z-logo
Premium
Measurement standards for human metacarpals
Author(s) -
Case D. Troy,
Rawlins Callie M.,
Mick Charlotte B.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
american journal of physical anthropology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.146
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1096-8644
pISSN - 0002-9483
DOI - 10.1002/ajpa.22700
Subject(s) - calipers , mathematics , anatomy , medicine , geometry
Standards for measuring the metacarpals are absent from commonly used osteometric guides. Perhaps the closest to a set of standard measurements in common use today are those proposed by Scheuer and Elkington (Scheuer and Elkington: J Forensic Sci 38 (1993) 769–788) for forensic sex assessment. They include caliper measurements of interarticular length, base and head width, base and head height, and maximum midshaft diameter. Over the last decade, a new set of measurements that encompass similar dimensions to those used by Scheuer and Elkington, but which are taken with a mini‐osteometric board (MOB) have been developed by the lead author. Use of the MOB avoids the need to manipulate both the bone and calipers in three‐dimensional space and causes less strain on the hands. However, the question of intra‐ and interobserver accuracy has not been adequately addressed for either set of measurements. The purpose of this study was to test both the Scheuer/Elkington and MOB measurements on 20 hands from 10 anatomical skeletons for intra‐ and inter‐observer accuracy. The study found that 92% of the MOB measures had a lower intraobserver error, and 88% had a lower interobserver error than did the caliper measurements. It also found that the maximum midshaft diameter measurement used by Scheuer and Elkington is more repeatable than a mediolateral diameter. Overall, 88% of the 25 MOB measurements had median intraobserver error rates of under 1.5%, compared with 60% of the caliper measurements. Furthermore, the MOB measurements as a set were taken 10 to 12% faster than the caliper measurements. Am J Phys Anthropol 157:322–329, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here