Forensic Science International 3501 (2003) 16
Estimation of stature from body parts
zaslana,*, M. Yasar Iscanb, Inci O
zaslanc, Harun Tugcud, Sermet Koca
Abdi O
a
IU Cerrahpasa Tp Fakultesi, Adli Tp Anabilim Dal, Istanbul 34303, Turkey
b
IU Adli Tp Enstitusu, Istanbul, Turkey
c
Adli Tp Kurumu, Istanbul, Turkey
d
GATA, Adli Tp Anabilim Dal, Ankara, Turkey
Received 11 January 2002; accepted 15 November 2002
Abstract
Anthropometric technique commonly used by anthropologists and adopted by medical scientists has been employed to
estimate body size for over a hundred years. With the increasing frequency of mass disasters, the identification of an isolated
lower extremity and the stature of the person it belonged to has created problems for the investigation of the identity of some of
the victims. In spite of a need for such a study, there is a lack of systematic studies to identify fragmented and dismembered
human remains. The purpose of the paper is to analyze anthropometric relationships between dimensions of the lower extremity
and body height. Analysis is based on a sample of middle class male (N 203) and female (N 108) adult Turks residing in
Istanbul. The participants are mostly students and staff members of a medical school, and military personnel. Measurements
taken are stature, trochanteric height, thigh length, lower leg length, leg length, and foot height, breadth, and length. Of the five
variables entered into the regression analysis, all but foot breadth participate in the analysis with leg length as the first and
followed by thigh and foot lengths, and finally foot height in males (R2). There were also individually calculated formulae for
some of these measurements which provided smaller R2-values. Students t-test to assess if there was any intraobserver error in
measurements take by individual anthropometrist did not show such any statistically significant difference. In conclusion, the
study suggested that estimation of a living height can be made possible using various dimensions of the lower extremity. One
must consider differences between populations in order to apply functions as such to others.
# 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd.
Keywords: Stature estimation; Dismember lower extremity; Anthropometry; Regression analysis; Mass disaster; Turks
1. Introduction
Anthropometric technique commonly used by anthropologists and adopted by medical scientists has been employed
to estimate body size for over a hundred years [16]. In the
last half of the 20th century, studies have been more vigorous
when skeletal collections have been assembled in many parts
of the world [7,8]. There has been an increase in the
frequency of various mass disasters (air and train crash,
bombing, mass suicide, flooding, powerful storm). To the list
one should add the more recent tragedies such as the
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: 90-212-588-4800;
fax: 90-212-588-0011.
zaslan).
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. O
Marmara earthquake, Turkey and the attack on the World
Trade Center and Pentagon in the US where thousands of
people were killed. There have been already some attempts
using hand [915], lower leg length and arm span [16] and
foot dimensions [1720] to regress on body height. The
identification of an isolated lower extremity and the stature
of the person it belonged to has created problems for the
investigation of identity of some of the victims found in the
rubbles of the bombed Oklahoma Federal building. In spite
of a need as such, there is a lack of systematic studies to
identify fragmented and dismembered human remains.
The purpose of the paper is to analyze anthropometric
relationships between various dimensions of the lower extremity and body height. Analysis is based on a sample of middle
class male and female adult Turks using various statistical
subroutines particularly that of regression analysis.
0379-0738/02/$ see front matter # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd.
PII: S 0 3 7 9 - 0 7 3 8 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 4 2 5 - 5
zaslan et al. / Forensic Science International 3501 (2003) 16
A. O
2. Materials and methods
The study is composed of 311 (203 males and 108
females) adult Turks. The participants are mostly from
the Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty staff, students, staff from
the Council of Forensic Medicine and military personnel
who lived mostly in Istanbul. These individuals are considered middle class with at least 5 years of elementary
education. Measurements are all taken from the left side
according to the procedure described by the International
Biological Program [2123]. The subjects are asked to
remove their clothing except underwear and shoes. They
are oriented in the standard anatomic position with the head
on the Frankfort Horizontal Plane. Males were measured by
and HT and females by IO
. Anthropometrists are all
AO
initially trained in the technique by MYI. For the convenience of the readers the dimensions are taken with an
anthropometer in millimeters and 100 g units using standard
anthropometric instruments such as sliding and spreading
calipers, anthropometer, steel tape, and scale. Extremity
measurements are all taken from the left side (Fig. 1) [22].
Stature is taken from the vertex to the floor obeying the
anatomic position and Frankfort Plane.
Trochanteric height is measured from the lateral bulging
of the greater trochanteric protrusion to the floor. This
measurement is preferred over the anterior iliac spine
because of commonly S.E.E.n break and dismemberment
in the hip joint.
Thigh length is calculated from as distance between the
trochanteric height and lower leg length.
Lower leg length is the distance from the tibiale to the floor.
Leg length is from the tibiale to the medial malleolus of
the tibia.
Foot height is calculated as the distance between lower
leg length and leg length.
Foot breadth is the distance between the lateral and
medial sides at the metatarsal region using a sliding caliper.
Foot length is the maximum distance between the most
anterior and posterior projecting part of the foot with a
sliding caliper.
The data are analyzed using various subroutines of
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and
Fig. 1. Anthropometric dimensions used in the study: stature (ae); trochanteric height (be); thigh length (b and c); lower leg length (ce);
leg length (c and d); foot height (d and e); foot breadth (f and g); foot length (h and i).
zaslan et al. / Forensic Science International 3501 (2003) 16
A. O
regression formulae are developed for various combinations
to reach the best estimate possible. In case of stepwise
regression analysis, entrance and removal of a variable
are based on the statistical significance level of P < 0:05
and P < 0:10, respectively. Such a statistical approach has
been commonly used in research of this nature [17,2426].
Studies on bones have compensated for the loss of soft tissue
when measured from cadavera. No adjustment as such has
been needed for the present investigation.
A test of intraobserver error was also made using randomly selected 10% of the samples for each sex. This test is
useful because it assists if individual accuracy for a given
dimension is consistent and is performed commonly among
investigators [27].
3. Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics per sex. Females
are about 5 years older than males and smaller in all
dimensions. Overall males are more varied with higher
standard deviations than females.
Results of the primary stepwise regression analysis are
given in Table 2. Measurements for the analysis consist of
leg and foot dimensions and stature. Of the five variables
entered into the analysis, all but foot breadth participate in
the analysis with tibial length as the first and followed by
thigh and foot lengths, and finally foot height in males. In
females, the tibial length is selected first and followed by
foot length and the rest was the same as those of males. R
indicates the regression coefficient value. R2 explains the
percentage that a dimension contributes to the variation in
the dependent variable (that is, stature). In other words,
nearly 55 and 63% of variation in stature are inherent by the
tibial length for males and females, respectively. The addition of the others raise this figure to about 76% or so in both
sexes. In order to consider dismembered body parts, Table 3
is developed to include those dimensions that correlate
significantly with stature and can be used alone or in
combination with others. Equations developed with the
Table 2
Stepwise regression showing the sequence of entrance of variables
into the analysis, and standard error of estimate (S.E.E.), R, and R2
Variables
Males
Leg length
Thigh length
Foot length
Foot height
Females
S.E.E.
R2
S.E.E.
0.74
0.82
0.86
0.86
0.55
0.68
0.74
0.75
44.62
37.79
34.26
33.80
0.79
0.86
0.83
0.87
0.63
0.73
0.69
0.76
39.34
33.75
36.33
32.42
direct method are trochanteric height, thigh length, lower
leg length, tibial length and the combination of foot length
and height. The highest R2 is associated with trochanteric
height (58%) and lower leg length (56%) in males and lower
leg length (65%) and leg length (63%) in females.
Generated regression formulae from a stepwise and five
direct analyses to estimate stature for both sexes from body
parts are given in Table 4. Using the regression formulae of y
(stature) a (constant) b1(regression coefficient for the
first variable ) x1 (first variable) b2(regression coefficient
for the second variable) x2 (second variable) bn (regression coefficient for the nth variable) xn (nth variable), one
can calculate the height from the dismembered body part.
The standard error of estimate refers the error that may arise
from estimating stature. The use of an equation can be
exemplified by considering a lower extremity of a male
with a trochanteric height 989 mm. When this dimension is
applied to the relevant formula as:
stature mm 989 trochanteric height
1:10 737:03 constant
1824:93 mm 58:88 S:E:E:
To test the possibility of intraobserver errors, a sample of
19 males and 12 females (10% of the total sample) using the
SPSS random selection function is obtained. From the
remaining cases, regression functions using trochanteric
height and lower leg length are separately calculated. Stature
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of age (years) and various lower extremity dimensions (mm) in males (N 203) and females (N 108)
Males
Variables
Age
Stature
Trochanteric height
Thigh length
Lower leg length
Leg length
Foot length
Foot breadth
Foot height
Females
Mean
S.D.
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
S.D.
Minimum
Maximum
30.7
1719.7
892.2
438.5
453.8
383.7
249.0
93.1
70.0
10.35
66.32
45.91
35.49
25.40
23.98
12.27
7.14
5.98
20
1546
774
332
384
323
218
63
58
59
1975
1004
518
560
492
288
111
92
35.3
1617.5
839.7
422.9
416.8
351.3
225.9
85.6
65.5
9.13
64.46
38.74
31.27
22.74
22.15
8.53
5.63
6.20
19
1462
738
320
344
267
206
70
57
71
1848
915
489
487
414
265
98
86
zaslan et al. / Forensic Science International 3501 (2003) 16
A. O
Table 3
Direct regression analysis including R, R2, and standard error of estimate
Regression analysis
Males
Trochanteric height
Thigh length
Lower leg length
Leg length
Foot height and length
Females
S.E.E.
R2
S.E.E.
0.76
0.50
0.75
0.74
0.70
0.58
0.20
0.56
0.55
0.49
43.01
59.41
43.87
44.62
47.65
0.66
0.23
0.80
0.79
0.55
0.43
0.05
0.65
0.63
0.30
48.86
63.05
38.57
39.34
54.28
Table 4
Regression coefficients and standard error of estimate (mm) used to calculate stature (mm)
Variables
Regression Equations
Stepwise
breadth
Males
Lower leg length
Trochanteric height
Leg length
Thigh length
Foot length
Foot height
Constant
S.E.E.
Females
Lower leg length
Trochanteric height
Leg length
Thigh length
Foot length
Foot height
Constant
S.E.E.
Trochanter
breadth
Thigh
breadth
Lower leg
breadth
Tibia
breadth
Foot
breadth
1.961
1.10
1.441
588
1.529
1.046
454.925
2.050
737.03
1352.124
829.750
933.030
3.700
3.700
757.567
56.09
58.88
51.81
55.22
50.34
72.03
0.84
2.277
1.092
1.969
492
2.035
1.605
152.789
700.293
103.08
102.49
1417.952
2.312
0.472
82.66
668.625
805.442
4.10
0.62
649.69
68.44
60.43
145.64
Table 5
Differences between the real and estimated stature (mm) using the regression formula based on a test and randomly selected samples and t-test
of paired difference
Males
Staturestature from trochanteric height
Staturestature from lower leg length
Females
Differences
between means
S.D.
Differences
between means
S.D.
6.6
6.3
39.48
45.33
734
607
7.0
5.7
46.65
23.74
516
829
Degrees of freedom, 18 and 11 for males and females, respectively. Statistically not significant at P < 0:05 level.
of the individuals in the random sample for both sexes is
calculated (Table 5). The t-test of difference between the
paired main and random samples for each dimension did not
show any statistically significant difference.
4. Discussion
Estimation of stature is a major forensic anthropological
concern used in the identification of unknown and com-
zaslan et al. / Forensic Science International 3501 (2003) 16
A. O
mingled human remains [6,28,29]. The procedure to estimate body height is to use its components. The accuracy is
usually more reliable when the parts are situated along its
length such as the lengths of the femur and tibia more so than
the humerus and radius in the skeleton [8]. The present study
takes this into the consideration and used similar measurements from the living people.
There is an obvious need for a study as such. It could have
been applied, for example, the identification of a victim who
died in the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing. As
one of the authors (MYI) studied one of the legs of a victim
to be identified, stature could have been estimated relatively
simple instead of stripping the soft tissue to expose the bone.
Anthropometry has enjoyed popularity over the years as a
reliably technique to measure human body and its components [29]. Almost all human growth studies use it. The
technique requires considerable experience so the measurements obtained are comparable with those taken by others. In
osteological remains errors are relatively less especially in
length dimensions because a long bone is relatively simpler
to measure. Yet, there are numerous difficulties in the
anthropometry of the living arising from the determining
the correct landmark on the body. In the present study, male
subjects were measured by male and female subjects by
female investigators. In order to assess the impact of error
arising from intraobserver variation over the same dimension (trochanteric height and lower leg length) a segment
(10%) of the sample was randomly removed so that it can be
used for intraobserver error. When two regression formulae
were developed from these dimensions and test on the
randomly selected sample the difference between the actual
stature and the estimated stature were not found to be
statistically significant.
The population this study is carried differs from other
European and North American populations upon which most
of the studies are done. This difference may be particularly
significant in the proportions of one body segment to
another. Turks are shorter than Europeans and body proportions may also differ from others. One must consider differences between populations in order to apply functions as
such to others.
In conclusion, estimation of body height from its segments or dismember parts has important considerations for
identifications of human remains recovered from mass disaster. The variables used in this analysis are from the lower
extremity. It is shown that a single dimension can estimate
the stature of an unknown person with a great accuracy and
small standard error less than 7 cm. Dimensions from the
lower extremity have greater association with the body
height than those of the upper extremity.
Acknowledgements
Authors are grateful to participants of this study. Without
their cooperation this study could not have been carried out.
Authors thanks Dr. Sadi Cag dir for drawing Fig. 1 and Can
Medical Inc. for their effort to supply the anthropometric
equipment used in the study. This investigation is supported
by the Istanbul University Research Fund (Project No.
1135/05052000).
References
[1] J. Beddoe, On the stature of the older races of England, as
estimated from the long bones, J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 17
(18871888) 202207.
[2] F. Rollet, De la mensuration de os longs du members. These
pour le doctorat en medicine, Ph.D. Dissertation, vol. 43,
Paris, 1888, pp. 1128.
[3] L. Manouvrier, De termination de la taille dapre`s les
grands os des members, Rev. lEcole dAnthropol. 2 (1892)
227233.
[4] K. Pearson, Mathematical contributions to the theory of
evolution. V. On the reconstruction of the stature of
prehistoric races, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 192 (1899)
169244.
[5] E. Breitinger, Zur Berechnung der Korperho he aus den
langen Gliedmassenknochen, Anthropol. Anz. 14 (1937)
249274.
[6] W.M. Krogman, M.Y. Iscan, The Human Skeleton in Forensic
Medicine, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL, 1986.
[7] C.W. Dupertuis, J. Hadden, On the reconstruction of stature
from long bones, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 9 (1951) 1554.
[8] G. Fully, Une nouvelle methode de determination de la taille,
Ann. Me d Le gale 36 (1956) 266273.
[9] D. Bhatnagar, S. Thapar, M. Batish, Identification of personal
height from the somatometry of the hand in Punjabi males,
Forensic Sci. Int. 24 (1984) 137141.
[10] S. Saxena, A study of correlations and estimation of stature
from hand length, Anthropol. Anz. 42 (1984) 271276.
[11] N. Attallah, W. Marshall, The estimation of stature from
anthropometric and photogrammetric measurements of the
limbs, Med. Sci. Law 26 (1986) 5359.
[12] A.K. Abdel-Malek, A.M. Ahmed, S.A. el-Sharkawi, N.A. elHamid, Prediction of stature from hand measurements,
Forensic Sci. Int. 46 (1990) 181187.
[13] K. Shintaku, Y. Furuya, Estimation of stature based on the
proximal phalangeal length of Japanese womens hands,
Sangyo Ika Daigaku Zasshi 12 (1990) 215219.
[14] K. Kimura, Estimation of age at death from second
metacarpals, Z. Morphol. Anthropol. 79 (1992) 169181.
zaslan, El ve 2. metakarp o lcu mlerinden vu cut boy
[15] A. O
uzunlug unun hesaplanmas. Uzmanlk Tezi (specialty thesis),
niversitesi Cerrahpasa Tp Faku ltesi, Adli Tp
Istanbul U
Bilim Dal, Istanbul, 1996.
[16] T. Han, M. Lean, Lower leg length as an index of stature in
adults, Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 20 (1996) 2127.
[17] E. Giles, P.H. Vallandigham, Height estimation from foot and
shoeprint length, J. Forensic Sci. 36 (1991) 11341151.
[18] C.C. Gordon, J.E. Buikstra, Linear models for the prediction
of stature from foot and boot dimensions, J. Forensic Sci. 37
(1992) 771782.
[19] T. Singh, M. Phookan, Stature and footsize in four Thai
communities of Assam, India, Anthropol. Anz. 51 (1993)
349355.
zaslan et al. / Forensic Science International 3501 (2003) 16
A. O
[20] K. Ashizawa, C. Kumakura, A. Kusumoto, S. Narasaki,
Relative foot size and shape to general body size in Javanese,
Ann. Hum. Biol. 24 (1997) 117129.
[21] G. Olivier, Practical Anthropology, C.C. Thomas, Springfield,
IL, 1969.
[22] J.S. Weiner, J.A. Lourie, Human Biology: A Guide to Field
Methods, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1969.
[23] S.J. Ulijaszek, C.G.N. Mascie-Taylor (Eds.), Anthropometry:
The Individual and the Population, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1994.
[24] M. Trotter, Estimation of stature from intact limb bones, in:
T.D. Stewart (Ed.), Personal Identification in Mass Disasters,
National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC, 1970,
pp. 7184.
[25] T.D. Holland, Estimation of adult stature from fragmentary
tibias, J. Forensic Sci. 37 (1992) 12231229.
[26] T. Sjvold, Stature estimation from the skeleton, in: J. Siegel,
P. Saukko, G. Knupfer (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Forensic
Sciences, Academic Press, London, 2000, pp. 276284.
[27] C.C. Gordon, B. Bradtmiller, Interobserver error in a large
scale anthropometric survey, Am. J. Hum. Biol. 4 (1992)
253263.
[28] M.Y. Iscan, Rise of forensic anthropology, Yrbk. Phys.
Anthropol. 31 (1988) 203230.
[29] M.Y. Iscan, Anthropometry, in: J. Siegel, P. Saukko, G.
Knupfer (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, Academic Press, London, 2000, pp. 284290.
