NCJ Number
227694
Journal
Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume: 54 Issue: 4 Dated: July 2009 Pages: 746-752
Date Published
July 2009
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This study compared 8 versions of the anatomical method for estimating stature with a sample of 34 White males from the W.M. Bass Donated Skeletal Collection, so as to assess errors in the estimates and determine the usefulness of the methods in forensic contexts.
Abstract
Generally, most of the methods underestimated documented stature, even when the stature was adjusted to living height. The smallest errors with living-stature estimates were shown by Raxter et al.'s Equation 1, FullyMAX, and FullyPOST. The advantage of Raxter et al.'s technique is its having been created using both sexes and two populations (White and Black); whereas Fully's method is solely based on White males. If other than a White male sample was tested in the current study, Fully's population-specific soft tissue correction factor could possibly cause more error. Raxter et al.'s vertebral measurement is new, however, and somewhat more difficult to locate than midline heights. This might hinder its wider use compared to other vertebral measurements. However, differences among the majority of the anatomical methods were small, such that recommending only one method is not justified. Future research should include testing of the methods on larger, more diverse samples that include females and other populations. Five of the chosen measurement techniques were taken from literature: Fully's method with anterior vertebral heights, Formicola's version of Fully and Pineau's method, Raxter et al.'s two regression equations for the anatomical method, and Niskanen and Junno's method. In addition, three alternative vertebral heights were applied to Fully's method in order to study their applicability. 6 tables and 43 references