AJCN Cancer Health Disparities Conference
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Katch, V. L.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Katch, V. L.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, L.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Katch, V. L.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, L.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 36, 676-679, Copyright © 1982 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc

ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Body frame size: validity of self-appraisal

VL Katch, PS Freedson, FI Katch and L Smith

The validity of self-appraisal of body frame size was investigated in 72 college-aged subjects (39 males and 33 females). Validity was assessed by comparing self-appraised frame size versus the quantitative "HAT" formulation, which includes stature and two trunk diameters. Frame size was also assessed separately, for each subject by an expert rater. Results showed that the expert rater was in error 28% in comparison to the criterion frame size estimation, while 41% of the subjects were in error in assessing their own frame size, in comparison to the HAT criterion. The expert rater and self-appraisal differed by 33%. When analyzed by sex, it was revealed that the females were more inaccurate in assessing their frame size, in comparison to the criterion, than were the males. The consequences of inaccurate frame size assessment, in terms of ideal weight from the Metropolitan tables was discussed. Also, data were presented on a different sample of 103 females classified into percentage fat categories of less than 20%, 20 to 30%, and more than 30% which illustrated no statistical differences in skeletal dimensions, including frame size.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1982 by The American Society for Nutrition