IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/clnure/v11y2002i4p417-432.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Self-Reported Height or Arm Span a More Accurate Alternative Measure of Height?

Author

Listed:
  • Jean K. Brown
  • Jui-Ying Feng

    (University at Buffalo, The State University of New York)

  • Thomas R. Knapp

    (The Ohio State University)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether self-reported height or arm span is the more accurate alternative measure of height. A sample of 409 people between the ages of 19 and 67 (M = 35.0) participated in this anthropometric study. Height, self-reported height, and arm span were measured by 82 nursing research students. Mean differences from criterion measures were 0.17 cm for the measuring rules, 0.47 cm for arm span, and 0.85 cm and 0.87 cm for heights. Test-retest reliability was r = .997 for both height and arm span. The relationships of height to self-reported height and arm span were r = .97 and .90, respectively. Mean absolute differences were 1.80 cm and 4.29 cm, respectively. These findings support the practice of using self-reported height as an alternative measure of measured height in clinical settings, but arm span is an accurate alternative when neither measured height nor self-reported height is obtainable.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean K. Brown & Jui-Ying Feng & Thomas R. Knapp, 2002. "Is Self-Reported Height or Arm Span a More Accurate Alternative Measure of Height?," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 11(4), pages 417-432, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:11:y:2002:i:4:p:417-432
    DOI: 10.1177/105477302237454
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/105477302237454
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/105477302237454?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:11:y:2002:i:4:p:417-432. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.