeters and 

millimeters on one side, in inches on the other. 

The measuriq fable was such that it could accommodate children of varying sizes and proportions. 

It was equipped with an adjustable footrest in order to 

maintain a standardized position of the lower extrem-
ities during the measurement process. The surface 

of the table was also equipped with a measurement 

scale in centimeters and millimeters and with a sliding 

backboard at right angles to the scale. 

Measuring Procedures and Definitions 

Wei& was measured on aToledo self-balancing 

weight scale which mechanically printed the body weight 

directly onto a permanent record. It was recorded to 

the nearest 0.5 pounds.’ 

Height was measured as the distance from the standing surface to the top of the head. The child was in stocking feet with feet together, back and heels against the 

upright bar of the height scale, head in the Frankfort 

plane (looking directly forward), and standing erectly 

(“standing up tall”).l 

Ceneml position fov sitting measurements. The 

child sat on the measuring table with the popliteal 

fossae at the front edge of the table. The footrest was 

adjusted so that the child sat with his knees and feet 

together, heels against the heel rests, feet at right 

angles to the lower legs, and lower legs at right angles 

to the thighs. Elbows were held at the sides with forearms at right angles, hands open, and palms facing 

each other, or with hands resting on knees. Arm 

positions were adjueted when necessary to meet the 

requirements of specific measurements. 

Gewt~l position fW standing measurements. The 

child stood erectlywith the head oriented in the Frankfort plane, i.e., looking directly aLead and feet together. Arms were held relaxed at the sides. Postural 

adjustments were made to meet the requirements of 

specific measurements. 

Sitting height was measured as the vertical distance 

from the sitting surface to the top of the head. With the 

subject seated as described above, the backboardon the 

measuring table was brought up firmly against the buttocks. The movable arm of the anthropometer (which 

was inserted into the backboard) was brought down 

firmly to the midline of the top of the head. 

Buttock-knee length was measured as the distance 

from the rearmost projection of the buttock to the front 

of the right kneecap. With the subject seated as previously described, the fixed crossbar of the anthropom ­

cter was placed in Ii&t contact with the rearmost 

projection of the buttock, and the movable crossbar 

I was brought into light contact with the front surface of 

the right kneecap (patella). 

Popliteul height was measured as rhe distance from 

the surface of the footrest to the underside of the right 

knee. With the subject seatedat; previously described, 

the anthropometer with its attached base was pIaced 

I on the footrest adjacent to the right foot and the movable arm was brought to the level of the table surface 

on which the child was seated. This isthelevel at which 

NOTE:The list of references follows the text. 

the under side of the right knee (tendon of the biceps 

femoris muscle) comes into contact with the table surface. 

Foot length was measured as the distance from the 

back of the right heel to the tip of the longest toe. With 

the child seated as previously described, the fixed arm 

of the anthropometer was lightly applied behind the 

heel with the rod parallel to the long axis of the foot. 

The movable bar of the anthropometer was then brought 

into light contact with rhe tip of the longest toe. 

Acromion-olecvanon length was measured as the 

distance from the acromial process of the right scapula 

(outer point of the shoulder) to theolecranonprocess of 

the ulna (elbow). With the subject standing, right arm at 

his side and elbow bent at a 90-degree angle, the fixed 

crossbar of the anthropometer was placed firm/y at the 

right acromial process and the movable crossbar was 

brought into firm contact with the olecranon process 

(tip of the elbow). 

Elbow-w&t length was measured as the distance 

from the olecranon process (elbow) to the distal end of 

the styloid process of the ulna. With the subject seated 

as previously described but with palm facing downward, 

the fixed arm of the anthropometer was firmly placed 

at the olecranon process (tip of theelbow) and the movable arm wasfirmly placed at the distal end of the styloid 

process of the ulna. 

Hand length was measured as the distance from the 

wrist (midpoint of most distal crease or groove) to the 

tip of the middle finger. With the right hand fully extended, palm up and thumb straight but relaxed, the 

fixed end of the sliding caliper was placed at the midpoint of the distal crease at the wrist {located by having 

the child flex the hand at the wrist), and the movable 

crossbar of the caliper was placed in light contact with 

the distal tip of the middle finger. 

Biacromial breadth was measured as the maximum distance between the right and left acromial processes of the scapula. With the subject standing and 

the observer standing behind him, the fixed arm of the 

anthropometer was placed at the most lateral point of 

the left acromial process and the movable bar brought 

to the most lateral point of the right acromial process. 

The measurement was made with firm confact. 

Bicristal breadth was measured as the distance 

between the most lateral points of the iliac crests. 

With the subject standing and the observer standing 

behind him, the crossbars of the upper segment of the 

anthropometer were brought intofimz contact with the 

edges of the iliac crests.on each side. This measurement was made with firm pressure. 

Chest breadth was measured as the breadth of the 

rib cage under f&m pvessure. With the subject standing and breathing normally, the fixed crossbar of the 

anthropometer was applied firmly at one side of the 

rib cage and the movable crossbar was apelied firmly 

to the other side at the level of the nipples. The crossbars were angled slightly downward to avoid slipping 

53 
Sitting height 

Popliteal height Foot length 

Elbow-wrist length Hand length 

Buttock-knee 

length 

, 

Biacromial breadth 

Figure III. Schematic illustration of anthropometric dimensions taken on children aged 6-11 years in the Health 

Examination Survey, United States, 1963-65. 

54 
Bicristal breadth 

Bicondylar breadth 

. 

V 

‘I 

~ 

Chest girth 

-

. 

V 

,I ‘I 

~ 

Figure III. Schematic 

Chest breadth 

of the Jpvy&m Lower arm 

femur girth 

Waist girth 

V 

,a‘I 

~ 

Chest depth 

L 

Calf girth 

c 

Hip girth 

illustration of anthropometric dimensions taken on children aged 6-11 years in the Health 

Examination Survey, United States, 1963-66-Con. 

55 
into the spaces between the ribs. At all times the rod 

of the anthropometer was parallel to the floor. In older 

girls who had a noticeable degree of breast development, the level of the junction of the fourth rib with the 

sternum was used as the measurement landmark. 

Chest depth was measured as the distance or 

depth from the front to the back of the rib cage under 

fi’rm pressure during normal breathing. With the subject in the same position as for the chest breadth measurement and with the observer approaching the child 

from the right side, the fixed arm ofthe anthropometer 

was applied firmly to the back of the chest and the movable arm was applied firmly to the sternum aE the level 

of the nipples. At all times the measuring instrument 

was parallel to the floor. In older girls who had a noticeable degree of breast development, the level of the junction of the fourth rib with the sternum was used as the 

measurement level. 

Bicondylav breadth of the femur was measured as 

the maximum width between the condyles of the right 

femur. With the subject standing, the fixed bar of the 

anthropometer was placed firmly on the medialcondyle 

and the movable bar brought to the lateral condvle with 

firm pressure. 

Upper aym giz’ythwas measured at the level midway between the acromial and olecranon processes of 

the right arm. The midlevel was located while the subject held the forearm at a right angle to the upper arm. 

The measurement was made while the right arm hung 

loosely, with the tape horizontal and in contact with the 

skin without deforming the skin contours, i.e., without compressing tiie underlying tissues. Note that this 

measurement was made at the same level as the triceps skinfold measurement. 

Lower a’ym girth was measured as the maximum 

circumference of the right forearm just below the elbow joint. The girth was measured just below the elbow 

at the widest part of the forearm while the arm hung 

ldosely. The tape was applied horizontally in confact 

with the skin without defovming the skin contours. 

Calf girth was measured as the maximum circumference of the right calf at right angles to the long 

axis of the leg. With the subject standing, legs several 

inches apart and weight equally distributed on both 

feet, the girth was measured at the level of maximum 

circumference. The tape was placed in contact with the 

skin without depressing the skin contours. 

Chest girth was measured as the circumference 

of the chest during normal breathing at the level of the 

fourth intercostal space. With the subject standing as 

for the measurement of chest breadth and depth, the 

steel tape was applied firmly but without depressing 

the skin. Special care was taken to make certain that 

the tape was horizontal. 

Waist @yth was measured as the circumference 

of the waist, abdomen relaxed, at the level midway 

between the lower edge of the ribs and the iliac crests. 

With the subject standing and breathing normally, the 

steel tape was applied firmly but without depressing the 

skin. Special care was taken to make certain the tape 

was horizontal. 

Hip g&th was measured as the circumference of 

the hips at the level of the greater trochanters (the 

widest bony part of the hips). With the child standing, 

feet together, the steel tape was applied firmly to 

compensate for clothing (this girth was measured over 

shorts). Special care was taken to make certain the 

tape was horizontal. 

Each dimension measured is schematicall; illustrated in figure III. 

Derived Measurements 

Subischial length was obtained by subtracting sitting height from standing height. It provides an estimate of the length of the lower extremities. 

Estimated mid-arm muscle circumference was 

derived from the upper arm circumference and thetriceps skinfold, both of which were measuredat the same 

level of the arm midway between the acromial and olecranon processes. The arm in cross section consists 

of skin, subcutane&s fat, muscle, and bone. The skinfold measurement is a double fold of skin and underlying subcutaneous fat. If it is assumed that the upper 

arm is a cylinder and the principles of circle geometry 

are applied, the arm circumference can be corrected 

for the thickness of the triceps skinfold, leaving an estimated mid-arm muscle-bone circumference or, for 

the sake of simplicity, estimated mid-arm muscle 

circumference. Thus, 

EMC=AC-rSt 

where EMC is the estimated mid-arm muscle circumference in cm., AC is the upper arin circumference in 

cm., and S, is the triceps skinfold in cm. Since the 

estimated mid-arm muscle circuhference for large 

numbers of ‘children is generally calculated via computers and skinfold thicknesses are usually measured 

in millimeters, the following formula was used: 

Indexes and Ratios 

Pondeval index provides an approximation of physique or body build on a linearity-laterality continuum. 

It was obtained as follows: standing height in inches 

divided by the cube root of body weight in pounds 

(height/m). 

Sitting height/stature ratio indicates the relative 

contribution of sitting height (i.e., head, neck, and ‘, 

trunk) to total stature. It was obtained as follows: sit- I 

ting height divided by standing height times 100. This I 

ratio is expressed as a percentage. 

56 
Biacromial breadth/bicrik!al breadth ratio indicates the relative proportion of shoulder width to hip 

width. It was obtained as follows: biacromial breadth 

divided by bicristal breadth times 100. This ratio is 

expressed as a percentage. 

Quality Control and Estimation of Residual 

Measurement Error’ 

Monitoring Systems 

Despite efforts to reduce measurement errors, 

residual errors of a magnitude large enough towarrant 

concern occur with some regularity in any anthropometric survey. There is, therefore, a real and urgent 

need to have a system whereby these residual errors 

can be monitored. The concept of quality control is 

based on the desire to obtain end products of a specified quality. Thus, one of the main purposes of a 

monitoring system is to indicate whether the measurements produced by a certain measurement process have attained the desired quality. A second major 

purpose is to make possible quantitative summary 

descriptions of residual measurement errors to aid 

in the interpretation of survey data. 

Perhaps the most direct monitoring system used 

in the Health Examination Survey was observation of 

the measurement process as it was being applied to 

an examinee. hledical, dental, and psychological advisors from HES and other advisors and consultants 

regularly visited the examination center to observe 

examination procedures and to retrain examiners if 

necessary. A good example of how routine observation 

was used as a monitoring system can be found in the 

taking of body measurements. One member of the examining team, a trained anthropomerrist, acted as a 

recorder and aided in positioning of the examinees, 

while he was additionally responsible for observing 

and correcting any errors in measurement technique. 

As a careful and thoughtful quality control program tends to be an evolving process, the most extensive systematic monitoring of body measurements 

performed in any of the cycles of the Health Examination Survey was achieved in Cycle III (youths 12-17 

years, data collection 1966-70). The formal system of 

replicate examinations which was finally instituted in 

Cycle III is described later in this appendix along with 

a discussion of its applicability to Cycle II. 

Replicate measurements are useful for a variety 

of reasons, e.g., as a means of increasing precision 

of individual measurement estimates. as a training 

technique, and as a monitoring system which includes 

the objective of final evaluationof measurement errors. 

These three objectives are compatible, and replicate 

RThis section is in part based upon Scbaible’s lucid and systematic 

discussion of quaity control and error estimation in the HES. Series 2. 

Number 44.37 

data collected primarily for one of them often indirectly: 

if not directly. accomplish one or both of the remaining 

two. For this reason replicate data are most often 

collected with a combination of these objectives in mind. 

The single most important source of replicate data in 

Cycle III was the replicate examination procedure, in 

which approximaEely 5 percent of the regular examinees 

were returned to the examination center for a second 

complete examination (except for drawing blood and 

taking X-rays). 

Biases and Controls in Replicate Measurements 

A major source of uncertainty in estimates derived from replicate measurements is inability tomake 

the replicate measurement under precisely the same 

conditions and in the same manner as the original 

measurement. This uncertainty is difficult to evaluate, 

and most attempts to do so are restricted to subjective statements concerning the direction and/or 

size of the bias and the need for concern in the analysis 

of data. 

Several policies regarding Cycle III replicate examinations were designed specifically to obtain measurements under the same conditions and in the same 

manner as the initial (original) exam. Replicate examinations were not conducted at a specific time. Whenever possible, they were interspersed among the regular 

examin?tions. An original examination was given priority over a replicate examination in that none would be 

scheduled if it occupied time needed for a regular examination. There was often space to interject replicate 

examinations in the schedule without interfering with 

regular examinations, hut this priority, plus the fact 

that replicates were drawn from those previously examined, increased the likelihood that a replicate examination would be scheduled toward the end of the cxamination period. Nevertheless, the attempt to space replicate examinations throughout the regular schedule was 

a valuable policy in that the interspacing of replicate and 

original examinations created an atmosphere more conducive to both examinations being conducted in essentially the same manner. 

The examiners were informed of the purpose and 

importance of the reexaminations. It was emphasized 

that they should not vary their procedures on a replicate examination or in any way try to collect “better” 

data than they would normally. Thereafter, instrUCtiOnS 

on the conduct of replicate examinations were not given 

greater emphasis than any other instruction beCaUse 

overemphasizing “sameness” might have created more 

bias than it would have eliminated. 

At the time of the original examination neither the 

observer TWY the examinee kxew whether OY not the 

examinee would be returned for a replicate examinaCon. During the replicate examination, observers were 

not specifically informed that an examinee was a replicate, although no attempt was made to conceal this 

57 
fact since in an examination as lengthy as that given 

in HES the examinee would undoubtedly be remembered 

by several, if not all, examiners. Even though an examinee might be remembered, it was extremely unlikely that an examiner would remember a specific 

measurement after a time lapse of 2 or 3 weeks. Some 

bias might be introduced by the examiner’s knowledge 

of the replicate status of an examinee, but generally 

this bias would seem quite small when compared to the 

measurement error and in some cases to the biases associated with the knowledge and familiarity gained by the 

examinee during the original examination. Examinee 

bias can be important, especially when a response is 

elicited or when the true value of the measurement has 

changed because of a time lapse. Since the time lapse 

was usually 2 or 3 weeks, some appreciable changes 

might occur in certain measurements such as weight. 

However, for most of the data collected, the actual 

change over this short period of time can only be very 

small and this effect may usually be neglected. Previous experience is much more likely to affect the true 

replicability of psychological tests and those physiologic tests requiring high levels of subjectparticipation 

(such as the treadmill and spirometry); with procedures 

in which the subject is passive and very little learning 

is involved, such as EKG and body measurements, the 

effect of previous experience is almost zero. 

In Cycle III replicate data were obtained on approximately 70 percent of those selected for such 

examinations. One explanation for this low rate is that 

persuasion and followup efforts were not as intensive 

as for regular examinees. This is partially because 

regular examinees were given priority if interviewer 

or examination time was limited. There also appeared 

to be an increased frequency of objection to returning 

for a second examination, as demonstrated in the most 

frequent reasons for refusal: “One time is enough” 

and “I can’t miss school again.” 

Selection of Replicate Examinees 

The selection of Cycle III youths for replicate 

examinations was random within certain restrictions 

imposed by practical considerations. One restriction 

was that replicates were selected only from those 

examined during the first week and a half of the approximately 3% weeks of examinations at any one location. This time period was chosen to facilitate the 

interspersing of replicate examinations with originals 

in the examining schedule without interfering with the 

time allotted for original examinations and without 

scheduling additional time to accommodate replicates. 

In a voluntary survey it is obviously impossible to 

follow a statistically random process in scheduling 

subjects, so those scheduled during the first week and 

a half are not, in the strict sense, a random sample 

of all those scheduled, though they may be randomly 

distributed for those features which are significant. 

Evidence that replicates might be considered “representative” is found in the fact that youths of certain 

ages, locations, incomes, etc., were not routinely 

more likely to be scheduled during any particular 

segment of the examination schedule. However, the 

availability and desires of the subjects do influence 

the composition of the replicate sample. For instance, an examinee whose participation in an original 

examination was achieved only after repeated contacts 

by survey personnel was less likely to have been included in a replicate examination since it is unlikely 

that he would have received an original examination 

during the first week and a half. The schedule of locations, time of year, sequence of examinations, and 

other related factors which might make subjects more 

or less readily available show no obvious discriminatory effect in the selection of replicate examinees. 

After examining these and other relatively minor considerations, there appears to be no reason to believe 

that subjects scheduled and examined during the first 

part of a stand differed from those scheduled and examined during the latter portion with respect to the 

data gathered. 

Another restriction on complete randomness in the 

selection of youths for replicate examinations was the 

exclusion of those examinees living somewhere “geographically inconvenient” to the examination center, 

“Geographically inconvenient” was arbitrarily defined 

as a distance of 30 miles or more although exceptions 

were sometimes allowed if conditions dictated. A primary consideration in choosing a site for the examination center was the centrality of the location inrelation to the sample segments (a segment is a cluster 

of households). Since segments were drawn with probability proportional to population, most segments were 

in relatively populated areas, so the examination center 

was also in or adjacent to a relatively populated area. 

Therefore, the subjects deleted by this 30-mile restriction usually resided in relatively less populated 

areas. Thus this restriction may createa bias in replicate data if, in fact, characteristics differed with 

population density. Even if differences did exist, the 

total effect of this restraint would not be great since 

it excluded only approximately 10 percent of the eligible examinees. There were other minor restrictions 

of a medical and operational nature imposed on the 

complete randomness of the replicate sample. They 

were not, however, readily associated with large ’ 

differences since at most only l-2 percent of the 

eligible examinees were deleted for these reasons. 

Since the purpose of replicate examinations is to 

give information about errors, the matter of concern 

between those excluded and those eligible for selection 

is not- possible differences in measurement values but 

possible differences in the errors associatedwith measurements as shown by the discrepancy between two 

measurements on the same subject. For example, measurements may vary markedly by some demographic 

58 I’ 
classification, but this is not as relevant as the question 

of whether or not the measurement errors vary by this 

classification. A similar differential in the active and 

passive participation of subjects (e.g., spirometry 

versus body measurements) is assumed to operate here 

also, but in a different way. That is, it must be assumed 

that the most cooperative subjects, by and large, selfselect themselves, and that their scores aretruerestimates of the variable being tested. It is thus likely that 

their test-retest difference would be smaller. On the 

other hand, although subjects did influence measurement errors, it should also be noted that the environment, procedures, and examiners were also highly influential in the final measurement. Consideration of 

these additional influences causes a completely random 

selection of subjects to be of somewhat less concern. 

The Analysis of Replicate Data on Body 

Measuremelits 

Although a variety of monitoring systems for body 

measurements were in effect in HES from the beginning 

of Cycle I, it was not until Cycle III that a formal 

system was instituted of recalling approximately 5 percent of the subjects already examined for a replicate 

examination. However, during Cycle II, which is the 

concern of the present report, several “in-field” attempts at assessing replicate body measurementswere 

made. These included the following: 

(1) Several formal training sessions were held in 

which the examining technicians performed duplicate sets of measurements on a small group 

of subjects producing data for immediate examination of intra- and inter-examiner differences. 

(2) The two Cycle II examining caravans converged 

from the east and west for a measurement 

stand in the Greater Chicagoarea. After scheduled examinations were completed in the normal 

manner, one of the caravans (Caravan I) reexamined (for our purposes, remeasured) approximately 50 children who had been initially 

examined by the staff of the other caravan 

(Caravan II), and vice versa. This operation 

permitted the technicians an “in-field” examination and discussion of the replicate measurements. 

(3) Finally, a total of five intensive 2-day sessions 

were conducted by the supervisors in the field 

examination centers. 

No formal, detailed analysis of the data in the statistical 

sense was carried out, primarily because the aboveattempts were more training than evaluation sessions. 

In Cycle III, on the other hand, a systematic attempt 

at analysis of replicate body measurements was made. 

. A total of 301 replicate examinations from Cycle III 

were collected and subjected to an extensive analysis of 

intra- and inter-examiner variation in body measurements, i.e., variation within the same observer and variation between different observers. Since the conditions 

under which the body measurements were made were 

essentially identical in Cycles II and III, there is reason 

to believe that the results of the quantitative assessment 

of replicate measurements of data collected in Cycle III 

can be effectively applied to Cycle II. In other words, 

should the analysis indicate a reasonably good degree of 

accuracy within and between examiners in Cycle III, it 

can be safely assumed that a simiIar degree of measurement accuracy was apparent in Cycle II. 

Although the anthropometry in Cycles II and III was 

very similar, there were four relatively minor differences. First, the children in Cycle II were younger and 

smaller in size. (There is, however, no reason to assume 

that the relative measurement ewor is different for 

younger and smaller individuals.) Second, four of the 

human engineering measurements taken in Cycle II were 

not measured in Cycle III; they were replaced by several 

segmental length measurements of greater biological 

significance and interest. Third, a total of 11 technicians 

made measurements during Cycle III, but in Cycle II, 

the same four technicians participated in equaldegrees 

throughout the entire cycle. Fourth, a more elaborate, 

systematic collection of replicate data with greater 

numbers of subjects was utilized in Cycle III. Other 

factors-the instruments and their calibration, techniques of measurement, methods of training, selection 

of technicians, examination environment, and the chief 

medical examiner and the physical anthropologic consultant-were the same. It should be noted further that 

two of the four technicians who participated in Cycle 

II of the HES continued for several years into Cycle III. 

In summary, the only significant differences in quality 

control considerations for body measurements between 

Cycles II and III were the addition of the systematic 

collection of replicate data and the use of a greater 

number of technicians in Cycle III. The authors have 

concluded that these two differences approximately 

counterbalance one another, resulting in equivalent degrees of measurement variation. 

Cycle III Systematic Replicate Procedure 

Body measurements were taken on&768 youths and 

these data comprise the HES findings. Replicate body 

measurements were obtained on 301 youths at 30 of the 

40 locations (or stands) visited throughout the United 

States. That is, an average of 10 youths were reexamined 

at each stand. Of the 301 youths, 224 were reexamined 

by a technician other than the one initially measuring 

the youth, while the remaining 77 were reexamined by 

the same technician. Altogether during the 4 years, 11 

technicians participated in replicate measurements for 

this phase of the quality control program. 

It is of interest toascertainwhethereach of the examiners had a representative number of replicate measurement sessions with respect to the number of examina59 
Table I. Percentage of regular and replicate examinations performed by each technician 

I I 

Replicate examinations 

Percentage of regular Technician number Cycle III examinations I 

Percentage of intra- Percentage of interexaminations examinations 

i I 0.8 1.3 100’92 

2 2::; 21:4 . 5 13.5 I 10.7 162:: 

3: 

tions he performed during the survey. It should be carefully noted that it was not possible to insure thar. each 

technician had equal chances to measure replicate examinees since the length of time technicans were associated with the survey team varied. Table I presents the 

percentages of total examinations, intra-examiner 

replicates, and inter-examiner replicates participated 

in by each of the 11 technicians. 

Table I clearly indicates some possible sources 

of bias which may affect the analysis of replicate 

data. For example, assume technician No. 9 was 

able to replicate his own measurements well but his 

readings were very different from the other examiners. 

Obviously, his results would be overrepresented in the 

replicate analysis since he examined only i 1.3 percent of 

all. youths in the actual survey but did 16 percent of the 

intra-examiner replicate examinations and 13.3percent 

of the inter-examiner replicate examinations. Because 

of this technician’s overrepresentation,the distribution 

of intra-examiner differences would cluster closer to 

zero than it really should have since this examiner selfreplicated well. On the other hand, the inter-examiner 

distribution of differences would be considerably more 

skewed than it should have been since this technician 

did not agree well with the other technicians’ measurements. Similar discrepancies are obvious for other 

technicians, An example of an opposite effect to that 

cited above is technician No. 2, who did only 2.7 percent 

of the intra-examiner replicate measurements and 10.2 

percent of the inter-examiner replicatemeasurements, 

but did 13.4 percent of all examinations in Cycle III. 

Thus, the various combinations of observers for the 

inter-esaminer replicates and the proportions of intraexaminer replicates were not controlled so as to be 

balanced among the observers. In the survey proper the 

examinations were similarly not proportionately distributed among the observers, since the Iength of time 

NOTE: The list of referencesfollows the test. 

16:4 E 

24:0 

16.0 ‘?Z 

3:6 -

the various.technicians were associated with the survey 

varied. 

The foregoing indicates that the distribution of 

numbers of replicate examinations done by each technician is not the same as the distribution of the total number of survey examinations done by each in Cycle III. 

This represents one of the inherent problems of the present .replicate data and limits to some extent implications 

to the survey as a whole. Nevertheless, the reader 

should be aware of the many problems confront!ng those 

who conduct large-scale health surveys, and in this 

context, the present systematic approach to the collection of replicate body measuremeht data is adequate. 

Results of the Replicate Analysis; 

The absolute differences between the first and second measurements of the same child were computedfor 

each dimension measured during Cycle III. The present analysis concerns itself with all body measurements 

except skinfold thicknesses, -which have been reported 

separately with the results of the analysis of skinfold 

data.3 

A distribution of absolute diffkrences was compiled for each body measurement for the intra- and 

inter-examiner groups separately. The median and mode 

for each body measurement were extracted from the distribution of absolute differences. -The mean absolute 

difference (&) was computed by summing the differences and dividing by either 77 or 224, depending on 

which group (intra- and inter-examiner, respecti,vely) 

was being considered. 

A widely used measure of replicability is the statistic a,, the “technical error of measurement.” It is defined as IJ~=Jw the square root of the sum of the 

squared differences of replicates divided by twice the 

number of pairs. This statistic assumes that the distribution of replicate differences is normal and that 

errors of all pairs can be pooled. 

Since squaring a technical error of measurement 

60 
yields a variance, and since the ratio of two variances 

has the F distribution, a very simple test exists for 

comparing intra- and inter-examiner replicability. In 

table II the final column gives, for each variable, the F 

ratio (i.e., the ratfo of the squares of the inter-examiner (I, to the intra-examiner 0. ). As willbenoted 

later, in three instances the variance for the intra-examiner group was larger and in these cases the ratios 

were reversed. A significant, F statistic indicates the 

presence of a “technician-effect” or some characteristic which makes a particular measurement more easily 

replicated by the same technician than by another. 

The coefficient of variation (CV), O&Z, the technical 

error of measurement divided by the overall mean (the 

mean of all subjects) for the particular variable under 

study, was also calculated. The coefficient of variation 

is a measure of relative variability, i.e., variation in 

Table II. Results of ictra-examiner -

Measuring device and T Intra-examiner 

dimension measured 

replicability relative to the overall magnitude of the 

measure. 

In the context of the present analysis, great care 

must be used in dealing with this statistic. It is not a 

coefficient of variation in the traditional sense since 

the numerator contains a measure of dispersion of 

differences (between replicates) whereas the denominator contains a mean-not a mean difference but a 

mean magnitude of the measurement taken. 

The value of this statistic lies in its adjustment of 

the technical error by the magnitude of the original 

measurement. It attempts to answer the argument that 

replicability is likely to be much better for a variable 

of small magnitude than for one of great magnitude. As 

will be expanded later, dividing by the mean measurement may overadjust for such biases. 

In the presentation of results of the replicate oband inter-examiner replicate analysis -

results T Inter-examiner results F 

value 

dedian Mode % CV 4 rledian Mode % cv 

Automated recording Height --__-_------___-_-_------------ 0.1 0.494 0.563 0.1 0.681 0.417 1.90 

Weight------------------------------- 1.0 1.173 1.335 1.0 1.228 2.218 1.10 

Anthropcmeter-height measurement 

Standing Cemicale height------------------- 0.692 1.054 0.5 0.953 0.689

A.=raial height __--_---_____--____- x34 z-i 0.795 0.875 E: 0.1 0.891 0.673 E 

Radial height---------------------- 0:890 0:1 1.063 0.916 0:7 0.949 0.932 1125 

2: Sty&,,, height--------------------- 1.114 0.1 1.424 1.819 1.032 0.8 0:5 1.01a 1.290 1.99 

f 0.7 

Iliac crest height----------------- 0.700 0.3 0.646 3.644 1.134 0.9 0.3 1.059 1.055 2.69 

Trochanteric 1.510 1.722 1.06 height---------------- 1.413 

E 

1.672 Tibia1 height---------------------- Ei8 E E-i: 0.719 0.564 1.62 0.613 k:: Sphpion height-------------------- 0.266 0:1 0:247 :-2a2 0:380 0:3 0:1 0.343 5.298 1.93 . sitting Sitting height--------------------. 0.535 0.631 0.7 0.705 0.832 1.74 

'yJ-,igh clearance-------------------- 2; 0.439 2.853 "0%; . 0.5 ::; 0.544 3.535 1.54

Anthropometer-length and breadth 

measurement 

Foot measurements 

Fo,,t breadth----------------------- :*:z: . 0.1 0.122 EZ. 0.226 ::; c:. 0.202 2.200 2.74 

Across bony landmarks on torso 

~ia,=r&al breadth----------------- 0.553 0.544 1.529 0.807 0.5 0.1 0.915 2.571 2.54 

Bicristal b-eadth------------------

Bitrochanteric breadth-------------

0.775

0.552 

0.711 

0.523 

2.926 

1.778 

1.590 

1.760 

1.1 

0.5 

0.1 

0.1 

1.545 

0.836 

6.358 

2.843 

4.72 

2.56 

. 

Sliding caliper Knee breadth-------------------------

Elbow breadth-----------------------. 

Ankle breadth------------------------

0.112 

0.105 

0.097 

2: 

0.106 

0.117 

0.092 

E 

11367 

0.183 

0.152 

0.186 

2: ::: 0.244 

0.154 

0.171 

2.683 

2.368 

2.540 

'1% 

3145 

Foot length-----------------------. 0.1 0.264 0.296 0.524 2.158 3.94 

Across torso Seat breadth----------------------- 0.610 0.909 0.993 3.057 .1.16

Elbow-elbow breadth---------------- 1.104 8:; K%: f .% 1.425 ::2' 2: 1.346 4.065 1.42 

",--St breadth----------------------. 0.108 2: 0.115 2.208 0.150 E 2: 0.139 2.669 1.46 

Spreading caliper 

BQonial Bizygomatic breadth----------------- 0.075 0.076 0.158 0.1 .255 breadth--------------------- 0.147 0.156 0.295 0.2 .746 f %. 

Steel tape Torso girths Chest girth------------------------ 0.8 1.816 2.256 2.75 Waist girth------------------------ :% :%! :*i 1.561 2.300 1.42 Hip girth-------------------------- 1:168 A:: 1:514 1:3 1,375 1.558 1.24

Extremity circumference upper am girth-------------------- 0.339 0.458 0.425 I.664 1.50 For-am girth---------------------- 2; 0.404 2'; 29 0.582 2.453 Calf girth------------------------- k% . 0:2 0.353 0:3 0:2 0.340 1.009 25": . 

NOTE: For definition of symbols, see above. 

61 
servation analysis, data were grouped according to the 

measuring instrument used in order to facilitate comparison since there is the possibility that differences 

between or within certain examiners might be peculiar 

to the particular measuring device used. First, height 

and weight were treated as a single group because they 

were machine-recorded. Note, however, that height 

measurement can be affected by variations in posirioning. The secondgroup was comprised of various height 

measurements which include the distance from the 

standing or sitting surface to the specific landmark. In 

most instances, the anthropometer was used to its 

full extent; nevertheless, as the landmarks approached 

the leg and ankle, the measuring distance was shorter. 

The third group of measurements included those made 

with the upper portion of the anthropometer. These measurements were made with the fixed arm of the anthropometer at one landmark while the free end was moved 

to the other landmark, which defined the measurement. 

This group included two foot measurements, three bony 

breadth measurements across the torso which required 

firm pressure, human engineering measurements which 

required light surface contact of the anthropometer. The 

fourth group included those made with a small sliding 

caliper. As a group these measurements represent the 

distance across a single bone or two bones at specific 

extremity joints. Compared to the height measurements 

mentioned above, the distance traversed by these measurements is rather small. The fifth group comprised 

only two facial breadths made with a spreading caliper. 

The sixth group consisted of measurements made with 

a steel tape and included six circumferences, three on 

the torso and three on the extremities. 

Clearly body weight differs from all other values 

here since it was measured to the nearest half pound, 

while all others were measured to the nearest tenth of 

a centimeter, i.e., the nearest millimeter. Body weight 

is the only variable in which there is no chance of 

either intra- or inter-observer error. All weights 

were taken on a Toledo self-balancing scale which 

mechanically printed the child’s weight directly onto 

the permanent record. It was not even important that 

the technician position the examinee rigidly, which was 

a significant factor in other measurements, for example, 

height. Any variability evident in replicate readings 

would thus be due to a gain or loss of body weight by 

the subject between examination sessions. Note that 

the F ratio for body weight was not significant, thus 

underlining the lack of technician effect in obtaining 

this measurement. 

There were a total of 77 intra-examiner replications, i.e., the same technician re-examining the subject on two different occasions, and 224 inter-examiner 

replications, i.e., two different technicians doing the. 

initial examination and replicate examination respectively, performed during Cycle III. Intra-examiner and 

inter-examiner results are presented separately in 

table II, and all analyses were done within the group 

under consideration. 

Taking the data in table II as a whole, the technical 

error of measurement was, with three exceptions, consistently less wi.thin examiners than between examiners. 

This was not entirely unexpected, for experience indicated greater intra-examiner consistency, i.e., there 

was greater consistency within the same technician than 

between different technicians. The three exceptions wer e 

radial height, stylion height, and calf circumference. 

Since each value was squared in calculating the technical error of measurement, this statistic can be greatly 

distorted by one or two highly divergent replicate values. 

That seems to be the case with these three divergent 

values. 

Results of the variance analyses indicated that 25 

of 31 F ratios were significant at the .05 level (or 

conversely, only 6 of 31 F ratios were not significant 

at the .05 level), Thus, in 25 measurements, intra-examiner differences were significantly smaller than 

inter-examiner differences. On the surface, such a 

tendency in the results might appear discouraging. However, such a tendency might function to eliminate or 

reduce systematic bias in large-scale surveys by eliminating or reducing the effects of individual idiosyncrasies (biases) of individual examiners. 

For 29 out of 31 measurements, the mean differences for intra-examiner observations were less than 

those for inter-examiner observations, These results 

were in the same general direction as those reported 

above for the technical error of measurement. The two 

measurements in which intra-examiner mean differences were the greater of the two were stylion height 

and calf circumference, both of which, as indicated 

above, had discrepant replicate readings which functioned to inflate the intra-examiner mean differences. 

*The median represents the midpoint of the distribution, i.e., 50 percent of the cases in the distribution 

are above and 50 percent are below this point. As such, 

it is not affected by the extremes of isolated discrepant 

values, as is the technical error of measurement. An 

examination of the median differences between replicate readings on an intra- and inter-examiner basis 

indicated eight instances in which the median differences between replicate measurements were identical 

within and between examiners. In 22 instances, median 

differences were less within examiners than between 

examiners, while in one instance the median difference 

was less between examiners than within examiners. In 

this last mentioned case, the difference between medians 

was only 0.1 cm. Thus, these observations are in general 

agreement with those indicated by comparison of ue 

and j7, . 

The magnitude of the differences between medians 

of replicate readings within and between examiners was 

only 0.1 cm. for 13 measurements, 0.15 cm. for one 

measurement, 0.3 cm. for five measurements, 0.4 cm. 

62 
for two measurements, and 0.5 cm. for two measurements. Incorporating the eight measurements in which 

median differences for replicate readings were identical 

within and between examiners with the above distribution 

indicated that in 22 of the 31 measurements the difference in median differences of replicate readings within 

and between examiners was 0.15 cm. or less. This indicates a reasonable degree of consistency in the replicate measurements. It does not, however, consider 

the magnitude of the actual differences between replicate readings by the same observer and by different 

observers. 

Before going into a discussion of specificgroups of 

measurements, the limitations of the technical error of 

measurement and the coefficient of variation should 

again be noted. As indicated earlier, the u* is generally an important and revesling statistic. By itself, 

however, it can be somewhat misleading at times. Consider, for example, the variables of standing height and 

knee breadth in table II for the intra-examiner group of 

data. Just considering 0, would lead one to believe that 

knee breadth is a much better replicated measurement 

than is standing height since the variation for knee 

breadth is markedly smaller. It should be carefully 

noted, however, that the magnitude of standing height is 

far greater than that of knee breadth, and the margin of 

error is far greater for the greater measurement. To 

adjust for this factor, the coefficient of variation (u*/@ 

can be used. Examination of the coefficients of variation for these two variables indicates that standing 

height is more closely duplicated by the same examiner 

than is knee breadth. 

On the other hand, coefficients of variation must be 

used with great caution. To divide IJ! for standing height 

by the entire mean for standing height is a bit drastic. 

For example, if an individual is 172 cm. tall, repeated 

measurements cannot vary by the whole 172 cm. Even 

if a technician makes a markedly discrepant replicate 

measurement of 10 cm., for example, this represents 

only 5.8 percent of the total height measurement. On the 

other hand, an error of 1.0 cm. for knee breadth, which 

for the sake of example is assumed to be 12.0 cm., represents 9.3 percent of the measurement. What isbeing 

suggested here is that there is noway errors of sufficiently large magnitude can be made for large measurements (of the order, say, of 170 cm. for height). Thus, 

to divide u* by the full mean for the particular measurement distorts the reality of the situation. This is why 

it is best to compare coefficients of variation within 

variables measured by the same instrument and within 

variables of about epual magnitudes. 

Results of the replicate analysis for specific measurements and/or groups of measurements are now considered. As noted earlier, the data were grouped according to measurement instrument used. 

Although body weight showed some variation within 

and between observers, the F ratio was not significant, 

indicating that all observers did comparable jobs in 

measuring this variable. It should be noted, however, 

that there was no chance for individual idiosyncrasies 

of a given observer to affect the body weight measurement. All weights were taken on a Toledo self-balancing 

scale which mechanically printed the weight directly 

onto the child’s permanent record. Hence the variation 

between observation sessions is due to the weight gain 

or loss occurring during the time lapse. Mean differences for body weight within and between examiners are 

well within the range of variation associated with diurnal 

changes in body weight. 

As a group, measurements made with the sliding 

caliper had a high degree of replicability. This category 

included two measurements across single bones, i.e., 

knee breadth across the condyles of the femur and elbow 

breadth across the epicondyles of the humerus; and two 

measurements across two bones, i.e., ankle breadth 

across the distal aspects of the tibia and fibula and 

wrist breadth across the distal aspects of the radius 

and ulna. As a group the mean, median, and modal 

differences for the four extremity breadth measurements were the lowest relative to other variables 

measured during Cycle III. The technical errors of 

measurement were also lowest, indicating that these 

four measurements were quite accurately replicated. 

For example, these measurements averaged about 0.1 

cm. difference for intra-examiner replications and about 

0.16 cm. for inter-observer replications. Comparing the 

average differences for these four extremity breadth 

measurements to values for other body measurements 

in table II clearly Indicates that precision was greater 

in these than in any other group of measurements considered in this report. 

Attempting to compare coefficients of variation of 

these measurements with any others is misleading, as 

discussed earlier. Thus, the coefficient of variation 

statistics should be used only within the groups of 

measurements considered. For intra-examiner differences, knee breadth was best replicated, followed by 

ankle, elbow, and wrist breadths. For inter-examiner 

differences, elbow breadth had the smallest coefficient 

of variation, followed by ankle, wrist, and knee breadths. 

Testing at the .05 level, the F ratios indicated that in all 

instances intra-examiner differences were significantly 

smaller than inter-examiner differences. 

The two measul;ements made with the spreading 

caliper, bizygomatic breadth and bigonial breadth, were 

likewise well replicated. The mean, median, and modal 

differences for these two facial breadth measurements 

were of approximately the same magnitude as those for 

the extremity breadth measurements. In fact, bizygomatic breadth had the smallest intra-examiner difference of allmeasurements considered, anaverage difference of 0.075 cm. and 0. of 0.076. Gnan intra- and 

inter-examiner basis, bizygomatic breadth had a 

smaller coefficient of variation than bigonial breadth. 

The greater variability in replicating the latter might 

be related to variations in pressure in applying the 

63 
spreading caliper (slight variations producing an error 

of 0.1 cm.) and to variations in palpating the measuring 

landmark, the gonial angles of the mandible. Experience 

indicates that some observers allow the calipers to 

“slip” off the landmark, Similarly, if a child tenses his 

lower jaw, this also alters the measurement to some 

extent. In contrast to the measurement of bigonial 

breadth, bizygomatic breadth is a maximum measurement, in which the technician moves the spreading 

calipers until he notes the maximum reading. For both 

facial breadth measurements, the intra-examiner differences were significantly smaller than the inter-examizr differences at the .05 level. 

The group of dimensions measured with the upper 

segment of the anthropometer included two foot measurements (length and breadth), three bony breadth 

measurements (biacromial, bicristal, and bitrochanteric breadths), and two human engineering breadth 

measurements (elbow-elbow and seat breadths). In 

making these measurements, the fixed arm of the anthropometer is set at one landmark, while the free 

arm is moved to the other landmark defining the particular measurement. 

The two foot dimensions showed a high degree of 

replicability. Mean, median, and modal differences for 

foot breadth were less than or equal to those for foot 

length and were of the same magnitude as those for 

measurements made with the spreading and sliding 

calipers. This might be a function of the overall size 

of the dimensions being measured. The technical errors 

of measurement for both foot dimensions were smaller 

within than between examiners, and the intra-examiner 

differences were significantly smaller than the interexaminer differences. The two foot measurements had 

consistently smaller technical errors of measurement 

and coefficients of variation than the other measurements made with the upper segment of the anthropometer. 

The bony breadth measurements across the 

shoulders (biacromial breadth) and across the hips 

(bicristal and bitrochanteric breadths) also appeared to 

be reasonably well replicable measurements. Biacromial breadth and bitrochanteric breadth had essentially identical mean differences in the intra-examiner comparisons-O.553 andO. cm., respectively. 

Bicristal breadth, on the other hand, had a larger average error in the intra-examiner comparisons, 0.775 cm. 

On an inter-examiner basis, biacromial breadth had the 

smallest average difference (0.807 cm.), while bitrochanteric breadth had the largest (1.760 cm,), with bicristal breadth very similar to it (1.590 cm.). These 

average differences are misleading and are perhaps 

influenced by extreme readings. Median differences in 

the inter-examiner comparisons are identical for both 

biacromial and bitrochanteric breadths (0.5 cm.), while 

that for bicristal.breadth is much greater (1.1 cm.). All 

mean, median, and modal differences, as well as the 

technical errors of measurement for the three bony 

breadth measurements, were smaller for intra-examiner comparisons than for inter-examiner comparisons. The intra-examiner differences were also significantly smaller than the inter-examiner differences. 

Within this group of three bony breadth measurements, 

biacromial breadth had the least relative variation, 

as indicated by the lower coefficients of variation on 

both an intra- and inter-examiner basis. Bitrochanteric 

breadth was close to biacromial breadth but larger in 

relative variation in both intra- and inter-examiner comparisons. Bicristal breadth had the largest coefficients 

of variation. The relative variability for the inter-examiner replicates was more than twice that noted for 

the intra-examiner replicates, indicating that different 

observers had difficulty in replicating this measurement with accuracy. These observations might be related 

to the nature and location of the bony landmarks involved 

in making these three measurements. The acromial 

processes are relatively close to the surface and easily 

located. The same applies in general to the greater trochanters of the femur. The iliac crests, though rather 

easily identified, are perhaps difficult to accurately replicate because of their irregular shape. Contributing 

to the overall variation in bony breadth measurements 

is the need for .firm pressure in applying the arms of 

the anthropometer to the bony landmarks. Any inadvertent alteration of pressure applied can increase the error 

of measurement. 

The two human engineering breadth measurements, 

elbow-elbow and seat breadths, appeared to be only 

moderately replicable when compared to other measurements made with the upper segment(s) of the anthropometer. Of the two measurements, elbow-elbow breadth 

had larger mean, median, and modal differences as well 

as larger technical errors of measurement in both the 

intra- ‘and inter-examiner comparisons than did seat 

breadth. Elbow-elbow breadth also had a larger coefficient of variation than seat breadth. All statistics were 

smaller for the intra-examiner replications than for the 

inter-examiner replications. These two breadth measurements also had the lowest F ratios, the ratio for 

seat breadth being insignificant and that for elbow-elbow 

breadth barely significant at the .05 level, which would 

seem to suggest that in both measurements the individual 

idiosyncrasies of specific examiners had small effects. 

This interpretation is offset, however, by the fact that 

the magnitude of the differences between replicate 

readings in both the intra- and inter-examiner comparisons was rather large. This is perhaps a function 

of the specific measurements, since both require only 

light surface contact (the slightest pressure might distort replicate readings). Also, in measuring elbowelbow breadth rather rigid positioning is required, and 

inadvertent alterations in positioning by the subject 

from one measurement session to the next might affect 

the replicate readings. 

The six circumference measurements taken in 

Cycle III can be divided into those made on the torso 
and those made on the extremities. The three torso 

girths-chest, waist, and hip girths-are essentially 

human engineering-type measurements, and the replicate analysis is similar to that noted for the two human 

engineering breadth measurements above. Chest, waist, 

and hip girths appeared only moderately replicable. 

Testing at the .05 level, the F ratios indicated no significant differences for hip girth, just barely significant differences for waist girth (F =1.42), and significant differences for chest girth (F- 2.75) between intra- and 

inter-examiner replicates. These observations suggest 

that in such girth measurements individual idiosyncrasies of specific examiners had small effects. This 

interpretation is offset, however, by the magnitude of 

the differences between replicate examinations in both 

the intra- and inter-examiner comparisons, which were 

among the largest for the entire series of 31 measurements. Clearly, the same observer as well as different 

observers had difficulty replicating these three circumference measurements. 

The three extremity circumferences hadconsiderably smaller average differences between replicate 

readings, both within and between examiners, than did 

the three torso circumferences. This is perhaps a function of the magnitude of the circumferences measured. 

AII but calf circumference appeared to be highly replicable measurements. Mean, median, and modal differences as weII as the technical errors of measurement were slightly smaller for the intra-examiner than 

for the inter-examiner analysis. Observations for calf 

circumference were in the opposite direction; theaverage difference and the technical error of measurement 

were larger for the intra-examiner than for the interexaminer analysis. However, the median and modal differences were identical on an intra- and inter-examiner 

basis. The effects of two or threediscrepant replicate 

readings were responsible for inflating the intra-examiner mean difference value and the technical error of 

measurement. This is contrary to general measurement experience, for calf circumference is generally 

a highly replicable measurement. The present observations are probably a chance occurrence. 

Although standing height was grouped with body 

weight on the basis of the automated measuring procedures used, the replicate observations for height will 

be considered here with other height measurements. Of 

all the height measurements, including standing height, 

sitting height, and segmental height measurements, it 

appeared that, both within and between examiners, 

standing height was best replicated. While sphyrion 

height and thigh clearance (really height above the sitting surface) had smaller technical errors of measurement, this can be attributed to the smaller margin of 

error in taking the measurement. Problems encountered 

in radial and stylion heights have been discussed earlier. 

In these twomeasurements, the technical error of measurement was larger for the intra-examiner replicates 

than for the inter-examiner replicates. This was entirely a function of one or two discrepant replicate 

readings, which distorted the technical error of measurement. Median differences between intra- and interexaminer replicates were negligible for radial and 

stylion heights. 

Examination of the F ratios for the various height 

measurements indicated that for all measurements except acromial height, radial height, and trochanteric 

height, there were significantly larger differences when 

two different observers made the measurements than 

when a single one did them. It should be noted in table 

II that the three height measurements for which the F 

ratio was not significant had among the largest mean 

differences both within and between examiners. For example, trochanteric height, which had the smallest F 

ratio (F - IOh), had the largest mean differences on 

both intra-examiner replicates (1.413 cm.) and interexaminer replicates (1.600 cm.). These observations 

perhaps depend on the measurements involved and factors affecting the taking of thesemeasurements. In addition to the location of landmarks, acromial and radial 

height are greatly affected by slight changes in the posture and attitude of the subjects, while in the case of 

trochanteric height, location of the trochanteric landmark can be difficult in individuals with a lot of soft 

tissue over this area. 

Discussion and Summary of Replicate Analysis 

The preceding discussion of results of the replicate analysis of Cycle III body measurements was not 

aimed at determining which measurements were easiest 

or most difficult to perform but at evaluating the use of 

single and multiple examiners in a large-scale survey. 

Reports of large-scale surveys generally donot include 

discussions of replicate analyses of multiple examiner effects. One general impression derived from the 

analysis of the present data is that there is an obvious 

need to publish replicate studies inanthropometric surveys. This would insure better comparability of surveys and would aid in establishing tolerance limits for 

various body dimensions. 

It should be emphasized that many of themeasurements comprising the Cycle III (12-17 years) replicate 

analysis were taken in Cycle II (6-11 years). For example, six of the dimepsions utilized in this report of 

Cycle II data and 11 of the 21 dimensions described in 

the previous report (Series II, No. 123) are included 

among the measurements discussed in the replicate 

analysis. Hence, of the 31 measurements used in the 

replicate analysis, 17 were also taken in Cycle II. The 

primary difference is in the replacement of traditional 

human engineering dimensions in Cycle II (buttockknee length, buttock-popliteal length, popliteal height, 

knee height) and specific segmental lengths (acromionolecranon length, elbow-wrist length, hand length) by 

eight segmental heights in Cycle III. Specific segmental 

lengths are estimated in the Cycle III data by subtrac65 
tion. For example, acromial, height minus olecranon 

height provides an estimate of upper arm length similar to that provided by direct measurement of acromion-olecranon length. 

In addition, conditions under which the various anthropometric dimensions were measured were essentially identical in Cycles II and III, although several of 

the measurements were different. Instrumentation, instruction, and measurement technique were likewise 

basically the same in both cycles. Hence, the observations derived from the Cycle IIIreplicate analysis are 

generally applicable to the Cycle II data. 

Measurement of various body dimensions presents 

a unique situation. There are a large number of variables (sources of error) that must be controlled in the 

measurement environment in general and at the moment 

of measurement in particular. General sources of error 

can be grouped into three categories: the subject, the 

instrument, and the observer. Subject position, though 

carefully standardized, is difficult to controlprecisely. 

Postural attitude, phase of the breathing cycle, degree 

of tension and/or relaxation,and soonarefactors which 

make it almost impossible to fully control the examinee 

so as to permit identical conditions during each of two 

measurement sessions that comprise replicate studies. 

In, for example, measurement of segmental heights, an 

inadvertent shifting of body weight from one leg to another can alter the height of a specific landmark from the 

standing surface, or tensing of the shoulders might make 

accurate location of acromiale difficult to replicate. 

Instruments are carefully calibrated and checked 

out during the course of the survey. Hence, instrument 

variability is reasonably controlled. It isdifficult, however, to control completely the observers’ use and application of instruments to specific body landmarks in addition to the problem of consistently locating these Iandmarks. Differences betweenobservers areinevitable, as 

the present replicate analysis indicates. Training, 

both prior to and in the field, helps reduce differences 

between observers, but it will not eliminate them completely. In light of this reality, there is an obvious need. 

to establish tolerance limits within which two or more 

observers are permitted to vary in making aparticular 

measurement. Similarly, the same observer varies to 

some extent within his own replicate measurements, 

although intra-observer variation, as expected, is consistently less thanvariation betweenobservers. Perhaps 

the results of the Cycle III replicate analysis can be 

used to establish tolerance limits within which a single 

observer is permitted to vary in an intra-examiner 

replication and within which two or moreobservers are 

permitted to vary in an inter-examiner replication. 

Since variation between observers is inevitable, 

what can be concluded from this analysis? In general, 

measurements made with the sliding and spreading 

calipers are highly replicable. These instruments are 

used in making bone-to-bone measurements requiring 

firm pressure and traversing relatively small distances. 

Further, the landmarks for these measurements are 

rather easily located. Measurements made with the 

upper segment(s) of the anthropometer appear to vary 

with the specific measurement, The two foot measurements, breadth and length, are highly replicable. The 

three bony breadth measurements across the torsobiacromial, bicristal, and bitrochanteric breadths-are 

reasonably replicable. The apparent problem with these 

measurements relates to the consistent location of the 

landmarks, especially the iliac crests, and the application of firm pressure to compress underlying soft 

tissues, especially in the case of bitrochanteric breadth. 

It would be interesting to see a replicate analysis of the 

two hip breadth measurements by sex, since adolescent 

girls tend to accumulate adipose tissue over these sites. 

The two human engineering breadth measurements, 

elbow-elbow breadth and seat breadth, fhich are made 

with the upper segment of the anthropometer, are somewhat difficult to replicate, perhaps because light surface contact is required in making these measurements. 

Girth measurements on the torso are also difficult to 

replicate. Like the two human engineering breadth 

measurements, these dimensions require light surface 

contact with no soft tissue compression. Girth measurements on the extremities are, in general, well 

replicated. The di?crepancy noted for calf circumference in the present analysis is somewhat of a surprise 

and is probably a chance occurrence. Calf circumference is generally a well-replicated girth measurement, and the result of the present analysis can be 

overlooked to some extent. 

Height measurements, standing or sitting, are 

reasonably well replicated; there is, however, considerable variation in the replicability of the series 

of measurements evaluated. This variation is probably related to both subject and observer variation. 

Although the subject’s position is standardized, inadvertent change in his postural attitude can alter the 

height of the segment landmark from the standing surface. It is almost impossible to control for this. Interobserver variation is present for all measurements. 

Interestingly, it was least for standing height. 

As indicated earlier, differences between examiners are inevitable in a large-scale anthropometric 

survey. This is true regardless of efforts at control 

and/or elimination. Tlie extent of variation between observers should, however, be noted and reported. Error 

introduced by multiple observers, i.e., differences between examiners, have two apparent effects: first, they 

increase variable error, but second, they reduce the 

probability of a systematic error being introduced into 

the measuring process by idiosyncrasies of individual 

observers. An increase in the variable error must be 

tolerated to achieve a reduction of probable systematic 

error. Although variation is apparent in the present 

analysis of replicate measurements, the general impression is one of reasonable consistency in the measurement process utilizing multiple examiners. Comparative data from other large-scale anthropometric 

surveys of children are apparently not available. 

66 
VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS PUBLICATION SERIES 

Originally fiblic Health Service Publication No. 1000 

Series 1. Progmms and collection procedures.- Reports which describe the general programs of the National 

Center for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions, data collection methods used, definitions, 

and other material necessary for understanding the data. 

Series 2. Data ewluation and methods research. -Studies of new statistical methodology including: experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical 

techniques, objective evaluadons of reliability of collected data, contributions to stadsdcal theory. 

Series 3. Analvtical &u&es.-Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies basedon vital and health 

statistics, carrying the analysis further than the expository types of reports in the other series. 

Series 4. Documents and committee reports.- Final reports of major committees concerned with vital and 

health statistics, and documents such as recommended model vital registradon laws and revised 

birth and death certificates. 

Series 10. Qatcrfrom the Health Inte-rview Survev. -Stadsdcs on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use 

of hospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other health-related topics, based on data 

collected in a continuing national household interview survey.. 

Series 11. Data porn the Health Exzzmination Survey. -Data from direct examination, testing, and measurement of national samples of the civilian, noninsdtutionalpopuladon provide the basis for two types 

of reports: (1) estimates of the medically defined prevalence of specific diseases in the United 

States and the distributions of the population with respect to physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics; and (2) analysis of relationships among the various measurements without 

reference to an explicit finite universe.of persons. 

Series 12. Data from the Institutional Po@lation Surveys.- Statistics relating to the health characteristics of 

persons in institutions, and their medical, nursing, and personal care received, based on national 

samples of establishments providing these services and samples of the residents or patients. 

Series 13. Data from the Hospital Discharge Survey. -Statistics relating to discharged patients in short-stay 

hospitals, based on a sample of patient records in a national sample of hospitals. 

Series 14. Data on health resources: manpower and facilities. -Statistics on the numbers, geographic distribudon, and characteristics of health resources including physicians,dendsts, nurses, other health 

occupations, hospitals, nursing homes, and outpatient facilides. 

Series 20. Data on mortality .-Various statistics on mortality other than as included in regular annual or 

monthly reports-special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables, also 

geographic and time series analyses. 

Series 21. Data on nakality, marriage, and divorce. -Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce 

other than as included in regular annual or monthly reports--special analyses by demographic 

variables, also geographic and time series analyses, studies of fertility. 

Series 22. Data from the National Natnlity and Mortality Surveys.- Statisdcs on characteristics of births 

and deaths not available from the vital records, based on sample surveys stemming from these 

records, including such topics as mortality by socioeconomic class, hospital experience in the 

last year of life, medical care during pregnancy, health insurance coverage, etc. 

For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to: Office of Information 

National Center for Health Statistics 

Public Health Service, HRA 

Rockville, Md. 20852