You are being redirected because this document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.
    This document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.

    Volume 40, Issue 5 (September 1995)

    Should We Estimate Biological or Forensic Stature?


      Format Pages Price  
    PDF (380K) 6 $25   ADD TO CART

    Cite this document

    X Add email address send
      .RIS For RefWorks, EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zoteo, and many others.   .DOCX For Microsoft Word

    ASTM License Agreement


    Trotter and Gleser's stature regression equations were derived from partly incorrect measurements of long bones and antemortem measured statures (MSTATs). Forensic anthropologists have applied these equations to correctly measured bones and compared resulting estimates to a forensic stature (FSTAT), usually obtained from a driver's license. Forensic anthropologists have also used Trotter and Gleser's standard error as a stature prediction range, despite published warnings that it is not wide enough for this purpose. The combination of these factors has resulted in inaccurate and unrealistically precise estimates of stature from the long bones. Several factors decrease the accuracy of measured statures, and a reanalysis of Trotter's data reveals that estimating a biological stature is more imprecise than previously supposed. For FSTATs, these estimates are inaccurate as well. Using data from the Forensic Data Bank, new regression equations for predicting FSTAT were calculated, and in some cases are more precise than regressions based on Trotter's data using MSTATs. Confidence intervals for a single prediction, or prediction intervals, were calculated and are superior to standard errors for providing a range for stature estimations.

    Author Information:

    Ousley, Stephen
    Graduate Research Assistant, University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Knoxville, TN

    Stock #: JFS15381J


    DOI: 10.1520/JFS15381J

    Title Should We Estimate Biological or Forensic Stature?
    Symposium ,
    Committee E30