Jamison P L, Ward R E
Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1993 Apr;90(4):495-500. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330900409.
In this paper we examine the results of an intraobserver measurement error study involving 49 craniofacial variables that ranged in size from less than 1 cm to approximately 20 cm. Repeat measurements were taken on 10 male and 10 female adult subjects (19-59 years old). Our focus is on the relationship between measurement size and measurement error across the 49 variables. We found that the size of the variable showed no relationship with the magnitude of the error as measured by the technical error of measurement. When the error was expressed as a coefficient of relative variation (Malina et al.: Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 23. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1973), this quantity was negatively associated with the size of the measurement. Conversely, reliability (Fleiss: The Design and Analysis of Experiments. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986) was positively correlated with measurement size. We did not find effects of scale (Marks et al.: Am. J. Epidemiol. 130:578-587, 1989) within the individual measurements. Thus, for the range of size of the craniofacial measurements in this study, measurement size must be added to the list of factors such as ease of locating landmarks, measurement technique, and systematic bias in the application of the technique that can affect precision and reliability in anthropometry.
在本文中，我们研究了一项观察者内测量误差研究的结果，该研究涉及49个颅面变量，其大小范围从小于1厘米到约20厘米。对10名成年男性和10名成年女性（年龄在19 - 59岁之间）进行了重复测量。我们关注的是49个变量的测量大小与测量误差之间的关系。我们发现，变量的大小与以测量技术误差衡量的误差大小没有关系。当误差表示为相对变异系数时（马利纳等人：《生命与健康统计》，第11系列，第23号。华盛顿特区：美国卫生与公众服务部，1973年），这个量与测量大小呈负相关。相反，信度（弗莱伊斯：《实验的设计与分析》。纽约：约翰·威利父子公司，1986年）与测量大小呈正相关。我们在个体测量中未发现尺度效应（马克斯等人：《美国流行病学杂志》130:578 - 587，1989年）。因此，对于本研究中颅面测量大小的范围，测量大小必须添加到诸如地标定位的难易程度、测量技术以及该技术应用中的系统偏差等因素列表中，这些因素会影响人体测量学中的精度和信度。
