549579

HFSXXX10.1177/0018720814549579Human FactorsAnthropometric Dimensions of Iranian Students

Static Anthropometric Dimensions in a Population of Iranian High School Students: Considering Ethnic Differences Amir Houshang Mehrparvar and Seyyed Jalil Mirmohammadi, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran, Rahmatollah Hafezi, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, Mehrdad Mostaghaci, and Mohammad Hossein Davari, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

Background: Anthropometric dimensions of the end users should be measured in order to create a basis for manufacturing of different products. This study was designed to measure some static anthropometric dimensions in Iranian high school students, considering ethnic differences. Method: Nineteen static anthropometric dimensions of high school students were measured and compared among different Iranian ethnicities (Fars, Turk, Kurd, Lor, Baluch, and Arab) and different genders. Results: In this study, 9,476 subjects (4,703 boys and 4,773 girls) ages 15 to 18 years in six ethnicities were assessed. The difference among ethnicities was statistically significant for all dimensions (p values < .001 for each dimension). Conclusion: This study showed statistically significant differences in 19 static anthropometric dimensions among high school students regarding gender, age, and ethnicity. Keywords: anthropometry, anthropometric dimensions, ethnicity, high school

Address correspondence to Mehrdad Mostaghaci, Occup­ ational Medicine Clinic, Shahid Rahnamoun Hospital, Farrokhi Ave., Yazd, Iran; e-mail: mehrdadmostaghaci@ gmail.com. HUMAN FACTORS Vol. 57, No. 3, May 2015, pp. 447­–460 DOI: 10.1177/0018720814549579 Copyright © 2014, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Introduction

Anthropometric dimensions of the end users should be measured to create a database for manufacturing of different products. If furniture or other products are manufactured without considering dimensions, mismatch will ensue, which can lead to many adverse outcomes (Castellucci, Arezes, & Viviani, 2010; Diep, 2003; Kayis & Özok, 1991; Lin, Wang, & Wang, 2004). Students spend a long time sitting on school furniture during their educational ages (Dianat, Karimi, Asl Hashemi, & Bahrampour, 2013; Milanese & Grimmer, 2004; Oyewole, Haight, & Freivalds, 2010), so they may be vulnerable to some posture-related syndromes especially if the school furniture is not appropriate for their body dimensions (Milanese & Grimmer, 2004). Among various musculoskeletal disorders, lowback pain is highly prevalent in students (Burton, Clarke, McClune, & Tillotson, 1996; Grimes & Legg, 2004; Yao, Mai, Luo, Ai, & Chen, 2011). Appropriate school furniture should be mat­ ched with anthropometric characteristics of the target users (Lee & Shin, 2004; Parcells, Stommel, & Hubbard, 1999). Variation in anthropometric dimensions between two genders, and among different races or ethnicities, will make this issue problematic. It is difficult to produce something suitable for all persons, so differences in anthropometric dimensions among people with different genders, races, ethnicities, and climates should be sought (Chuan, Hartono, & Kumar, 2010).

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on September 7, 2015

448

May 2015 - Human Factors

Several studies have been performed in different populations all over the world for measuring anthropometric dimensions, for example, among Norwegian workers (Bolstad, Benum, & Rokne, 2001), Iranian children (Mirmohammadi et al., 2013), Mexican high school students (PradoLeón, Avila-Chaurand, & González-Muñoz, 2001), a population of American children (Snyder, 1977), a population of Iranian university students (Mououdi & Choobineh, 1997), and 978 Iranian high school students (Dianat et al., 2013). It has been proven that race, ethnicity, age, gender, geographic location, and nutrition have a significant effect on anthropometric dimensions (Hamill et al., 1979; Hisham, Mamat, & Ibrahim, 2012; Jahanshahi, Golalipour, & Heidari, 2008; Jeong & Park, 1990; Mirmohammadi et al., 2013; Mirmohammadi, Mehrparvar, Jafari, & Mostaghaci, 2011; Shrestha et al., 2009; Sirajuddin, Duggirala, & Crawford, 1994; Tunay & Melemez, 2008). It is also believed that anthropometric dimensions may change after a period of time (Bolstad et al., 2001). One study showed this temporal change among U.K. children (Case-Smith & O’Brien, 2013). In Iran, there are six main ethnicities living in specific areas or provinces. These ethnicities are Fars, Baluch, Kurd, Lor, Arab, and Turk with different geographical, cultural, economic, and nutritional characteristics. For example, Baluches live in a deprived area in southeast Iran with a dry and hot climate, but Turks and Kurds live in a naturally rich area in west and northwest Iran with a cold and damp climate. We could find few studies that have measured anthropometric dimensions in Iranian population: one in 6- to 11-year-old children with a limited sample size (Mououdi & Choobineh, 1997), another in 7- to 11-year-old children (Mirmohammadi et al., 2013), another in Iranian high school students (Dianat et al., 2013), and a study on university students (Mirmohammadi et al., 2011). We could not find a study on anthropometric dimensions of high school children (15 to 18 years old). Therefore, this study was designed with the following objectives: to create a database of Iranian 15- to 18-year-old students and to compare these anthropometric dimensions between genders and among six main Iranian ethnicities.

Materials and Method This was a cross-sectional study to measure some static anthropometric dimensions among 15- to 18-year-old students of different Iranian ethnicities studying in high school. The students were assigned in each age category according to the information of their identity card; for example, a student was considered to be 15 years old when he or she was born in the year 1379 Anno Persico (between March 21, 2000, and March 20, 2001 AD). Nineteen static anthropometric dimensions were measured. Eight dimensions, that is, body height, sitting height, sitting knee height, sitting popliteal height, buttock-popliteal length, buttock-knee length, sitting eye height, and sitting elbow height, were measured by six anthropometric boards designed by researchers (accuracy: ±0.5 mm). The anthropometric boards were validated in the authors’ previous study (Mirmohammadi et al., 2013). Ten dimensions, that is, arm length, forearm length, buttock width, shoulder width, elbowelbow distance, forearm-forearm distance, chest depth, abdominal depth, one-thigh thickness, and two-thigh thickness, were measured by a digital 75-cm caliper (LG, China; accuracy: ±0.01 mm), which was calibrated each week. Weight was measured by a digital weight scale (Laica, Italy; accuracy: ±100 g). The subject posture and the definitions of each anthropometric parameter (standing and sitting) were based on standard guidelines (Hertzberg, 1968; Rempel et al., 2007). Table 1 shows the definitions of 19 measured anthropometric dimensions. Six groups of trained, experienced technicians performed the measurements using similar techniques. All of them participated in a training session before the study. Each group consisted of two recorders and an observer, and dimensions were measured again for 7% of subjects by two other observers blinded to the previous measurements. All subjects wore light clothing without shoes. For sitting dimensions, subjects were asked to sit on a chair without armrests and rollers, with adjustable height, knees bent 90°, feet flat on the surface, facing forward, and arms hanging beside the body (Hertzberg, 1968; Van’t Loo, 1975).

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on September 7, 2015

Anthropometric Dimensions of Iranian Students

449

Table 1: Definition of Anthropometric Data Anthropometric Dimension

Definition

Weight Body height Chest depth

Body weight Vertical distance from the floor to the vertex (i.e., the crown of the head) Maximum horizontal distance from the vertical reference plane to the front of the chest in men or breast in women Maximum horizontal distance from the vertical reference surface to abdominal front in sitting position Difference between shoulder height and elbow height Distance between acromion and tip of the middle finger Maximum distance between two forearms Distance between two acromions in standard sitting position Maximum shoulder width in standing position Maximum buttock width in sitting position Maximum thickness of the thigh Maximum two-thigh thickness when right thigh rests over left thigh Vertical distance from the floor to the popliteal angle at the underside of the knee where the tendon of the biceps femoris muscle is inserted into the lower leg Vertical distance from the floor to the upper surface of the knee in sitting position Horizontal distance from the back uncompressed buttocks to the popliteal angle, at the back of the knee, where the back of the lower legs meet the underside of the thigh Horizontal distance from the back of the uncompressed buttocks to the front of the kneecap Vertical distance from the sitting surface to the vertex Vertical distance from the sitting surface to the inner canthus of the eye Vertical distance from the seat surface to the underside of the elbow Vertical distance from the sitting surface to the inner canthus of the eye

Abdominal depth Arm length Forearm length Forearm-forearm distance Elbow-elbow distance Shoulder width Buttock width One-thigh thickness Two-thigh thickness Popliteal height

Knee height Buttock-popliteal length

Buttock-knee length Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting elbow height Sitting eye height

The measurements were compared between two genders in each age group. A comparison regarding ethnicity was also performed. Independent samples t test was used for comparison of means between two genders, and one-way ANOVA was used for the comparison of means among different ethnicities. Subjects

The study sample included 9,476 subjects (4,703 boys and 4,773 girls) of six ethnicities (1,488 Fars, 1,622 Kurd, 1,547 Lor, 1,727 Baluch, 1,582 Turk, and 1,510 Arab subjects). Table 2 shows detailed information of the subjects. Measurements were made from March 1, 2011,

until August 25, 2011. We obtained informed consent from all of the students. Results

In this study, 9,476 subjects (4,703 boys and 4,773 girls) ages 15 to 18 years of six ethnicities were assessed. Table 3 shows the comparison of anthropometric dimensions of high school students between two genders. Table 4 shows the mean of 19 anthropometric dimensions in different ethnicities regarding age. ANOVA test showed that the differences among ethnicities were statistically significant for all dimensions (p values < .001 for each dimension), although post hoc test showed that

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on September 7, 2015

450

May 2015 - Human Factors

Table 2: Number of the Subjects in Each Ethnicity and Gender Age 15 Ethnicity Boys Fars Kurd Lor Baluch Turk Arab Total

184 215 214 239 210 224 1,286



16 Girls

198 224 192 247 199 130 1,190

Boys 218 215 214 239 210 224 1,286

17 Girls

272 184 206 256 183 244 1,345

Boys 199 192 229 204 230 108 1,162

this difference was not significant between some ethnicities in different dimensions. Table 5 shows key percentiles (i.e., 5th, 50th, and 95th) for the six most commonly used anthropometric dimensions (i.e., body height, popliteal height, sitting elbow height, elbowelbow distance, buttock width, and buttock-­ popliteal length) in different ethnicities. Discussion Manufacturing appropriate products for the end users is now based on the anthropometric dimensions. Many factors, such as age, gender, ethnicity, nutrition, and geographical location, may affect these dimensions (Hamill et al., 1979; Hisham et al., 2012; Jahanshahi et al., 2008; Mououdi & Choobineh, 1997; Shrestha et al., 2009; Tunay & Melemez, 2008). In this study, 19 anthropometric dimensions were measured among students ages 15 to 18 years old of different ethnicities in Iran. Some of these ethnicities live in other countries as well (Fearon, 2003). The countries with the most similar ethnic groups to Iranian people include Iraq (Arab, Kurd), Turkey (Turk, Kurd), Azerbaijan (Turk), Afghanistan (Baluch), Pakistan (Baluch), Syria (Arab, Kurd), and Jordan (Arab), although due to different cultural, geographical, economic, and nutritional factors, there may be some differences among these populations regarding anthropometric dimensions. We found a statistically significant difference between two genders in all age groups and all

18 Girls

195 245 254 245 230 204 1,373

Boys 108 199 160 135 176 325 1,103

Total Girls 114 156 103 161 158 173 865

Boys 709 813 792 818 812 759 4,703

Girls

Total

779 809 755 909 770 751 4,773

1,488 1,622 1,547 1,727 1,582 1,510 9,476

ethnicities. All 19 anthropometric dimensions were higher in boys than girls except for chest depth and buttock width, which were higher among girls, probably due to the development of breasts and other pubertal changes in girls. Shrestha et al. (2009) found a significant difference between two genders in craniofacial anthropometric measurements. Jeong and Park (1990) and Mirmohammadi et al. (2013) also found this gender difference in anthropometric dimensions, although in different populations. The difference in anthropometric dimensions among various ethnicities was also statistically significant, although some dimensions were not significantly different when comparing two ethnicities with each other. For example, height of 15-year-old boys was significantly different among all ethnicities, but Fars boys were not significantly different from Kurd and Lor boys regarding height, and the same was true for other dimensions and other ethnicities. The difference in some dimensions, such as chest depth, arm length, forearm length, and popliteal length, was negligible, but other dimensions were more significantly different between various ethnicities. For example, Turk and Fars subjects had the highest body weight and height in most age groups, but Baluch boys and girls were the shortest and thinnest ones in all age groups. Most heights were lowest in Baluch girls and boys and were highest among Fars and Turk boys and girls. Most depths were lowest in Lor and Baluch subjects. (text continues on p. 458)

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on September 7, 2015



Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on September 7, 2015

451

Weight (kg) Body height (mm) Chest depth (mm) Abdominal depth (mm) Arm length (mm) Forearm length (mm) Forearm-forearm distance (mm) Elbow-elbow distance (mm) Shoulder width (mm) Buttock width (mm) One-thigh thickness (mm) Two-thigh thickness (mm) Popliteal height (mm) Knee height (mm) Buttock-popliteal length (mm) Buttock-knee length (mm) Sitting height (mm) Sitting eye height (mm) Sitting elbow height (mm)

Dimension

55.23 1662.85 195.70 176.38 344.38 448.78 406.67 381.85 385.09 317.00 119.90 227.81 417.51 521.60 435.16 543.60 851.66 738.09 223.90

Boys

52.32 1577.00 213.74 176.09 328.36 413.87 382.86 372.44 365.65 320.40 115.07 219.76 375.46 468.90 426.37 526.48 829.30 711.47 213.82

Girls

15

Static anthropometric dimensions in a population of Iranian high school students: considering ethnic differences.

Anthropometric dimensions of the end users should be measured in order to create a basis for manufacturing of different products. This study was desig...
364KB Sizes 0 Downloads 6 Views