Evaluation of Stature Estimation from the Database for Forensic Anthropology*^†

Abstract

Trotter and Gleser's (1-3) stature equations, conventionally used to estimate stature, are not appropriate to use in the modern forensic context. In this study, stature is assessed with a modern (birth years after 1944) American sample (N = 242) derived from the National Institute of Justice Database for Forensic Anthropology in the United States and the Forensic Anthropology Databank. New stature formulae have been calculated using forensic stature (FSTAT) and a combined dataset of forensic, cadaver, and measured statures referred to as Any Stature (ASTAT). The new FSTAT-based equations had an improved accuracy in Blacks with little improvement over Ousley's (4) equations for Whites. ASTAT-based equations performed equal to those of FSTAT equations and may be more appropriate, because they reflect both the variation in reported statures and in cadaver statures. It is essential to use not only equations based on forensic statures, but also equations based on modern samples.

Stature estimation from complete long bones in the Middle Pleistocene humans from the Sima de los Huesos, Sierra de Atapuerca (Spain)

“…In sum, although Sj0vold's formulae usually underestimate the stature compared with many other univariate formulae (e.g., Wilson et al, 2010 ), the mean statures calculated averaging results with many of them are not very different from the statures calculated using just the five Sj0vold formulae, and the differences are only around 1.0-1.5 cm. There is no clear bias in the direction of differences in the comparisons with multivariate formulae means, but again the magnitude of these differences are around 1.0-1.5 cm.…”

“…Differences are large (>3 cm) with the Wilson et al (2010) formulae for whites, but not for blacks «1 cm), and it is around 2.5 cm from the mean of both races. When we compare the Sj0vold estimates with the mean stature calculated with 60 univariate formulae in SO M, Table 51.8, we see that the Sj0vold formulae underestimate the males (Kebara and Neandertal 1) by about 1 cm, overestimate the females (La Ferrassie 2 and Tabun 1) by less than 1 cm, and that the difference between the means of four individuals is negligible (161.0 cm with Sj0vold and 161.4 cm with 60 univariate formulae).…”

“…In fact, only three Neandertals are represented by complete upper and lower limb bones (Neandertal 1, La Ferrassie 2 and Tabun 1), but to achieve a balance between the sexes we have added Kebara 2 to the analysis even though it is represented by upper limb bones only. Given the statistical debate, we have compared the estimates obtained from Sj0Vold's formulae with two other estimates, one calculated by averaging the results from different univariate equations, and a second calculated using the formulae devised by Wilson et al (2010) based on the large sample of long bone data from the DFAUS and the Forensic Anthropology Data Bank (FDB) housed at the University of Tennessee.…”

“…First, we compared the estimates obtained with Sj0vold's formulae and five long bones (excluding the fibula) with those calculated averaging 60 different univariate equations (SOM, Tables 51.7 and 51.8) and also those calculated using the formulae proposed by Wilson et al (2010). Also, as mentioned above, the stature estimates based on multiple bones and multivariate formulae offer the best estimates for an individual.…”

Stature estimation based on vertebral morphometry by dual energy X-rays absorptiometry imaging in Italian females

“…Anthropologists can estimate the stature of an individual from decomposed and fully or partially skeletonized remains by means of anatomical or mathematical methods, [1][2][3][4][5][6] based on the whole skeleton 1,3,7,8 or single bones. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Regression formulae for the living stature estimation have been developed by these methods.…”