Abstract
The validity of self-appraisal of body frame size was investigated in 72 college-aged subjects (39 males and 33 females). Validity was assessed by comparing self-appraised frame size versus the quantitative "HAT" formulation, which includes stature and two trunk diameters. Frame size was also assessed separately, for each subject by an expert rater. Results showed that the expert rater was in error 28% in comparison to the criterion frame size estimation, while 41% of the subjects were in error in assessing their own frame size, in comparison to the HAT criterion. The expert rater and self-appraisal differed by 33%. When analyzed by sex, it was revealed that the females were more inaccurate in assessing their frame size, in comparison to the criterion, than were the males. The consequences of inaccurate frame size assessment, in terms of ideal weight from the Metropolitan tables was discussed. Also, data were presented on a different sample of 103 females classified into percentage fat categories of less than 20%, 20 to 30%, and more than 30% which illustrated no statistical differences in skeletal dimensions, including frame size.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
