How “Standardized” is Standardized? A Validation of Postcranial Landmark Locations

Abstract

Since the mid-1990s, osteometrics have been a major aspect in forensic anthropology. However, recent evidence has shown that practitioners have been using differing points to establish certain measurements; namely those involving the clavicle, scapula, ulna, femur, and tibia. Engaging 61 practitioners, this study examined and confirmed how extensive this discord is. The highest consistency rate among practitioners was the scapular breadth (62.3%), followed by the femoral anteroposterior subtrochanteric diameter (55%). All other levels fell below these, particularly the physiological length of the ulna which was the most inconsistently measured bone. Furthermore, these low consistency rates yielded percent mean differences between two and 20% of the measurement length, with ranges averaging 14 mm. In light of these results, it is recommended that the field take steps to improve the standardization of such problematic measurements, including reexamining all measurements currently listed in osteometric texts, reassessing the utility of each, and reissuing a comprehensive guide.

Reanalysis of the Trotter Tibia Quandary and its Continued Effect on Stature Estimation of Past‐Conflict Service Members

“…This definition has been incorporated into contemporary standards and does not represent the maximum length, which includes the intercondylar eminences . Historically, the tibia length measurement has been problematic to take, which is reflected in the interobserver error studies . However, this situation may be changing as forensic anthropologists are working toward the standardization of measurement definitions.…”

Orthopedic asymmetry and clavicle length

“…The decision for surgical fixation of a clavicle fracture is often based on the amount of shortening, a parameter that is most often determined clinically or on radiographs and almost never on computerized tomography. While a recent study proved a high inconsistency between practitioners in terms of establishing measurements of not only the clavicle but also scapula, ulna, femur and tibia (Smith and Boaks, 2014), previous work conducted by our lead author showed a significant inherent difference in clavicular length between sides (Daruwalla et al, 2010a,b), thus questioning the assumption of symmetry with regard to clavicular length and finding it to be unreliable as well as hypothesizing a correlation between hand dominance and clavicular length. However, these studies were small and did not involve Asians, a patient population known to have varying bony size and shape geometry compared to their Western counterparts.…”

Analysis of Three Commonly Used Tibia Length Measurement Techniques

“…Methods relying on measurements are only as accurate as the technique used to capture the measurement. While narrowly focusing on the length of the tibia, this study adds to the growing trend of standardization of methods and techniques in forensic anthropology . The aim of this study is to show that at least two techniques are commonly used to measure tibial length when an osteometric board without a slot/hole is used.…”

“…The most well‐known discrepancy with technique is how Trotter measured the length of the tibia , most probably, without the malleolus as discovered by Jantz et al . Further, the length of the tibia has higher interobserver error compared to other long bone lengths .…”