Lynch Jeffrey James, Maijanen Heli, Prescher Andreas
Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, 106 Peacekeeper Drive, Bldg 301, Offutt Air Force Base, Omaha, NE, 68113-4006.
Archaeology, University of Oulu, PO Box 1000, Oulu, 90014, Finland.
J Forensic Sci. 2019 Jan;64(1):181-185. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13868. Epub 2018 Jul 12.
This study analyzes three tibia length measurement techniques on a sample of 107 tibiae. Two of the techniques meet published criteria by resting the tibia on its posterior surface with the longitudinal axis parallel to an osteometric board. The third technique does not adequately keep the longitudinal axis parallel to the board. Statistical analyses show low levels of interobserver error for all techniques and statistically significant differences between the third technique and the other two techniques. Results report a maximum difference of 6 mm between measurement techniques with the third technique having greater than 95% directional bias. A survey sent out to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences forensic anthropology community reported more than 50% of respondents having been taught the third technique when an osteometric board with a slot/hole is not available. The intermixing of the third technique with the other two has likely contributed to higher levels of interobserver error in tibia length measurements.
本研究对107根胫骨样本的三种胫骨长度测量技术进行了分析。其中两种技术通过将胫骨后表面置于纵向轴与骨测量板平行的位置,符合已发表的标准。第三种技术未能充分保持纵向轴与测量板平行。统计分析表明,所有技术的观察者间误差水平较低,且第三种技术与其他两种技术之间存在统计学上的显著差异。结果报告称,测量技术之间的最大差异为6毫米,第三种技术的方向偏差大于95%。向美国法医科学学会法医人类学社区进行的一项调查显示,当没有带槽/孔的骨测量板时,超过50%的受访者曾学习过第三种技术。第三种技术与其他两种技术的混用可能导致了胫骨长度测量中更高水平的观察者间误差。