AN EVALUATEON OF “M GROWTH NORMS

Thesis for the Degree of Ed. D.
MECEIGAN STéTE UNIVERSITY
H. Weldon Frase
1958

THESIS

This is to certifg that the

thesis entitled

AN EVALUATION OF THREE GROWTH N ORMS

presented by

H. WELDON FRASE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

3.1% degree in W i OHS
of Education

/:I if k. ‘X/flwiliéauk

 

Major professor

DMCFebruary 18, 1958

 

0-169

 

 

AN EVALUATION OF THREE GROWTH NORMS

by

H. WELDON FRASE

AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Department of Foundations of Education (Child Development)

1958

2

H. WELDON FRASE ABSTRACT

Introduction

 

In studies of child growth and development the sub—
Jects are measured in a variety of ways. Such characteris-
tics as height, weight, bone development, ability to read,
and mental ability are checked. According to the organismic
point of view, each or any of the measures can serve as
manifestations of the unique growing pattern of the indivi-
dual child. Since the units for the different measures
appear as inches, pounds, points, it is difficult to discern
the underlying unity.

To bring varied measures into relationship with each
other, a common denominator is necessary. In some studies
all measures are translated into months and are referred to
as height ages, weight ages, dental ages, reading ages, and
mental ages. In other studies measures are translated into
percentage of maturity. To arrive at a common unit of
measure, a standard is often necessary. An acceptable
standard must provide a consistent base for comparison.

The purpose of this study was to test three commonly
used standards or norms. The three norms tested were the
Olson-Hughes height-age and weight-age norms, the Millard-
Rothney height and weight norms, and the Mid-child in the

group as proposed by Stuart Courtis.

3
H. WELDON FRASE ABSTRACT

The Cases Studied

 

Three groups of children were selected for whom at
least five years of longitudinal height and weight measures
were available. All of the cases in the study were measured
in schools at mid-year from the first grade through the
fifth grade. Cases were taken from Holt, a small community
comprised largely of skilled and unskilled workers; from
East Lansing, a residential suburb comprised predominantly
of professional, and managerial personnel; and from the
Harvard data collected in three towns near Boston where the
populations were generally workers and trades people. The
Holt and East Lansing cases represented children currently
in school whereas the measures in the Harvard Study were

made between 1921 and 1926.

Techniques of Study

 

The height and weight measures of each of the
children were compared to each of the norms for each yearly
age level. The hypothesis of the study was that the norm
which reflected the greatest consistency, or the least
variation would be considered as the most realistic in
terms of the growth patterns of boys and girls.

Comparisons between the cases and the norms were
made in two ways. First the increments of growth between’
yearly measures were compared with the changes in each norm

during the same yearly intervals. Variations between the

 

ra'm :-»‘

ad. 1». ,u -

I“; - Q ‘0
Huh; . . .

. .
“V‘fl ‘ffivflrq
«Md stun”;

w,

A
::W AD .
4kt-A V. ‘

“mm,- ,.
“~v-UL. L

L', .‘.
I“ G 1.

.i.

“PM‘x

thr...

 

 

HA.‘
. -
V4

"-
J‘-
”>4"
b
by
.
.u
w..>3
,.
A.
r‘JI
VA
;
"p
., l
t

a
H. WELDON FRASE - ABSTRACT

norm increments and the child's increments were totaled for
the five year period. Total variations, mean variations,
and standard deviations were determined for the comparisons
of the girls with each norm and for the boys as compared
with each norm.

The second comparison was made in terms of parallel-
ism of the child's individual pattern to the pattern of the
norm. Perfect parallelism would occur if each measure of
the child was one pound or one inch less or more than the
norm for each yearly interval. Variation from the parallel
was totaled for each child as compared with each of the
norms. Results were totaled, means, and standard deviations

computed for each group of boys and each group of girls.

Summary

The results of the study may be summarized as follows.
Combining all of the comparisons of the childrens' heights
with the norms, the smallest mean variation occurred for the
Mid-Child in nine of the twelve comparisons. The Millard-
Rothney norm showed the smallest mean variation in two
comparisons. The Olson norm showed the smallest mean
variation in one instance.

The difference between means was significant in five
of the comparisons, four of these cases were those in which
the Mid-Child reflected the smallest variation and one where

the Millard-Rothney norm reflected the smallest variation.

 

tn ‘
‘u. "u..-_
I
I
l
-.,‘
w
l
i
l
“A I.

’ L
V1 -‘ :‘l
- a- ‘4‘,

  
 

Off firwv- .1
y” \‘V‘n-eb _~
.

‘V“-- .L-
:n" Sun A‘
“N -.‘. M
‘lf‘A- ‘

D H's“ e.

“V“..J V

 

-\‘,

 

x’
A).
,3

 

5
H. WELDON FRASE ABSTRACT

In the comparisons of the childrens' weights to the
norms, the Olson norm reflected the smallest mean variation
in six of the twelve comparisons. The Millard-Rothney norm
reflected the smallest variation in five of the comparisons.
The Mid-Child standard reflected the smallest variation in
one comparison.

The differences between the means were significant in
three of the twelve comparisons. In two of the instances of
significance the Olson norm showed the smallest variation,
and in one instance of significance the Millard-Rothney norm

showed the smallest variation.

Conclusions

 

Since this study indicates that neither the Mid-Child,
the Olson-Hughes growth ages, nor the Millard-Rothney norms
maintained a superiority in reflecting the height and weight
changes in boys and girls, and since it can be seen by
inspection that the differences between the three standards
at any single point can be as great as two inches or five
pounds, it must be concluded that comparisons to any of the
three norms are but very general estimates.

The norms tested did not meet the important criteria
for an acceptable standard, that it must provide a consistent
base for comparison, therefore, for precise interpretations
of individual growth trends,better standards must be devel-

oped or other methods of analysis employed.

AN EVALUATION OF THREE GROWTH NORMS

by

H. WELDON FRASE

A THESIS

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Department of Foundations of Education (Child Development)

1958

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his sincere gratitude to
those who have encouraged and aided in the completion of
this work. It would have been extremely difficult to bring
this study into its present form without their cooperation.

Special thanks to Dr. Cecil V. Millard for his guid-
ance and cooperation as chairman of the doctoral committee.
His direction and constructive criticism made the study a
fascinating challenge.

Thanks as well to Drs. Ruby Junge and Vernon Hicks,
for helpful guidance and particularly for the many necessary
hints and suggestions in the development of the thesis. It
was indeed unfortunate that Dr. Arthur DeLong could not share
in the final activities of the committee. For his help in
the earlier stages of the work, the writer is deeply grateful.

Sincere thanks to Mr. Charles Greenshields for con-
sultation in statistics and for his aid in recording the
Harvard Data.

Thanks as well to Dr. Gordon Holmgren for help in
obtaining access to the East Lansing Data.

Finally the writer expresses his gratitude for the
hours of time spent in editing and typing the manuscripts
to Miss Selma Abbasse and Mrs. Weldon Frase. There were

others too numerous to mention who freely offered

 

1

“h!“ a-“
VDA‘J gvvl
\

iii
information and answers to many questions. Only with the
cooperation of many friends and interested educators was

this total project possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . 11

III. A DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA AND NORMS EMPLOYED . 24

The Holt cases . . . . . . . . . . 2A

East Lansing cases. . . . . . . . . 26

Harvard cases . . . . . . . . . . 27
Millard-Rothney norms. . . . . . . . 29
Olson-Hughes norms. . . . . . . . . 31
Mid-Child. . . . . . . . . . . . 32

IV. TECHNIQUES OF COMPARISON. . . . . . . . 35
Increment relationship . . . . . . . 35

Degree of parallelism. . . . . . . . 38

v. RESULTS OF THE COMPARISON . '. . . . . . A1
Height variations in increment. . . . . Al

East Lansing girls. .' . . . . . . Al

Harvard girls . . . . . . . . . A2

Holt girls . . . . . . . . . . 43

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 44

East Lansing boys . . . . . . . . 45

Harvard boys. . . . . . . . . . 45

Holt boys. . . . . . . . . . . 46

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 47

CHAPTER

Variations in height from parallelism.

East Lansing girls
Harvard girls.
Holt girls.
Summary.

East Lansing boys
Harvard boys

Holt boys

Summary.

Summary of height comparisons

Weight variations in increment

East Lansing girls
Harvard girls.

Holt girls.

Summary.

East Lansing boys
Harvard boys

Holt boys . . . . .

Summary.

Weight variation from the parallel.

East Lansing girls
Harvard girls.
Holt girls.
Summary.

East Lansing boys

PAGE
1:7
A7
as
49
A9
49
5O
51
52
52
53
53
5A
5A

55
56

57

58
58
59
60

OO
61

. Dan”; , .71).. 1.3.93.1»; an»... .251» a. Sild
.
a.
v. .1!

‘.

 

vi

CHAPTER PAGE
Harvard boys . . . . . . . . . . 61

Holt boys . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Summary of weight comparisons . . . . . 63

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . 6A
Girls' height. . . . . . . . . . . 6A

Girls‘ weight. . . . . . . . . . . 66

Boys' height . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Boys' weight . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Conclusion for height . . . . . . . . 72

Conclusion for weight . . . . . . . . 73

Final conclusion. . . . . . . . . . 75
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
APPENDIX A--Millard-Rothney norms . . . . . . 83

APPENDIX B--Olson-Hughes norms . . . . . . . 91

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
I. Girls' Height Variation. . . . . . . . 65
II. Girls' Weight Variation. . . . . . . . 67
III. Boys' Height Variation . . . . . . . . 69

IV. Boys' Weight Variation . . . . . . . . 71

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE
1. Hypothetical Representation of Parallelism. . 9
2. Increment Difference Between Height Case
H-O lAAF and the Olson Norm. . . . . . 36
3. Variation from Perfect Parallelism Between

Case H-O IAAF and the Olson Norm . . . . 39

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Competence in any line of endeavor is structured upon
a thorough understanding of the materials with which the
occupation deals. The mechanical engineer must know well
his metals, how they react to being pulled, pushed, squeezed,
or twisted. He must also be able to determine precisely the
effects of the various forces acting upon the works which
are fabricated. The geologist must understand the compo-
sition of the earth's surface, the meaning of its contours,
and the varied combinations of rocks and soils comprising
the various strata.

Understanding is equally necessary for one who is
interested in the development of the human being. In order
to deal adequately with the shaping of the lives of people
whether in the field of medicine, social work, child care,
guidance, or education, it is necessary to know about

1,2

patterns of growth. Olson states:

The changes that occur with age have always
facinated parents, teachers, and scientists. An

 

1Cecil V. Millard, Child Growth and Development
(Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 19517, p. 10.

 

2Elizabeth B. Hurlock, Child Development (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19507, p. 133.

 

understanding of these changes and of the influences
that produce them has become an indispensable parg
of the preparation of all who work with children.

The way people grow may be identified in a number of
ways. By direct observation certain stages may be seen such
as the progress in an infant‘s growth from turning, to
sitting, to crawling, to walking. And likewise the pattern
of change in Size may be observed. Notation of observations
may be recorded periodically, and from the notations general
patterns discovered. Notice may be taken of sounds, move-
ments, skills, actions, and reactions. Each or all give
clues to patterns of growth merely by employing careful,
periodic observation.

Sequential observations often reveal much about the
patterns of growth. The physician not only recognizes the
symptoms of a fever by observation but employs a thermometer
for a more accurate check. The civil engineer can see a
rise in the terrain but uses a transit when accuracy is
needed. And so with patterns of growth, when greater
accuracy is needed more accurate measures must be recorded.

Various growth of individuals can be measured.
Height, weight, length and number of bones, strength of
grip, and the ability to perform a number of varied tasks,
all can be recorded as numerical dimensions or scores. Each

growth may be expressed in somewhat different terms than the

 

3Willard C. Olson, Child Development (Boston: D. C.
Heath and Company, 19A9), p. 3.

 

3
{
others, height in inches, grip in pounds, but each in itself
reflects a single over-all design. It has been hypothesized
that there exists a basic growth pattern for the total

organism.4’5’O

Each of the various measures express some-
thing of a basic underlying unity. When all measures are
viewed together unity becomes evident. However, this is
true only when the various dimensions are expressed in com-
mon units of measure. To deal with unlike parts, a common
denominator must be discovered. Likewise, if inches, pounds,
months, and grade points are to be related, a common denom-
inator or unit must be derived.

To arrive at a common unit, a standard is necessary.
Standards for the basic units of measurement are carefully
guarded in the major centers of government. A world stan-
dard for measuring the passage of time is maintained at
Greenwich, England. The surveyor makes his calculations
from a bench mark. All measures, then, are in terms of this
standard.

An acceptable standard must provide a consistent base
for comparison. Many standards remain static such as the

length of an inch or a meter and the weight of a pound or a

 

“Millard, 9p. git., p.‘18.

SOlson, 9p. cit., pp. no, 177.

fl.-

6Stuart A. Courtis, "Toward a Science of Education"
(unpublished mimeographed booklet, Detroit, Michigan, 1951),
p. 13.

.9: .u. T .:N; o... .h my ell, .13. . ‘rh 1. in. hie
» . .
.s 1

2‘

e .. ....

[4
gram. Other standards such as height, mental age, achieve—
ment are continually in flux. Whether static or in flux,
the best standard is that one which most consistently and
most accurately serves its purpose.

In studies of human growth and development, a number
of norms have been established and used. Olson and Hughes
have derived norms for converting appropriate measures to
growth ages. By their utilization all data may be recorded
in months.7 Height age, weight age, carpal age, mental age,
reading age, or educational achievement age, all may be
expressed in the same unit, the month. All may be graphed
on the same scale so that a more complete picture of the
total child may be seen.

"National" norms have been derived for most of the
commonly used mental and achievement tests. Millard and
Rothney derived norms for the physical measures of height
and weight based upon measures collected in many sections
of the nation.

Courtis has recently proposed a different method as

8 Since the

a base for comparison of growth measures.
averaging technique tends to cancel out individual variations,

and mass measures conceal the uniqueness of the individual,

 

7Willard C. Olson and Byron 0. Hughes, Manual for
the Description ef Growth Age Units, Ann Arbor, Michigan,

T950, p. 2.

8Stuard A. Courtis, "The Status Index as a Measure
of Individual Differences," The Twelfth Yearbook ef EEe
National Council on Measurements Used ie Education, Part
Two, 1955, pp. 61:67.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5
he proposed basing the standard upon the pattern of a single

selected normal child. The individual selected is the mid-
child in the group. According to his reasoning there
normally are more children approximately like the mid-child
than any other child in the group.9

That the three standards just mentioned are different
from each other can be readily determined. At eighty-seven
months the Millard—Rothney norm for height is A9.2 inches,
the Olson norm for the same age is A8.3 inches, and the mid-
boy in the selected group of the Harvard data is found to
be 47.1 inches. The two inches difference between the ex—
tremes represent for many individuals two years of height
growth. Since the standards differ in both the increments
of increase from year to year as well as in total con-
figuration, it can be assumed that the three are not equally
realistic in terms of the way the human organism grows and
develops.

To test the three norms the writer selected three
groups of children from different school settings for whom
at least five years of height and weight measurements were
available.10 In all instances measures were taken at mid-
year from the first through the fifth grade.

Thirteen girls and thirty boys comprised the cases

selected from the Holt schools. The oldest boy was born

 

9lbld., pp. 61—67.

10See Chapter III for detailed description of the
three groups. '

May 12, 1943, the youngest boy was born December 14, 1944,
which is a span of nineteen months in ages. The oldest
girl was born March 12, 1943, and the youngest girl Decem-
ber 25, 1944, a span of twenty-one and one-half months in
ages.

Holt is a small town under 10,000 residents. The
population is comprised predominantly of industrial workers
who are employed in a nearby larger town. Generally the
homes range within the lower to the middle economic brackets.

The second group was taken from East Lansing, Michi-
gan, a community on the higher end of the economic scale.
East Lansing is the seat of a large State University and is
also a residential suburb where many of the professional
and managerial personnel from nearby Lansing have homes.
Financially, the population ranges from the middle to upper
brackets. There were twenty-five boys born between June 9,
1944 and November 29, 1945, a span of about seventeen and
one-half months. There were seventeen girls born between
January 1, 1945 and November 23, 1945, a span of about
eleven months. The measurements for these children were
recorded between the first and fifth grades in school.

The third group was selected from the Harvard cases
where measurements were recorded for school children of the
generation preceding the two previous groups. There were
nineteen boys and twenty-one girls in the group. The boys
were born between September 16, 1915, and November 15, 1915,

a span of two months. The girls' birth dates fell between

September 1, 1915 and November 31, 1915, a span of three
months. Here it was necessary to take a larger span of
months for girls than for the boys to include a sufficient
number of cases. Since the Harvard study includes a larger
number of cases, it was considered desirable to select
children who were as nearly as possible to the same chrono-
logical age.

The data for the Harvard study were collected in
several small towns in the Boston area. Children were
generally from the lower economic groups and from varied
ethnic backgrounds.

These groups were selected for the study because they
came from distinctly different environments. Children were
chosen from low, middle and high economic families. A
portion of the cases were from the densely populated New
England seaboard in contrast to those from a small town
and a suburban mid-western community. Two of the groups
represent the recent, growing school population while the
third group is from a generation born thirty years earlier.
Due to the scarcity of longitudinal data, it was not possible
to obtain samplings which could accurately represent the
growth of children throughout the United States. However,
the cases selected to meet the particular age, and sequence

11

requirements of this study were drawn from the most

 

11Height and weight measures made yearly in January
on children from their sixth to eleventh year of age.

comprehensive longitudinal data which were available. By
choosing these groups from distinctly different environ-
mental settings, it was possible to avoid the bias which
might be suspected when a study is taken from a single
school or community.

Comparison of the cases to the norm will be carried
out in two ways. First, the yearly increments from each
measurement to the next will be compared with theincreases
of the norms during the same periods of time. For example,
the child grows in height from forty-Six inches to forty—
eight inches from the first grade measurement to the second
grade measurement. The norm for those ages changes from
forty-eight inches to fifty-one inches. The child has in-
creased two inches while the norm has increased three
inches. The child's growth was one inch less than the
change in the norm.

The second comparison will be made to check the
degree of parallelism of the child to the norm. In other
words, how closely does the child's growth pattern follow
the pattern of the norm? If the child's height (hypothetical
case No. One) measures were 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, and the norms
for the same time were 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, the child would
be growing in exactly the same pattern as the norm. Another
Child (hypothetical case No. Two) whose measurements were
“7, 48, 50, 53, 56, would be following a pattern of height
growth which was different than that of the norm. Variations

from the point of mid-difference then result in a measure

0f parallelism.

Emfiaoaamnmm mo cofiumucomogdom HwofiuochQam .H madman

mango: :e .a .o
ewe Sea moH om we

41 _ 44 .ll _

 

In Epoz
u s a u an m ommo
. . . . nu H mmmu

 

SGUOUI UI nuBIeH

10

The study shall compare the height and weight growth
patterns of the selected cases to three norms, Millard and
Rothney norms as derived from data compiled by the United
States Department of Health, Welfare and Education, the
norms derived by Olson and Hughes, and the norm based upon
the measurements of the mid-boy and mid-girl in each group.
The hypothesis on which the study rests may be stated as
follows: The norm which reflects the greatest consistency,
or the least variation will be considered as the most

realistic in terms of the growth patterns of boys and girls.

CHAPTER II
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Man has been interested in the measurement and rel-
ative size of the body as far back as the early histories
report man‘s progress. Goliath of Gath was described as

3

having a height of six cubits and a span. In an attempt
to find the right proportions for the human figure, Indian,
Egyptian, Greek, and Roman Sculptors took numerous body
dimensions of many individuals in order to obtain averages
or typical body proportions. Over periods of time, concepts
of ideal proportions varied. The Greek Spear thrower, a
fighter and an athlete was broad shouldered, thick set, and
square chested, as the perfect man. As the arts of civili-
zation became more gentle, however, grace more than rug-
gedness appealed to the Greeks; and the ideal man became

3

slender, graceful, and skilled. This interest has con-
tinued through the years up to current times. Prior to 1900,
measurements were reported on the growth in size of indivi-

dual children, but there was a lack of recorded data on

groups of children.

 

1Samuel 17. 29 feet, 9 inches-

3H. Harrison Clark, The Application e3 Measurement
to Health and Physical Education (New York: Prentice-Hall,

 

 

fil—

Incufig 5), p. a.

 

12

It was not until systematic collections of measure-
ments were made that "normal" or "average" could be deter-
mined other than by guess. Consequently, around the turn
of the century, investigators began to report measurements
on groups of children.” From the early collections of
measurements, normal or average status in height and weight
was determined by statistical averaging techniques. A
number of tables were presented which indicated norms of
height and weight for chronological age.5’6

With usage of such tables, it was discovered that
many apparently healthy, growing individuals did not conform
to them. Either height or weight or both fell below or
above the norm for the child‘s age, or the weight radically
differed from the normative figure for height and age. Even
though, in some cases, the departure from the norm indicated
a disturbance in growth patterns which could be traced to
some deprivation, enough healthy individuals deviated to

make the norms seem highly questionable.7

 

“Bird T. Baldwin, "Physical Growth of Children from
Birth to Maturity," University ef Iowa, Studies ie Chile
Welfare, Vol. I, No. I—Il92I), p. 412.

 

 

 

5B. T. Baldwin, T. D. Wood, and R. M. Woodbury,
Weight-Height-Age Tables for Boys and Girls of Sehool Age
(New York: American Child Health Assn., 19237: passim.

 

6Horace Gray, "Weight-Height-Age Tables for American
Adults and Children," The Cyclopedia ef Medicine, Sec. Ed.,
Vol. XV (l940),pp. 1052-1060.

 

 

7Cecil V. Millard, Chile Growth and Development
(Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, I95I), p. 2.

 

13

In order to account for the deviations, investigators
followed a number of paths. It was readily seen that con-
sideration had to be given to age and sex. Dearborn and
Rothney reported that early measurements were taken under a
great variety of conditions and that methods were completely
unstandardized. They proposed more rigid methods of measure-
ment employing several trained anthropometricians working
separately. When the measures made by three people failed
to agree within prescribed limits the process was repeated
until closer agreement was attained.

Dearborn and Rothney indicate that measurement over
clothing was responsible for some variability. Clark made
a study of measurements made with and without clothing and
concluded that variability was only slightly greater in
clothed subjects. It was clearly indicated, however, that
measurements were not comparable when some measurements
were upon clothed subjects and others upon nude subjects,
or when one measurement was made clothed and a later

9

measure was made with the subject nude.

 

8Walter F. Dearborn and John W. Rothney, Predicting
the Child's Development (Cambridge, Massachusetts: SCIence
and Arts PublIcation, I941), p. 61.

 

 

9Grace Clark, "Differences in Measurement Made in
the Nude and Clothed Children Between 7—9 Years of Age,"
Chiie Development, I (1930), pp. 343-345.

 

14

O dealt

Another direction of study reported by McCloy1
with differences in body type. Early anthropometric stand-
ards were based upon averages of measurements taken on many
types and builds. In order to allow for deviations from the
norm, attempts were made to define a number of characteris-
tic bodily categories. Classifications varied from two to
four body types. Each investigator used somewhat different
terminology, however, in essence they ranged from "tall thin"
on one end of the scale to "short stocky" on the other end.
The intermediate types were termed "normalf‘"ath1etic," or
"muscular." Kretschmer, for illustration, labeled his types

"11 Others used differ-

"asthenic," "athletic," and "pyknic.
ent names with similar meanings.
Meredith contended that the proper use of norms
depended upon a knowledge of where and how the norms were
derived. Such things as sex, geographic location, ancestral

background, socio-economic status, diet, health care, and

general condition of the subjects were important variables

lOclarles H. McCloy, "Appraising Physical Status the
Selection of Measurements," University of Iowa Studies,
XII, No. 2 (March 15, 1936), passim. “‘

 

 

llE. Kretschmer, "Physique and Character: An Invest-
igation of the Nature of Constitution and of the Theory of
Temperment," translated from the rev. and enl. ed. by W. J.
2O Sfirott (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1926), pp. xiv, 266,
-3.

 

15

to be considered when norms were to be employed.12’13

The idea of body type or build was further pursued by
Wetzel, who plotted height, weight, and age upon a grid. As
the individual child's measurements were plotted, radical
departures from the original channel were to indicate nu-
tritional difficulty.lu

The search continued for other nutritional or bodily
indices for more accurate assessment of optimal bodily
dimensions. Bayer and Gray plotted height against weight
and against bi-iliac diameter (hip width) to indicate
normal limits.15

Stuart and Meredith determined channels based upon

five different measures: height, weight, chest circum-

ference, hip width, and leg girth.l6

 

12Howard V. Meredith, "Body Size Norms for Children
Four to Eight Years of Age," Journal e£ Pediatrics, 37
(August, 1940), pp. 183-89.

 

13Howard V. Meredith, ”Anthropometric Measurements
on Iowa City White Males Ranging in Age Between Birth and
Eighteen Years,“ University of Iowa Studies, XI, No. 3
(February, 1935), passim. “—

 

 

1“Norman C. Wetzel, ”Physical Fitness in Terms of
Physique, Development, and Basal Metabolism: With a Guide
to Individual Progress from Infancy to Maturity: A New
Method for Evaluation," Journal of the American Medical
Association, 16 (1941), pp. 1365TI3867

 

 

15L. M. Bayer and Horce Gray, "Plotting of a Graphic
Record of Growth for Children, Aged from One to Nineteen
Years," American Journal Diseases of Children, 50 (1935),
pp. 1408-1417. “‘ "‘

 

16H. C. Stuart and H. V. Meredith, "Use of Body
Measurements in the School Program," American Journal Publie

Health, 36 (1946), pp. 365-386.

 

16

It seems that each of the evaluative techniques had
supporters and rejectors. Kallner contends that deviation
from the normal channel on a grid need not imply a health
disorder or permanent deviation from normal physique. He
claimed that developmental deviations based upon the grid
method of analysis are not at all rare and can lead to
diagnostic error.l7

Krogman believes that the grid method might serve as
a useful tool in some Situations. When used with under-
standing and care, the method provides a rapid screening
device for teachers, pediatricians, or research persons.
By merely recording height and weight one—in—three of the
real or potential growth failures can be identified, and in
these cases provides the therapist with a graphic, dynamic
standard of assessing degree and extent of recovery in
height weight balance.18

Earlier McCloy had used about the same measures to
form norm tables based upon multiple regression formulae.
With four variables it was necessary to read first from a
table comparing height and hip width, then take the figure

from the table comparing chest circumference and knee width.

 

l7A. Kallner, "Growth Curves and Growth Types,‘
Annals Pediatrics, 177 (August, 1951), pp. 83-102.

18Wilton Marian Krogman, "A Handbook of the Measure—
ment and Interpretation of Height and Weight in the Growing
Child, " Monographs of Society for Research in Child Develop-
ment, XII No. 48 TI948), pp. 61- 63.

 

 

The two were combined to arrive at a single normal weight
figure.19

Massler and Suher discovered that normal weight could
be quite accurately determined by using height and calf
girth, measurements which could be accurately and easily
made. Norms were compiled as nomograms making possible the

determination of ideal weight without mathematical compu-

tations.20

During the search for accurate assessment and pre-
diction of status, interest was also generated in growth
trends. A number of research centers began collecting data
on the same children as they grew older. Some of the
notable studies were the Iowa Studies started by Baldwin
and continued by Meredith, the Harvard Growth Study by
Dearborn, and associates, the Brush Foundation Studies of
Cleveland Children started by T. W. Todd, studies at the
University of California Institute of Child Welfare by Nancy
Bayley.21 Additional longitudinal growth studies have been

under way at the University of Michigan under Olson and

 

19Charles H. McCloy, "Appraising Physical Status:
lflethods and Norms," University e2 Iowa Studies, XV, No. 2

(1938), pp. 105-114.

20Maury Massler and Theodore Suher, "Calculations of
flVormal‘ Weight in Children by Means of Nomograms Based on
:Selected Anthropometric Measurements," Child Development,
22 (June, 1951), pp. 75-9u.

 

 

 

21Nancy Bayley and Harold Carter, Section of Physical
Ckrowth, Encyclopedia ef Educational Research, edited by
)kalter S. MCnroe, (Peviséd edition; NewIYork: MaCMillen Co.,

1950) .9 pp- 153-156-

 

 

18

and Hughes, and at Michigan State University, studies on
Dearborn and Lansing children under Millard and the Holt
study under Millard and DeLong. These and others furnished
data for investigations for growth trends.

From these studies it was noted that growth is orderly
and follows well defined sequences of changing Sizes and
proportions and physiological functions. In the area of
physical growth it was discovered that there was need to
know about the average growth trends to be expected with
age changes. A few years ago it was equally important to
know in what ways and to what extent normal individuals
might differ from these averages.22

The literature indicates wide divergence of opinion
as to the place of norms in respect to individual growths.

In tests of achievement and intelligence, norms have
been provided to make scores comparable for varied age and
performance levels as well as to indicate typical perfor-

mance.23’ 24, 25’26 The assumptions in the testing manuals

 

22lbid.

———

23California Test of Mental Maturity, California Test
Buremui, 5916 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles 28, California.

2uPintner General Ability Test, World Book Company,
Yonkers on Hudson, New York.

25Stanford Achievement Tests, World Book Company,
Yonkers on Hudson, New York.

26Kuhlman-Anderson Tests, Educational Test Bureau,
Minneapolis, Minnesota. '

19
is that the norm furnishes an accurate pattern for assessing
intellectual or academic growth of individual children.

In a summary regarding norms Herbert S. Conrad
upholds the importance of them in making dependable inter-
pretations of individual and group measures. However, he
cautions that difficulties arise when it is assumed that
the characteristic or variable considered represents a pure
continuum, a continuum of quantitative differences exclu-
sively. With this assumption, qualitative change is not

.. . 2
con81cered. 7

A number of writers flatly state that norms based
upon the statistical averages taken from measurements upon
a number of different organisms even though the number is
large may not be considered as characteristic of any indi-

28,29,30

vidual organism.

Millard reports that norms have value in that they
reveal growth tendencies within groups, races, populations,

and either of the sexes. He suggests that misinterpretation

 

27Herbert S. Conrad, Encyclopeeia of Educational
iResearch, edited by Walter S. Monroe (revIEed’éditIdn;‘New

Yorfih MacMillan Company, 1950), pp. 795-801.
28

 

Ibld.

-_a__

29Margaret Merrill, "The Relationship of Individual
ernnth to Average Growth," Human Biology, 3 (1931), pp. 37-

70.
30Reuben R. Rusch,'The Cyclic Pattern of Height

ernnth from Birth to Maturity" (unpublished PhD thesis,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1956),

pp . 9-12.

2O
often results when prediction and analysis of individual
growth rhythms are made based upon normative data.31

Olson adds:

Investigators in child development have become wary
of making statements concerning what is average or
normal. Even when great care is taken in the choice
and range of children measured, there are so many
variables that a true cross-section of the population
is unattainable. Very often the children reported
upon are those who are available as subjects for study
without extraordinary investments of time and money.32

Dearborn and Rothney conclude that there is so much

overlapping of measurements for various age groups that
deviation from the average in any physical measurement is
unimportant for any given individual. They'feel that judg—
ment of physical status Should be made in relation to a
child‘s physical status in the past rather than to arbitrary
group standards.33

Courtis suggests a reason why mass statistics or

norms based upon cross-sectional data often point to mis-
leading conclusions. He states that the innate differences

which made individuals in the population hetrogeneous are

chance and often are averaged out.3u’35

 

31Milard, 9p. cit., p. 59.

32Willard Olson, Child Development (Boston: D. C.
'Heath Company, 1949), p. 147~

 

33Dearborn and Rothney, e2. cit., p. 343.

3“Stuart A. Courtis, "Personalized Statistics in
Ekhication," Sehool and Society, May 1955, p. 171.

 

35Cecil v. Millard, School and Child (East Lansing,
lflickr: Michigan State College Press, 1954), p. 178.

 

21

In a graphic representation, Shuttleworth observed
that when height measures from cross-sectional norms were
charted, they resulted in smoothly rounded curves. When
graphs were made.based upon measures of individual children
who were similar in age, sex, and background, curves
36

followed paths quite different from the norm curves.
Shuttleworth concludes: "Individual variations which
might be significant when related to other measures or ob-
servations are averaged out in the formation of norms."37
When DeLong compared groups of children using both
cross-sectional and longitudinal methods, he discovered
that the mean described only a very small portion of the
cross-sectional group.38 He found that no children were
precisely described by the height mean. Reasoning that this
requirement was quite rigid, he expanded the measurement
above and below the mean score. It was only when he in-
' cluded measurements one inch above the mean and one inch
below the mean that up to twenty-five per cent of the group

could be described. Two inches difference at third grade

 

36Frank K. Shuttleworth, "The Physical and Mental
Giwnnth of Girls and Boys Age Six to Nineteen in Relation to
Age at Maximum Growth," Monographs for Research in Child
Developmeee, IV, No. 3, Washington, D. C., 1939,_p—assim.

 

* 371bid.

 

38Arthur R. DeLong, "The Relative Usefulness of
Imnugitudinal and Cross-sectional Data" (from a mimeographed
copyr<of a paper presented to the Michigan Academy of Science
Ardxs, and Letters, March 26, 1955), 10 pages.

22

level represented fourteen months of height growth for boys

according to the Olson-Hughes growth ages. DeLong also dis-

covered that when longitudinal data were regrouped according

to sex and age, that the mean and ranges of scores were

quite different from those based upon the total group. The

data clearly indicated to DeLong that: "The cross-sectional

method can be used only when gross comparisons are desired.

Longitudinal methods are necessary for descriptive purposes."39
DeLong's investigation of longitudinal and cross—

sectional data can be considered only a survey or pilot

study of the question, first, because the data were drawn

because the intent
40

from but a single situation and secondly,
was merely to test the feasability of such a study.

Hurlock refers to the question of relative usefulness

<3f standards based upon cross-sectional as opposed to longi-

tnkiinal data when she writes: "Whether norms based upon

cnnass-sectional data are more realistic than norms based

upcnl longitudinal data has not been subjected to scientific

investigation ."41

Courtis proposed a third type of norm or standard for

Ilse )Nith measurements upon growing children.b'2 In order to

esrnipe the danger of the individual becoming submerged in

40

391bid. Ibid.

-——-—

 

ulElizabeth B. Hurlock, Child Development (New York:
Iflchwaw Hill Book Company, 1950), p. 27.
“QStuart A. Courtis, "The Status Index as a Measure

(Jf Iruiividual Differences," The Twelfth Yearbook ef the
bkiticnlal Council on Measuremene Used ie Education, Part II

f1955) , pp. 61:677—

 

23
the mass, he suggests that a single normal child be selected
as a standard};3 The standard then is real following a real
pattern not one which was mathematically derived.ML The
norm in this case always describes at least one growing
child, whereas DeLong discovered that frequently a cross-
sectional norm actually described no child in a group.“5

To arrive at the norm the mid-child in a group of
children similar in age, sex, and grade is picked. All
other children in the group are thus compared to the scores
or measurement of the mid-child.“6 Courtis claims that this
procedure provides a Simple, direct, and accurate method of
assessing individual differences in growing children.

The literature indicates the sustained interest in
the measurement of the human body and with the interest, the
need for a norm or standard for examining individual status
as well as progress. There seems to be considerable differ—
ence of opinion as to the type of norm which most realis-
tically reflects the growth patterns of real boys and girls.
The literature indicates no study which has been conducted
to compare the growth patterns of real groups of children

with several types of norms.

 

2),
3Ibid.

H

qubid.

 

uSDeLong, loc. cit.

-—-——-

Courtis, loc. cit.

CHAPTER III
A DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA AND NORMS EMPLOYED

In order to test the hypothesis presented in Chapter
I,[The norm which reflects the greatest consistency, or the

least variation will be considered as the most realistic in

terms of the growth patterns of boys and girls.] it was nec-

essary to use accurate measurements, and norms or standards

of a type commonly chosen by those studying and working in

the field of child growth and development. A careful de-

scription of the cases and norms employed in this study

follows.

The Holt Cases

One of the most recent and comprehensive collections
of longitudinal information was gathered in the Holt public
The Child Development Laboratory of Michigan State

schools.

University sponsored and conducted the study.1 The study

was begun.in 1950 and continued through the 1956 school
yearn, Observations and measurements were recorded according

to sckmxiule on approximately three hundred elementary school

children.

 

lHolt Study directed by C. v. Millard and A. R.
DeLong.

25

Aspects of the study included; physical health status,
height and weight, grip, motor skill, mental growth, peer
status, scholastic achievement, and general personality.
Height and weight checks were made three times a year in
October, January, and May. The January measures were used
for this study. These data were taken under the close super-
vision of trained graduate assistants in child growth and
development. Measures of the children at Holt were carefully
recorded and maintained in files at the Michigan State
University Child Development Laboratory.

All heights and weights obtained were upon children
clothed in school apparel appropriate for the season. Shoes
were removed and heavy objects which were not considered a
part of normal attire were set aside during the weighing
procedure. Height measures were read to the closest one-
eighth inch and weights to the closest one-eighth pound.

0f the seventy-seven children who were enrolled in
the first grade in 1950 at the beginning of the study, com-
plete height and weight records for the five year period
were available for thirteen girls and thirty boys.

The birth dates of the boys fell between May 12, 1943
and December 14, 1944, a span of approximately nineteen
months. The girls' birth dates were between March 12, 1943
and December 25, 1944, a period of approximately twenty-one
and one-half months.

The ethnic backgrounds of the children at Holt were

much the same. All of the families in the study except two

26
were of Northern European extraction. One of the two cases
was from Southern European stock and the other of Jewish

descent. There were no Negroes in the group studied.

East Lansing Cases

 

The data for the East Lansing cases were taken from
the permanent record files of the Central Elementary School?2
The cases selected were from the Class which began first
grade in the fall of 1950 and continued in the school for
the five years which followed.

All measures were taken in January by classroom
teachers with the help of parents from the district. Shoes
were removed, otherwise the subjects were clothed in garments
appropriate for the season. All measures were taken to the
nearest one-fourth inch and one-fourth pound. There were
complete, five year measures for sixteen girls and twenty-
six boys.

The birth dates of the boys ranged from December 21,
1944 to November 29, 1945, a period of approximately eleven
months. The oldest girl was born January 1, 1945, and the
youngest girl was born November 23, 1945, a range of nearly
eleven months.

Information about ethnic origin was not in the East

Lansing school files. However, it can be safely assumed

 

2Data obtained under the guidance of Gordon Holmgren,
Director of Elementary Education.

27
that a very high percentage of the school population was of
Northern European descent. An examination of the surnames
of the children indicates that all of the forty-two were
names associated with Northern European countries. Needless
to say it is possible that a few mothers or grandmothers
could be Southern European or Jewish. There were no Negroes

in the group.

Harvard Cases

 

The Harvard Study was based upon measurements on ap-
proximately three thousand five hundred children who entered
first grade in three cities in the metropolitan Boston area
during the year 1922.3 Physical, mental, and scholastic
tests were administered at regular intervals over a period
of twelve years.u Particular care was taken to assure
accuracy in the anthropometric measures. Children were
clothed, but shoes and bulky sweaters or jackets were
removed. The Harvard data were recorded in metric units,
hence the height appeared in centimeters and the weight in

grams.5 A11 measures were performed three times by three

3Medford, Revere, and Beverly, Massachusetts.

“Walter F. Dearborn, John W. Rothney, and Frank K.
Shuttleworth, "Data on the Mental and Physical Growth of
Public School Children," Monographs ef the Society for
B§§3§322.12 Child Development, III, No. l (1938), passim.

 

 

5It was necessary to this study to convert the
Harvard data to inches and pounds in order that measures
for the three groups could be in comparable units.

28

different persons. Where measures differed by more than 1.1
grams or centimeters, the child was sent back for remeasuring.
When the three measures were within the 1.1 range, they were
averaged to determine the final recorded figures.6

The birth dates of the nineteen boys were from
September 16, 1915, to November 15, 1915, a span of two
months. The birth dates of the twenty-one girls fell
between September 1, 1915 and November 31, 1915, a Span of
three months.

The ethnic groups represented in the areas surrounding
Boston were of a greater variety and number than in either
of the other groups. The total, original population of the
Harvard study was distributed in the following manner:
North European 63.2 per cent, Italian 24.4 per cent, Negro
and mixed 18 per cent, South European 4.2 per cent, and
Jewish 7.4 per cent.7 Twenty-nine of the cases selected for
this study were of Northern European stock, eight were of
Italian descent, two were Jewish, and one was Negro.

The three groups studied had several characteristics
in common. All children were measured regularly while in
the first through fifth grades. All children were in public
SChools. The measures selected were those taken at mid-

winter time. Subjects wore clothing appropriate for the

6Walter F. Dearborn and John W. Rothney, Predicting

the Child's Development (Cambridge: Science Art Publishers,
1951), p. 83.

 

 

7ibid., p. 76.

29
season, and shoes or any other unusually heavy sweaters or
jackets were removed. The data were considered in separate
sex groups. All measures were interpreted in units of
inches and pounds to maintain over-all comparability.

Differences also are to be noted. The East Lansing
and Holt groups were comprised predominantly of children
of Northern European extraction while the Harvard group
contained a mixture of ethnic backgrounds, although it too
was predominately of the Northern European groups. The
Harvard study represents the generation of children born in
the year 1915, while both Holt and East Lansing cases were
of the generation born in 1944 and 1945. The Harvard
children were all within three months of the same chrono-
logical age while children in the other two groups differed
by as much as twenty-one months in age. Children from East
Lansing were from homes considered relatively high on the
socio-economic scale. The Holt cases were from the middle
and lower end of the socio-economic scale as were the Harvard
cases. World and national economic conditions were not quite
as prosperous during the early lives of the children of this
preceding generation. It may be noted that all three groups

were war babies even though of two different wars.

Millard-Rothney Norms

 

In their work with longitudinal studies of children
Millard and Rothney became dissatisfied with the existing

cross-sectional height and weight tables. They decided to

30
combine the best from the available studies to derive new
norms which would better reflect height and weight growth
patterns.

The Millard and Rothney norms were computed from data
compiled by the United States Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare. Edgar Martin organized measures taken
from twelve studies made between 1922 and 1942. The orig—
inal studies envolved 300,198 children living in sixteen of
the forty-eight states and the District of Columbia. The
data were organized cross-sectionally into norms to be
employed by school officials, architects, and design engi-
neers, for the purpose of planning school buildings, furni-
ture, and equipment.8 Mean stature and weights were given
for boys and girls at yearly intervals from age four years
to sixteen years.

Millard and Rothney found it necessary to adjust the
mean figures to more closely represent longitudinal growth
patterns. It was likewise necessary for the authors to
extrapolate mathematically to obtain norms for monthly
intervals. Tables were organized into height ages for boys
and for girls and weight ages for boys and for girls. The
norms were first used in mimeographed form by Cecil V.

Millard in his work with students in child growth and

 

. 8W. Ed ar Martin, Basic Body Measurement ef School
Age Children Washington, D.C.: United States Office of
Health, Education, and Welfare, 1953), pp. 1-12.

 

 

31
development at Michigan State University. Recently they
were presented in printed form for wider distribution and

use.9

Olson-Hughes Norms

 

A second set of norms utilized in this study were
derived by Olson and Hughes. They too became dissatisfied
with the existing standards, and decided to develop norms
better suited to growing children. The Olson-Hughes height
age and weight age tables were developed over a period of
several years experimentation. At the time of the early
studies of growing Children, there were few available, long-
term, collections of longitudinal measurements. It was,
therefore, necessary to use cross-sectional data to serve
as a starting place. Since cross-sectional norms did not
completely satisfy the requirements of the investigators,
they were revised to better represent the growth patterns
observed in the studies of children in the University of
Michigan Elementary School.10

During the year 1938, B. 0. Hughes made an exhaustive
study of all of the available growth studies compiled during

the preceding fifty years. Means and standard deviations

were compiled for the total mass of data. The resulting

 

9Cecil V. Millard and John w. Rothney, The Elemen-
tary School Child, A Book e3 Cases (New York: Dryden Press
19 7), appendix.

 

 

 

10Information obtained by direct communication with
B. O. HugheS, August 8, 1956.

32
means were then used as the original Olson-Hughes growth
ages. The authors immediately suspected that the selected
norms were high for the general population. A gradual
revision of the norms began which eventually resulted in
those presently used.11

The most recently published Olson-Hughes height-age
and weight-age tables appear in a paper-bound manual which
was written by the authors to help students in the study of

12’13 The height-age and weight-

growth through age units.
age figures from these tables served as the Olson-Hughes

norms for this study.

Mid-Chi1d

 

The third type of norm employed in this study is the
Courtis Mid-Child Norm. Stuart Courtis advocated the mid-
child as the standard to which others in a group might be
realistically compared. Courtis maintains that although
statistical procedures are mathematically correct, con-
clusions are of no value when based upon a false assumption.

Mass statistics (upon which norms are generally based) have

lllbid.

_—_

l2Willard C. Olson and Byron 0. Hughes, Manual for
EDS Esscription 92 Growth in Age Units (AnnArbor, Michigan:
The Edwards Letter SHEET-19507, pp. 21-26.

 

 

 

13
Appendix B.

33

been employed as if the measurements were made upon homo-
genious groups.lu
The false assumption which mass statistics always
makes when dealing with measurements of living creatures
is that the factors which make the individuals in the
population hetrogeneous are chance and may be averaged
out. The fact is that individuals, all individuals,
are different.1
In order to escape the inherent errors of the
averaging process, Courtis suggests the use of the score or
measurement of the mid-child in a group made as homogeneous
as possible in regard to age, grade, and sex. The measure-
ments of this child may serve as a realistic norm for the
particular group from which the child has been selected.
There are no false assumptions since the standard is based
upon a real child not upon a mathematical central ten-
dency.l6’l7’18
For this study the mid-child was carefully selected

for the boys of each group and for the girls of each group.

The following procedure was used to make certain that the

 

lLlStuart A. Courtis, "Personalized Statistics in
Education," School and Society, May 28, 1955, pp. 170-171.

 

15lbid. l6lbid.

 

 

17Personal communication from Stuart Courtis, April 18,

1956.

18Stuart A. Courtis, "Marking Experiment Bulletin
No. 5, The Status Index” (Mimeographed paper, November 23,

1953).

34
mud-child was the one who remained nearest to the middle of
the group over the five year period. The mid-boy in terms
of height was determined at first grade level. Then each
child's measurement was recorded in points above or below the
mud-measurement. For example, Harvard Case 123M was the mid-
boy in the group with a height of 46.4 inches. Case 930M
had a first grade height of 46.3 and was recorded as -.1 in
terms of the mid-height. Case 1863M with a height of 47.1
was recorded as +.7 in terms of the mid-height at first
grade. After all cases were recorded in terms of the mid-
child at each grade level, the amounts of variation were
totaled to determine the variation of each child from the
middle of the group over the five year period. The child
Showing the least variation was selected as the standard or
mid—child. This process was repeated for the weights and
heights of each sex for each of the three groups studied.

The three norms to be tested then are: the Millard-
Rothney norms based upon a wide compilation of studies and
organized by the United States Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare; the Olson-Hughes height and weight age
norms which largely reflect the growth trends of the children
enrolled in the University of Michigan Elementary School; and
the mid—child in each group as proposed by Stuart A. Courtis.
The next step shall be to compare the heights and weights
or Children from the three selected longitudinal studies

With each of the three standards.

CHAPTER IV

TECHNIQUES OF COMPARISON

In order to determine which of the norms was most
realistic in terms of the data, two methods of comparison
were devised. First the increment of change in each child
from one year's measurement to the next was compared to the
increment of change in the norm from one year to the next.
Secondly, the degree of parallelism of pattern between the
norm and each of the cases was determined. Even though the
results of the two methods might be in close agreement, it
seems judicious to examine the relationship of the cases to

the norms from both points of view.

Increment Relationship

 

To determine the growth increments, each yearly
measure was subtracted from the measure of the following
year. This was done for each case. The increments of change
for the norm was determined by the same process. The dif-
ference between the actual child's yearly growth increment
and the increment of change in the norm was determined at
each grade level. Yearly differences were totaled for each
child over the five year period. This relationship can best
be comprehended by examining a single case represented in

graphical form. Notice Figure 2 where case H-0-114F has

Height in Inches

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a)“—
55+
51.5..0.;'°° 00'
50__ £2,915
.' ' 49 8 t
u c.0000 00000‘ .
E? .9'-: j 1.2
i -' 3
0 ,° .' 48.2 t
30' o 2 8“
L>m ,' ’ i
* ‘10. 0.000.: 3.3
4 .
“5 6 2
+ -
44.9 t
f
SE
to O
.—1 z
o
40 fl __
72 84 96 108 120 132
Chronological Age in Months
Figure 2. Increment Difference between Height Case

H—O 144F and the Olson Norm.

37
been compared to the Olson norm. The height norm, shown as
points on the solid line, for seventy-seven months of age
is 44.9 and for eighty-nine months the norm is 48.2. The
change for the twelve month period of time was 3.3 inches.
Case H-O—144F represented by points on the dotted line was
46.2 inches at seventy-seven months and 49. inches at
eighty-nine months a growth of 2.8 inches over the year.

The difference between the increments of increase for the
year was 3.3 - 2.8 or .5. The increase for the norm between
eighty-nine and one hundred and one months was 1.2 inches
and the increase for the case was 2.5 inches. The differ-
ence between the yearly increase of the norm and the case
was 2.5 - 1.2 or 1.3 inches. From 101 months to 113 months
the increase for the norm was 2.3 and for the case the in-
crease was 3.6 with a difference between the two of 1.3
inches. Between 113 months and 125 months the norm increased
2.2 inches and the case increased 3.3 inches, with a differ-
ence between the two of 1.1 inches. Over the five year
period, the difference between increments of increase in
height was .5 + 1.3 + 1.3 + 1.1 a total of 4.2 inches. The
4.2 inches represents in numerical terms the relationship

of increments of growth of the child to the Olson norms.
Similar computations were made to compare each of the

cases to each of the norms in respect to increments of

change.

Degree of Parallelism

To determine the degree of parallelism between the

norm and the cases, the difference between the norm and the

case was determined for each measurement. The mid-point of

difference was selected, and variation from this point

served as the measure of parallelism. Notice Figure 3, the

graphic representation of a single case with its variation

from the Olson norm. At seventy-seven months the difference

between the norm and case H-O-144F was 1.3 inches. At

.8

At

eighty—nine months the difference between the two was

inches. At 101 months the difference was 1.7 inches.

113 months the difference was 3.0 inches, and at 125 months

the difference was 4.1 inches. The mid-point was determined

In; counting to the third measure starting with the smallest

anmnnlt of variation which was .8. The next larger amount

was l_.3, and the third in line from small to large was 1.7

cm" the mid-point. Perfect parallelism then may be repre-

sentxxi by a line drawn parallel to the norm passing through

thissrnid—point. The shaded portion of the diagram (Figure 3)

repnwesents the height variation from the Olson norm for

(vase li-O-l44F. The numerical amount of variation was deter-

rnineCi by computing the difference between 1.7, the mid-

vardiition and 1.3, the variation at seventy-five months

lflqickl was .4 inches. Next the difference was obtained

betwweerl 1.7 and .8 the variation at eighty-seven months,

VN11CFI was .9 inches. Then the difference between 1.7 and

3.C) at; 113 months was determined to be 1.3. And finally,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39

 

501
58.4
L H). “ml
@554 55.1 . / '
,. \
c L)” 3.0
q—q
.. |
En ”LU
H 521
51’ 51.5 ul’L
1
W

50' 49. I’M 498

if? fl” .8

‘E (“81 M32

6

l

T [T

46L

1.3

454

1U4.9 Olson Norm
4O .__ _. fi _fi

72 84 96 108 120 132

Chronological Age in Months

Variation from Perfect Parallelism between

Figure 3-
CASE H-O 144F and Olson Norm

40

the difference between 1.7 and 4.1 the variation at 125

months was found to be 2.4. The total variations from the
point of mid-difference was .4 + .9 + 1.3 + 2.4 or 5 inches.

Similar computations were made for each case in terms of
each of the three norms.

The computations explained in the preceding para-
graphs translate the relationships of children's growth
patterns and norms into numerical quantities. These
numerical quantities lend themselves to statistical inter-

pretation which in turn Should give a clear measure of the

relative realism of each of the norms when compared to the

heights and weights of real boys and girls.

CHAPTER V

THE RESULTS OF THE COMPARISONS

lbight'Variations in Increment

East Lansing girls. The height increments of the

sixteen East Lansing girls were compared to the increments

of increase of the three stindards. When the mid-child was

used as the standard the total five year difference between

the girls and the standard was 50.5 inches. The mean dif-

ference was 2.66 inches with a standard deviation of 1.23

inches.
Compared to the Olson-Hughes height norms as a stan-

dard, the total difference between the increments of change

in the norms and the increments of change from year to year

of the East Lansing girls was 57.4 inches. The mean incre-

ment difference was 3.00 inches and the standard deviation

was 1.25 inches.
When the East Lansing girls were compared to the

Millsufli-Rothney norms in terms of height increments, the

total clifference between the increments over the five year

period.lwas 61.4 inches. The mean difference was 3.26

inches;lwith a standard deviation of 1.38 inches.

'Phe smallest total difference and mean difference

as well.zas the smallest standard deviation occurred when

42
the East Lansing girls were compared to the mid-child. To
ascertain the significance of the difference between the
means, the "t" test was used.1 the mean difference derived
from the comparison of the cases to the mid-child was
Checked with the Similar mean derived from the cases when
compared to the Olson norm. The check revealed that the
difference between the means were not Significant. When
the mid-child mean was compared to the Millard—Rothney mean
the result also was considered not Significant. The differ-

ence between the Olson and Millard means was not Significant.

Harvard girls. The yearly height increments of the

 

twenty-one girls from the Harvard study were compared to

the yearly increment of increase of the three standards.

The difference between the mid-child increments and the
height increments of the girls totaled 29.00 inches over the
five year period. The mean difference was 1.38 inches with
a standard deviation of .77 inches.

When the heights of the Harvard girls were compared
to the Olson-Hughes norms, the total increment difference
tans 38.9 inches. The mean difference was 1.85 with a
standard.deviation of .71 inches.

The comparison of the Harvard girls to the Millard-

Rotrwmxy norms in terms of height increment resulted in a

 

'lOliver L. Lacy, Statistical Methods in Experi-
mentéuaion (New York: MacMillan Company, 19537, p. I13.

43

total difference of 26.5 inches. The mean difference was

1.26 inches with a standard deviation of .66 inches.

The smallest total difference as well as the smallest

mean difference occurred with the comparison to the Millard-

Rothney norms. The largest total difference and mean dif-

ference occurred with the Olson norms, while the mid-child

norm fell between the two.

The differences between the means were tested with

the "t" formula.2 The difference between the means of the

Millard-Rothney and the mid—child were found to be not Sig-
The difference between the Millard-Rothney and

.O5

nificant.

the Olson means were found to be Significant at the

level. The difference between the mid-child mean and the

Olson mean were computed to be significant at the .10 level.

Holt girls. Thirteen girls from the Holt study were

compared to the three norms in terms of height increments.
The txotal difference between the girls and the mid-child

was £{3.9 inches with a mean difference of 1.84 inches and

witklzi standard deviation of 1.11 inches.
When the height increments of the girls were com-

paiwxi to the Olson norm increments the total difference

betwmmna them was 33.1 inches. The mean difference was 2.55

inckm%s with a standard deviation of 1.46 inches.

The total difference between the Millard-Rothney

ncunn ichrements and the height increments taken between

 

2lbid.

h

44

yearly measures of the Holt girls was 25.7 inches. The

nwan difference was 1.98 inches with a standard deviation

of1.04 inches.
Of the three comparisons the smallest total differ-

mum occurred when the Holt girls were compared to the mid—

child. The Millard-Rothney comparison showed a slightly

larger total difference. The Olson-Hughes showed the

largest total difference. The mean differences of course

reflected the same relationship as the totals.

When the significance of the means were tested by
the "t" method, the differences between the means were not
Significant in any of the cases.3 The difference between
the mid-child mean and the Olson mean was not significant.

The difference between the mid—child and Millard-Rothney

means was not significant. And, the difference between

the Olson and the Millard-Rothney means was not significant.

Summary. It could be readily seen that the mean dif-

ferences between the height increments of the girls when
compared to the increments of increase of the three norms,

showed a slightly smaller variation when cases were con-

trasted to the mid-child standard. However, when the dif-

ferenccns between the means were tested for significance, it

was diiycovered that in the majority of the comparisons the

differwnlces were not Significant.

 

3Ibid.

 

45

East Lansing boys. The twenty-five East Lansing boys

 

were compared to the standards with the following results.
The total difference between the East Lansing boys and the
mud-child was 78.6 inches. The mean difference was 3.14
inches with a standard deviation of 1.54 inches.

The total increment difference between the boys and
the Olson-Hughes norms was 76.9 inches with a mean differ-
ence of 2.96 inches with a standard deviation of 1.12 inches.

The difference occurring with the Olson norm as stan-
dard was the smallest. When tested by the "t" method the
difference between the mid-child and the Olson means was
not significant. The difference between the mid-child and
the Millard-Rothney means was not significant, and the dif-

ference between the Olson and Millard-Rothney norms was

also not significant.L1

Harvard boys. The nineteen Harvard study boys when

 

contrasted with the mid-child showed a total increment
variation of 21.8 inches. The mean variation was 1.15 with
a standaxd.deviation of .58 inches.

In the comparison to the Olson-Hughes standard the
tota1.<iifference was 31.7 inches. The mean difference was
1.67 iJuzhes with a standard deviation of .64 inches.

'The total difference between the heights of the
IHarvalwi boys and the Millard-Rothney standard was nearly
the swmne 21s in the Olson comparison, 31.6 with a mean dif-

ference of 1.66 and a standard deviation of .54.

‘

 

“Told.

 

46

When the significance of the differences was tested,
Hm difference between the mid-child mean and the Olson
mean was significant at the .05 level. The difference be-
amen the mid-child and the Millard-Rothney norm was also
sflgnificant at the .05 level. The difference between the

(uson mean and the Millard-Rothney mean was not significant?

Holt boys. When the comparison was made of the

 

thirty Holt boys to the mid-child the total difference

was 43.1 inches. The mean variation was 1.44 inches with a

standard deviation of .72 inches.
Compared to the Olson norm the total increment dif-

ference was 50.0 inches. The mean difference was 1.67

inches with a standard deviation of .62 inches.

The difference between the Millard-Rothney norms

and the Holt boys totaled 52.7 inches over the five year

period. The mean difference was 1.76 inches with a stan-

dard deviation of .68 inches.
The mid-child reflected the smallest variation from

the heigfims of the Holt boys. The "t" test of significance

was agajrltwed to evaluate the difference between means.6

The chifference between the mid-child mean and the Olson

mearllwas not significant. The difference between the mid-

chilxilnean.and the Millard-Rothney mean was significant at

the .JI) level. The difference between the Olson mean and

the DTLllastRothney mean was not significant.

 

5Ibid. Ibid.

 

47

Summary. Summarizing the boys' height increment re-

lationship the least variation occurred between the boys and

the mid-child in the Harvard and Holt comparisons. In these

comparisons the differences between the mid-child and the

Millard-Rothney means were significant in both cases.

Although the mean of the mid-child comparison was the smaller

in both comparison to the Olson mean, the difference was

significant with the Harvard cases but not significant when

compared to the Holt cases. In the comparison with the East

Lansing boys, the Olson norm reflected the least variation

and smallest mean variation. However, the differences

between the Olson, mid-child, and Millard-Rothney means were

not significant.

'Variations in Height from Parallelism

East Lansing girls. As the heights of the Sixteen

Easfi: Lansing girls were compared to perfect parallelism

therwa was a total variation of 55.2 inches when the mid-

chilxi was used as the standard. The mean variation was

2.5fl. inches with a standard deviation of 1.18 inches.

In the comparison of the East Lansing girls to the

Olscul.norm the total variation was 61.7 inches. The mean

vardjition was 2.74 inches with a standard deviation of
1.40 inches.

When the Millard-Rothney norms were used as a stan-
daxwi tkma total variation from parallelism was 62.0 inches.

The human variation was 2.75 inches with a standard deviation

of 1 . 25 inches.

48

The mid-child reflected less mean variation from
parallel than did the Olson norm and the Millard-Rothney,
tmwever, when the "t" test of significance was applied, the

differences between the means were not significant.7

Harvard girls. When the twenty-one girls selected

 

frmn the Harvard cases were tested for parallelism to the
mid-child the resulting total difference was 31.9 inches.
The mean difference was 1.52 inches with a standard devi-
ation of 1.13 inches.

Using the Olson norm as the standard, the total
deviation from parallelism was 37.6 inches. The mean
variation was 1.89 inches with a standard deviation of

1.41 inches.
When compared to the Millard-Rothney norms the total

difference between the girls' patterns and parallelism was

29.2 inches. The mean variation was 1.44 inches with a
standard deviation of 1.10 inches.

The Millard-Rothney norm showed the smallest mean
cheviation from the parallel. Both the Olson norm and the
midrxfliild showed more total variation and hence greater
mearl variation. When the "t" test was applied the differ-

enuxe between all three of the means were tested to be not

significant}3

 

Ibld.

 

Ibld.

 

219

Holt girls. The thirteen Holt girls were compared

 

0 each of the norms in terms of parallelism. Compared to

The mid-child the total difference between the heights and

perfect parallelism was 23.5 inches. The mean difference
between the heights and parallelism was 1.73 inches with a
standard deviation of 1.42 inches.

When the Holt girls were contrasted to the Olson
norm the total variation was 28.2 inches. The mean vari-
ation was 2.17 inches with a standard deviation of 1.35

inches.

Compared to the Millard-Rothney norms the total
variation was 24.9 inches. The mean variation was 1.92
inches with a standard deviation of 1.27 inches.

The mid-child comparison yielded the smallest mean
variation, but when the test for Significance was applied,

there was no significant difference between the means.9

iumm. The mid-child standard yielded the smallest
mean deviation in the East Lansing and Holt comparison.
However, the differences between the means were not signi-
ficant. In the Harvard comparison the Millard-Rothney norm
Showed the smallest mean deviation, but, again the differ-

ences between means were not significant.

1“ East Lansing boys. The boys were next compared to

 

the three standards in relationship to the parallelism of
A the height growth patterns. When the height measures of

x.“

91119

 

.‘r! HE‘S; lb. "‘I.l INCI’a a

.4

. will).

 

.i!.|1llmllnt. III:

5O

tfiw twentwddve East Lansing boys were contrasted to the

neasurescflTthe mid-child the difference over five years

cfi‘measurement was 66.5 inches. The mean difference was

2.56;hufies with a standard deviation of 1.30 inches.

When the Olson-Hughes norms served as the standard
there was a total difference of 86.2 inches over the five

years. The mean difference was 3.04 inches with a stan-

dard deviation of 1.21.

Compared to the Millard-Rothney norms the total dif-

ference was 77.6 inches. The mean difference was 2.98

inches with a standard deviation of 1.17 inches.
The mid-chihdstandard.yielded the smallest total and

mean difference of the three comparisons. When the "t”

test of significance was used the differences between the

means proved to be not significant.10

Harvard boys. When the nineteen boys of the Harvard

study were related to the mid-child in terms of parallelism

of height growth patterns the total difference between them

over five years was 23.8 inches. The mean difference was

1.25 inches with a standard deviation of .74 inches.

Compared to the Olson norm the total difference in

parallelism between the boys and the norms was 33.0 inches.

The mean difference was 1.74 inches with a standard devi-

ation of .91 inches.

Ibid.

 

51

The Millard-Rothney norms reflected a total differ-
ence of 32.8 inches. The mean difference was 1.73 inches
with a standard deviation of .80 inches.

Again the mid-child yielded the smallest mean
variation from parallelism. When the "t" test was applied
the difference between the mid-child mean and the Olson
mean was significant at the .10 level. The difference
between the mid-child mean and the Millard-Rothney mean
also proved to be significant at the .10 level. The differ-
ence between the Olson mean and the Millard-Rothney mean

showed no significance.11

Holt boys. When the thirty Holt males were checked
against the mid—child in terms of parallelism the total
five year difference was 40.2 inches. The mean difference
was 1.34 inches with a standard deviation of .65 inches.

Compared to the Olson norms in terms of parallelism
the difference between the boys and the norms totaled 59.0
inches. The mean difference was 1.97 inches with a stan-
dard deviation of .86 inches.

When the Millard-Rothney norms served as the standard,
the difference in parallelism was 53.0 inches. The mean
difference was 1.77 inches and the standard deviation was
-63 inches.

The "t" test of Significance indicated that the dif-

ference between the mid-child mean and the Olson mean was

__

lllbid.

 

52

signifdxmuit at the .01 level. The difference between the

mid-ckfldxi and the Millard—Rothney means was significant

at the .CH5 level. The difference between the Olson and

Millard-Rothney means was not significant.12

Sunmmugu Summarizing the relationship between the
three groups of boys as compared to three standards in
terrmscaf parallelism we find the most consistent pattern
of the studgn With each of the three groups the Mid-Child
reflected tie least deviation, the Millard-Rothney the next
smallest deviation and the Olson-Hughes the largest devi-

ation. The differences between means were significant in

two of the three comparisons.

Summary of Height Compaeisons

Combining all of the comparisons of the children’s
heights with the norms, the smallest mean variation occurred
for the Mid-Child in nine of the twelve comparisons. The
Millard-Rothney norm showed the smallest mean variation in
two places. The Olson norm showed the smallest mean
variation in one instance.

The difference between means was significant in five
of the comparisons, four of these cases were where the Mid-
Child reflected the smallest variation and one where the

Millard-Rothney norm reflected the smallest variation.13

 

l2Ibid.

 

13See Chapter Vlfor tables.

53

Weight Variations in Increment
East Lansing girls. The sixteen East Lansing girls'

weight increments of increase between the yearly measures

were compared to the increments of increase of the standards

from year to year. -When the East Lansing girls were com-

pared to the mid-child standard the total difference between

the cases and the standard was 36.5 pounds over the five

year period. The mean difference was 22.59 pounds with a

standard deviation of 7.07 pounds.

When the East Lansing girls were compared to the

Olson norms the total difference was 270.4 pounds. The

mean difference was 16.90 pounds with a standard deviation

of 8.24 pounds.

In the comparison to the Millard-Rothney standard
the variation between the weight increments of the girls

and of the standard totaled 256.1 pounds. The mean differ-

ence was 16.01 pounds with a standard deviation of 8.10

pounds.

The Millard-Rothney norm reflected the smallest
mean variation and the mid-child reflected the largest

variation with the Olson mean falling between the two.

When the "t" test of significance was computed, the differ-

ence between the mid-child mean and the Olson mean was

Significant at the .10 level. The difference between the

had-child mean and the Millard—Rothney mean was significant

attfie 0.5 level. The difference between the Olson mean and

UwaMillard-Rothney mean was not significant.

54

Harvard girls. When the twenty-one girls from the

 

Harvard study were compared to the weights of the mid-child
the total increment variation was 247.9 pounds. The mean
variation was 11.80 pounds with a standard deviation of
12.94 pounds.

Compared to the Olson norms in terms of increment
variation, the total variation was 227.2 pounds. The mean
variation was 10.82 pounds with a standard deviation of
8.65 pounds.

When the Millard-Rothney norm was used as the stan-
dard the total variation in increment between the standard
and the girls was 237.5 pounds. The mean variation was
11.31 pounds with a standard deviation of 5.64 pounds.

The Olson norm reflected a slightly smaller mean
deviation than the other two norms. When the significance
of the difference between the means was checked by the

"t" method, there was no significant difference between

14
the means.

Holt girls. The weights of the thirteen Holt girls

 

were compared to the three standards in terms of the yearly

increments. When compared to the mid-child standard the

total difference between the girls' weight increments and
the standard was 179.7 pounds. The mean difference was

13.82 pounds with a standard deviation of 5.52 pounds.

14
Lacey, loc. cit.

55
When compared to the Olson norm the total difference
between the girls' weight increments and the increments of

increase in the standard was 178.7 pounds. The mean dif-

ference was 13.75 pounds with a standard deviation of 6.17

pounds.

Compared to the Millard-Rothney norm the total differ-
ence was 158.0 pounds. The mean difference was 12.15
pounds with a standard deviation of 6.13 pounds.

The Millard-Rothney norm reflected the smallest
total and mean difference. The Olson and mid-child means
were slightly larger. When the "t" test was used the dif-

l5

ferences between the means proved to be not Significant.

Summary. The Millard-Rothney mean Showed the smallest
mean difference when compared to the East Lansing girls and
to the Holt girls. The difference between the Millard-

Rothney and the mid-Child mean was significant in the East

Lansing comparison. In the relationship to the Olson check
as well as in the comparisons with the Holt cases the dif-

ferences between means were not significant.

East Lansing boys. The increments of weight between

 

the yearly measures of the boys were compared to the incre—
ments of weight between the yearly weight figures of the
standards. When the twenty-five East Lansing boys' weights

were compared in this manner to the mid-child as the

15lbid.

 

5
5o

shudard,tfim total difference was 399.5 pounds. The mean

diffinencevws 15.37 pounds with a standard deviation of

of 8.90 pounds.
wmnlthe Olson norms were used as the standard the

totalchjderence between the Olson increments and the boys'

incremwfis was 444.8 pounds. The mean difference was 17.11

pmnuhshdth a standard deviation of 9.80 pounds.

Compared to the increments of the Millard-Rothney

norms the total difference was 402.7 pounds. The mean dif-

ference was 15.49 pounds with a standard deviation of 9.01

pounds.
The smallest total and mean difference occurred with

however, when checked for

the mid—child as the standard,

significance by the "t" method, none of the differences
between means were judged to be significant.16

the Harvard boys were compared

the

Harvard boys. When

to the mid-child in terms of the weight increments,

total difference between the mid-child and the cases was

242.4 pounds. The mean difference was 12.76 pounds with a

standard deviation of 4.27 pounds.

Wherl‘the Olson norms were used as the standard the

total difdknnmice between the cases and the standard was

107.3 pmnnuis. The mean difference was 5.65 pounds with a

standard deviation of 2.77 pounds.

l6Ibid.

 

57

When the Harvard boys were compared to the Millard-

Rothney norms the total difference between. the increments
was 129.2 pounds. The mean difference was 6.80 pounds with
a standard deviation of 3.20 pounds.

The Olson norm reflected the smallest total and mean
variation from the cases with the Millard-Rothney norm
Showing a Slightly greater total and mean variation. The
mid-child comparison reflected a distinctly larger differ-
ence. When the means were subjected to the ”t" test the
difference between the mid-child mean and the Olson mean

was significant at the .01 level. The difference between
the mid-child mean and the Millard—Rothney mean was signi-
ficant at the .01 level. The difference between the Olson

mean and the Millard-Rothney mean was not significant.17

Holt boys. The thirty Holt boys were compared to

 

the standards in terms of weight increments. When the mid-
child was used as the standard the resulting total differ-
ence between the increments of the standards and the incre—

ments of the boys was 455.5 pounds. The mean difference
was 15.18 pounds with a standard deviation of 6.95 pounds.
When the Holt males were compared to the Olson norms

the increment difference over the five year period was

395.6 pounds. The mean difference was 13.19 pounds with a

standard deviation of 9.47 pounds.

 

17Ibid.

58
Compared to the Millard-Rothney norms the total dif-

ference was 398.7 pounds. The mean difference was 13.29

poundSTMJm.a standard deviation of 9.03 pounds.
In the comparisons between the Holt cases and the

standards, the Olson norms reflected the smallest total and

mean difference. The Millard-Rothney norm showed but a

slightly larger difference while the mid-child reflected

a considerably larger total and mean difference. When the

"t" test of significance was applied, the differences

between the three means proved to be not significant.

Summary. The Olson norms and the Millard-Rothney

norms appeared to better reflect the weight patterns of the

boys in the Harvard and Holt comparisons. In the East

Lansing comparison the mid-child showed a slightly smaller

variation. The differences between means were significant

only in the Harvard comparison where the Olson norm and the
Millard-Rothney norm both reflected smaller variations than

did the mid-child, however, the difference between the

Millard-Rothney and Olson means was not significant.

Weight Variation from the Parallel

East Lansing girls. The East Lansing girls were com-

 

pared to the three standards in respect to their deviation

from parallelism. When compared to the mid-child as stan-

dard the total difference over the five year period was

367.7 pounds. The mean difference was 22.98 pounds with a

standard deviation of 11.79 pounds.

59
When the Olson norm was used as the standard the
total difference was 294.4 pounds. The mean difference was
18.4 pounds with a standard deviation of 10.4 pounds.

Compared to the Millard-Rothney norm the total dif-
ference was 294.4 pounds. The mean difference was 18.4
pounds with a standard deviation of 10.4 pounds.

Compared to the Millard-Rothney norm the total dif-
ference between the girls' weights and perfect parallelism
was 283.0 pounds. The mean difference was 17.69 pounds with
a standard deviation of 10.53 pounds.

The Millard-Rothney norm reflected the smallest total
and mean deviation in the comparisons, however, when the

three means were subject to the "t" test of Significance the

differences between them were not considered significant.

Harvard girls. When the comparison was made between

 

the weights of the twenty-one Harvard girls and the mid-
child in terms of parallelism, the total difference over
the five years was 308.3 pounds. The mean difference was
14.7 pounds with a standard deviation of 13.12 pounds.
Compared to the Olson norm the total difference was
267.3 pounds. The mean difference was 12.73 pounds with a
standard deviation of 8.06 pounds.
When the Millard-Rothney norms served as the standard
the total variation from parallelism was 270.4 pounds. The
mean variation or difference was 12.88 pounds with a stan—

dard deviation of 9.40.

60
The(nson norms showed the smallest variation by a very
mallnwrghL When the "t" test of significance was applied
thecnffemnmes between the means proved to be not signi-

ficant.

Ikflt girls. In the weight comparison of the Holt

 

ghfls totflm mid-child in terms of parallelism the total
difflnxnme over the five year period was 230.8 pounds. The
mean dififinence was 17.75 with a standard deviation of 11.05
pounds.

When the Olson norms served as the standard, the
total difference over the five years was 193.0 pounds. The
mean difference was 14.85 pounds with a standard deviation
of 9.88.

Compared to the Millard-Rothney norm the total dif—
ference was 210.0 pounds. The mean difference was 16.15

pounds with a standard deviation of 12.03 pounds.

The Olson norms reflected the smallest total and
mean variation fTom.para11elism, however, when tme'Wf'
test was eqnilied the differences between the means were

found to be not signifhxunn

Sunmuiry. When the three groups of girls were com-

 

‘pared.tx3 trma three norms in terms of parallelism, the
Milliird-Jhotkuuay reflected the smallest variation in the
East Lansing comparison while the Olson norm reflected the

smallest variation in the Harvard and Holt comparisons.

61

In the comparisons the differences between the means were

not considered significant in any instance.

East Lansing boys. The weights of the East Lansing

boys were compared to the standards in terms of parallelism.
The total five year difference between parallelism and the
cases when the mid-child served as the standard was 469.6

pounds. The mean difference was 18.06 pounds with a stan-

dard deviation of 14.17 pounds.
Compared to the Olson norm the total difference

over the five years was 513.2 pounds. The mean difference

was 19.24 pounds with a standard deviation of 16.21 pounds.
When compared to the Millard-Rothney norm the total

variation was 457.1 pounds. The mean variation was 17.58

pounds with a standard deviation of 13.96 pounds.
The Millard-Rothney norm showed the smallest mean

and total variation, however, when the three means were

subjected to the "t" test of significance the differences

were determined to be not significant.

Harvard boys. The weights of the Harvard boys were

compared to the mid-child standard in terms of parallelism.
The resulting total variation from parallelism was 179.0

pounds. The mean variation was 9.42 pounds with a standard

deviation of 3.39 pounds.

When the Harvard boys were compared to the Olson norm

in terms of‘ parallelism the total variation was 114.5 pounds.

62
The mean variation was 6.03 pounds with a standard deviation
of 3.36 pounds.

When the Millard-Rothney norm served as the standard
the variation over the five years totaled 162.8 pounds. The
mean variation was 8.57 pounds with a standard deviation of
4.49 pounds.

The Olson norm reflected the smallest total and mean
variation. The Millard-Rothney norm reflected a somewhat
greater variation and the mid-child reflected the largest
variation. When the "t" test was used to determine the
significance of the difference between the means, the dif-
ference between the mid-child and Olson means proved to be
significant at the .01 level. The difference between the
Olson mean and the Millard-Rothney mean was significant
at the .10 level. The difference between the mid-child

mean and the Millard-Rothney mean was not significant.

Holt boys. When the Holt boys' weights were compared

 

to the mid-child in terms of variation from parallelism the
total variation was 485.6 pounds. The mean variation was
16.19 pounds and the standard deviation 7.81 pounds.
Compared to the Olson norm the total variation for
the five years was 472.1 pounds. The mean variation was
15.74 pounds with a standard deviation of 11.62 pounds.
When the Millard-Rothney norm was used as the stan-
dard, the total variation was 436.5 pounds. The mean 8
variation was 14.55 pounds with a standard deviation of

11.57 pounds.

ThelMllard-Hothney norm reflected the smallest

totalznwinean variation. When the "t" test of signifi-

cance WESLwed, the differences between the three means

were not significant.

Swmmnwu The Millard-Rothney norm reflected the

smallest variation in the comparisons of the East Lansing

boys and Holt boys. In these comparisons, however, the

differences between the means were not found to be signi-

ficant. In the Harvard comparison the Olson norm reflected

the smallest variation and the difference between the Olson

and mid-child proved to be significant at the .01 level.

The difference between the Olson and Millard-Rothney means
also proved to be significant at the .10 level in the

Harvard comparison.

Summary of Weight Comparisons
In the comparisons of the children‘s weights to the

norms the Olson norms reflected the smallest mean variation

in six of the twelve comparisons. The Millard-Rothney norm

reflected the smallest variation in five of the comparisons

And the Mid-Child.standard reflected the smallest variation

in one comparison.
TWmaciifferences between the means were significant in

three of‘tflwa twelve comparisons. In two of the instances of

signifdfimuuue the Olson norm showed the smallest variation,

and i1] one ixustance of significance, the Millard-Rothney

norm showed the smallest variation.18

 

18See Chapter Vlfor tables.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The heights and weights of three groups of children,
East Lansing, Holt, and Harvard, have been compared to
three standards, the Mid-Child, the Olson-Hughes growth
ages, and the Millard-Rothney norms. The hypothesis to be
tested was that the norm which reflected the greatest con-
sistency, or the least variation would be considered as the
most realistic in terms of the growth patterns of boys and
girls. A clear cut superiority would be indicated by a
significantly lower mean variation in terms of one of the
selected standards when compared to the three groups of

children.

Girls' Height

 

Table I shows the relationship between the girls'
height measures and the three norms. Total variation
represents differences between the measures and the norm
over a five year period. The mean variation from the
parallel was slightly less for the midwchild standard in
both the East Lansing and the Holt cases. The Millard-
Rothney variation appeared smaller than the Mid-Child or

Olson norm when compared to the Harvard cases. Using the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ULmHHHz cum comao cmmZumn pcwoamacwfim cam: x
ethHHz cam eafieo-efiz cmmzump pcmofiuficwfim cmmz_e
cowgo was guano-efiz cmmapmn unmofiuficwfim cam: *

:0.H o:.H HH.H mm. as. as. mm.a mm.H mm.H coapmfi>mv ewmocmum
mm.a mm.m qw.a wom.a tmm.H *mm.fi om.m oo.m ©©.m coaumapm> and:
s.mm H.mm m.mm m.om m.mm mm m.mm o.mq m.m: nofipmfigm>

ucmsmpocfi Hmpoe
sm.a mm.H m:.H OH.H- H:.H mH.H mm.H o:.H mH.H sofipmfi>me enmecmpm
mm.H sH.m Hw.H ::.H mm.H mm.H ms.m ms.m Hm.m cofipmfiwm> new:
m.qm m.mm m.mm m.om s.mm m.Hm m.m: H.:: m.oq Hmaampma gown
_ cofipmfihm> Hapoe
ma ma ma Hm Hm Hm on ma ma mommo no pmnssz
smcnpom cowao efiaem, smccpom comfio cause smczpom comflo eafino
-etmaaaz -efiz -epmafifiz -efiz -cwmfiaaz -efiz
uaom opm>pwm wcfimcmq ummm
emonm .much

H mqmdb

66
"t” test of significance,1 the differences between the means
were not significant in any of the comparisons of the girls
height measures to the three norms in terms of variation
from the parallel.

In the comparison of height increments to the norms,
the relationship was similar to that in the preceding
paragraph. The variation was smallest for the Mid-Child
when comparison were made to the East Lansing and to the
Holt groups. When the data was compared to the Harvard
cases, the Millard-Rothney norm showed the least variation,
with the Mid-Child showing only a slightly greater vari-
ation than the Millard—Rothney norm. The differences
between means were not significant in the East Lansing and

2 However, the Millard-Rothney mean

Holt comparisons.
variation was significantly different than the Olson mean
variation at the .05 level. The difference between the

Mid-Child and bison was significant at the .10 level.3

Girls' Weight

 

Table II shows the relationships between the girls'
weight measures and the three selected standards. The test
for variation from parallelism to the norm indicated in the

Harvard and Holt comparisons that the least variation

 

1Oliver L. Lacey, Statistical Methods in Experi-
mentation (New York: MacMillan Company, 19537: p. 113.

21bid. 31bid.

_

 

67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

onwaafiz paw comao cmmzpmn unmoamacwfim Cam: x
ennfiafiz can eaano-nfiz cmmzpmn ncnOHMfican can: u
condo can eafizo-enz :mmzumn unaudmficwfim can: *
mg.© sa.o mm.m :w.m mo.m nm.ma oa.w :m.w so.s coHunH>mc enmecnum
mH.mH ms.ma mm.mH Hm.HH mm.oH om.HH awo.ofi *om.oH umm.mm cofiunann> new:
o.mmH s.msa s.msa m.smm m.smm m.s:m H.0mm n.0sm m.aom :ofiunfinn>
pcmsmpocfi Hapoe
mo.ma mw.m mo.HH oq.m oo.m ma.ma mm.oH :.oH ms.HH conpnfi>mv unnucnpm
H.0H mw.:H ms.sa mm.ma ms.mfl s.:a mm.sa :.mH mm.mm cofipnflpn> cam:
.on .mma m.omm n.0sm m.som m.mom mwm 3.3mm s.swm Hmflannnm song
cofipmfipm> Hmpoe
smcguom cowao mango smcgnom confio cance smccnom comao nanno
-etnafifiz -efiz -ennaafiz -nfiz -cnmafifiz new:
pfiom opm>pmm wcfimcmq ummm
emonz .mumHo

HH mqm<e

occurred with the Olson norm. With the East Lansing data,
the Millard-Rothney norm showed the smallest variation
figure, however, the differences between the means were not
significant in any of the comparisons. The ”t" test of

a

significance was used.
When comparisons were made by weight increments, the
Millard-Rothney norm reflected the least variation with the
East Lansing and Holt cases. The Olson norm showed the
smallest increment variation with the Harvard cases. The
"t" test showed significance in the relationships between
the means in the East Lansing comparisons, while the Harvard
and Holt relationships were not significant. With the East
Lansing cases the difference between the Millard-Rothney
mean deviation and the Mid-Child mean deviation was
significant at the .05 level. The relationship of the

Olson norm to the Mid-Child was significant at the .10
level.5

Boys' Height

 

Table 111 represents the summary of the relation-
ships between the heights of the boys in the three studies
and the three selected standards. In the test for variation
from the parallel the Mid-Child showed the least variation

with all three groups. The difference between the means

 

ulbid. 51bid.

69

ohmaafiz paw comao cmmzumn unmofimficwam com: x

ennaafis nan canno-efiz :mmzpmn pnnOfiquan can: a
conao nan canno-nfiz :mmzpmp nnnofimanwfin can: *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

emchm .mwom
HHH mamas

1| fili‘lllflmfi lllll
mm. we. we. mmm. so. mm. mH.H no.a em.a scupnn>mn unevennm
nos.a so.fi eqn.H nqo.fi *so.a umH.H oa.m om.m :H.m cofinnapn> new:
s.mm 0.0m H.m: m.Hm s.Hm m.Hm H.ms m.os m.ws sofiunfiwn>
meEmpocfi proe
mm. mm. mm. om. Hm. as. sH.H am.H om.H cofipnfi>mc enmeqnpm
use.a *sm.a spam.a nms.fi *ss.a Mm.fi sm.m no.m wm.m coannfipn> can:
o.mm o.mm m.o: m.mm .mm w.mm m.ss m.ms m.oo Hmaannmd gown
coaumfipm> Hmpoe
0m om om 0H dd ma mm mm mm names to nmnssz
smcnnom sonHo efifino smcnnom nowao eafino smcgpom conao sauce
-ennHAfiz -vfiz -nwnafifiz -efiz -ennaafiz -efiz
pm>pmm wcfincnq pnmm
stem e
lellliillllnnnnf

70
for the East Lansing comparisons were not significant. The
difference in the Harvard cases between the Mid—Child and
Millard-Rothney norms was significant at the .10 level, and
between the Mid-Child and the Olson norms the difference
was significant at the .10 level. For the Holt cases the
difference between the Mid-Child and the Olson mean variation
was significant at the .01 level. The differences between V
the Mid-Child and Millard-Rothney was significant at the
.05 level.

The height increment test gave a similar picture.
The differences between means in the East Lansing compari—
sonsvwnwanot significant. The Mid-Child showed the least
increment variations in the Harvard and Holt comparison.
In the Harvard test the relationship between the Mid-Child
and the Olson means was judged significant at the .05 level.
The relationship between the Mid-Child and the Millard-

Rothney means was also significant at the .05 level.6

Boys' Weight

 

Table IV represents the summary of the relationshnas
between the boys' weight measures and the three norms. In
terms of variation from parallelism, the Millard-Rothney
norm.showed the least variation when compared to the East
Lansing and Holt cases. However, the differences were not
significant. With the Harvard cases the Olson norm showed

the least variation. The difference between the Olson and

 

6Ibid.

71

opmafifiz new cowao cmmmen unduemficwfim cam: x
ennaafiz nan nafino-efiz cmmznmn unnonofinwfim can: a
nonao can canno-nnz cmmznmn ncnOHufiann new: *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo.m sn.m mm.m om.m ss.m sm.: Ho.m om.m om.m cofip
amfi>mo npmocmum
mm.mH ma.ma wH.mH “no.6 *mm.m .ms.mfl mq.ma oH.sH sm.mH cofipnfinn> can:
s.mmm o.mmm m.mmq «.mmH m.soH :.mqm s.moq m.::q m.mmm cofipmnpn>
pcmEmpocfi Hauoe
sm.HH m©.HH Hm.s mq.q om.m mm.m mm.mH Hm.oa sH.:H cofiunfl>mn unnecnpm
mm.nH :s.mH ma.wfi gem.m xwo.o *mq.m mm.sH :s.mH oo.mH coHuann> can:
m.om: H.ms: ©.mm: m.m@H m.:HH o.msa H.sm: m.mHm o.mo: Hmaanpna gone
soapmfipm> Hmpoe
smcnpom confio wanna smcnpom confio guano smcgpom conao vfifico
-epnaafiz -nnz -ennaafiz -efiz -npnaaaz -efiz
9m>pm wcamcmq pmmm
221 e a Ht!
1! JIIIKIIIIHIH .1

 

 

 

 

BIGHMZ . mwom
>H mqm¢e

72
Mid-Child norms was significant at the .01 level, and the
difference between the Olson and Millard-Rothney norms was
significant at the .10 level.

When comparisons were made in terms of the weight
increments the differences between the means were not signi-
ficant in the East Lansing or Holt comparisons. In respect
to the Harvard cases the difference between the Olson norms
and the Mid-Child were significant at the .01 level and the
difference between the Millard-Rothney norms and the Mid-
Child was also significant at the .01 level. The differ-

ence between the Olson and Millard-Rothney norms was not

significant.7

Conclusion for Height
The evidence indicates that the Mid-Child reflects

best the height characteristics of the boys. With both the
Harvard and Holt data where there were significant differ-
ences, the Mid-Child technique had the least variation.
The East Lansing data also showed the Mid-Child to be
slightly superior although the differences between means
were not deemed significant.8

The relationship of the girls' heights to the norms
also indicated that somewhat less variation occurred when

the Mid~£flflld.was used as the standard. In no case,

 

7Ibid. 81bid.

73
however, were the differences between mean variations
significant.

Although there is some indication that the Mid-Child
standard serves better to reflect the height growth of boys
and girls, in nine out of the twelve height comparisons
the smallest variation occurred when the Mid-Child was used
as the standard. In four of these nine comparisons the dif-
ferences between the means was considered significant. The
evidence, however, is by no means clear-cut.

Failure to show significant differences between the
mean deviations for the girls in all three comparisons as
well as the failure to show significant differences in the
comparisons with the East Lansing boys indicates that none
of the three norms consistently and significantly show
superiority. Therefore, the conclusion must be that when
the three norms were compared to three groups of children
none of them maintained sufficient consistency or sufficient

superiority to be considered the most realistic in terms

of the height patterns of boys and girls.

Conclusion for Weight

The comparisons of the weight measures of the three
ggroups of children to the three standards showed consid-
earably'less consistency than did the height measures. The
(Ilson norms showed a slightly smaller deviation when the
rmnnn was compared to the Harvard and Holt girls using the

test;.for parallelism. The Millard-Rothney norm showed

74
slightly less variation when compared to the East Lansing
girls. None of the differences between means were consid-
ered significant according to the "t" test.10

In the increment test for girls the Millard-Rothney
norm showed the least deviation when compared to the East
Lansing girls and the Holt girls. The Olson norm showed
the least deviation when compared to the Harvard cases.

The difference between the Millard-Rothney mean and the Mid-
Child was significant at the .05 level in the East Lansing
comparison. All other differences were not significant.

When the three groups of boys were compared to the
weight standards, lack of consistency was again evident.

In terms of parallelism, the deviations were smallest for
the Millard—Rothney norm when compared to the East Lansing
and Harvard cases. The Olson norm showed the least
deviation when compared to the Harvard boys. The difference
between means was not significant in the East Lansing and
Holt tests. But in the Harvard check the difference between
Olson and the Mid-Child was significant at the .01 level,
and between Olson and Millard at the .10 level.11

Using the increment method of comparison the Mid-
Child showed slightly less deviation than Olson and Millard
ixl‘the East Lansing comparison but the differences were not
significant. Compared to the Harvard cases both the

lmtllardeRothney norms and the Olson norm showed less

 

lOIbid. lllbid.

*

 

75
variation than the Mid-Child. The differences were signi-
ficant at the .01 level. The difference between the Olson
and Rothney norms was slight and not significant. In the
Holt comparison the Olson norm showed slightly less vari-
ation than the other two but the difference was not
significant.

The evidence from the weight comparisons indicated
that the Millard-Rothney and the Olson-Hughes norms both
reflected the growth patterns of boys and girls better
than did the Mid-Child, however, none of the norms showed
consistent and significant superiority. Under those cir-
cumstances the only possible conclusion must be that there

is no significant difference between the three weight norms.

Final Conclusion

Since this study indicates that neither the Mid-
Child, the Olson-Hughes growth ages, nor the Millard-Rothney
.norms maintained a superiority in reflecting the height and
vwaight changes in boys and girls, and since it can be seen
by inspection that the differences between the three stan-
daiwis at any single point can be as great as two inches or
:Rive pounds,12 it must also be concluded that comparisons
to auiy of the three norms are but very general estimates.

The norms tested in this study did not meet the

inumortant criteria for an acceptable standard, that it must

 

l2Cf. ante, p. 5.

 

\1
O“\

provide a consistent base for comparison, therefore, for
precise interpretations of individual growth trends better

standards must be developed or other methods of analysis

employed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baldwin, Bird T. "Physical Growth of Children from Birth
to Maturity," University of Iowa, Studies in Child
Welfare, 1, No. 1 (19211.

 

 

 

Baldwin, Bird T., T. D. Wood, and R. M. Woodbury. Weight—
Height-Age Tables for Boys and Girls of School Age.
New York: American Child Health Association, 1923.

Bayer, T. M. and Horace Gray. "Plotting of a Graphic Record
of Growth for Children, Aged from One to Nineteen
Years," American Journal Diseases of Children, 50

(1935), pp I368-1417.

 

 

Bayley, Nancy and Harold Carter. Physical Growth Section,
Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Edited by
Walter S. Monroe. Revised edition. New York:
MacMillen Company, 1950, pp. 153-156.

 

Benedict, Ruth. Patterns of Culture. New York: Mentor
Books, 1934.

 

Clark, Grace. “Differences in Measurement Made in the Nude
and Clothed Children Between 7-9 Years of Age,"
Child Development, I (1930), pp, 343-3u5,

Clark, H. Harrison. The Application of Measurement to
Health and Physical Education. New York: Prentice-

Hall, Inc., 1945.

 

 

Conrad, Herbert S. Section on Norms, Encyclopedia of Edu-
cational Research. Edited by Walter S. Monroe.

 

Revised edition. New York: Macmillen Company, 1950,

pp. 795-801.

(Rmxrtis, Stuart A. "Marking Experiment Bulletin No. 5 The
Status Index." Mimeographed paper, Detroit, 1953.

A_*. "Personalized Statistics in Education," School
and Society, May 1955, p. 171.

 

 

. "Toward a Science of Education." Unpublished
mimeographed booklet, Detroit, 1951.

 

. "The Status Index as a Measure of Individual
—" Differences," The Twelfth Yearbook of the National
Council on Measurements Used in Ed ducation, Part II

(1955), pp. 61- 67.

 

 

 

79

Dearborn, Walter F. and John W. Rothney. Predicting the
Child‘s Development. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Selence Arts Publications, 1941.

 

Dearborn, Walter F., John W. Rothney, and Frank K.
Shuttleworth. "Data on the Mental and Physical
Growth of Public School Children," Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, III,

 

 

 

No. l (1938).
DeLong, Arthur R. "The Relative Usefulness of Longitudinal
and Cross-sectional Data." From a mimeographed copy

of a paper presented to the Michigan Academy of
Science, Arts, and Letters, March 26, 1955.

Frank, Lawrence K. Projective Methods. Springfield,
Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1948.

Gray, Horace. "Weight-Height-Age Tables for American
Adults and Children," The Cyclopedia of Medicine
(sec. ed.), XV (1940), pp. I052-I060.

Huggett, Albert J. and Cecil V. Millard. Growth and
Learning in the Elementary School. Boston: D. C.
Heath and Company, 1946.

 

Hurlock, Elizabeth B. Child Development. Boston: D. C.
Heath and Company, 1950.

Jersild, Arthur T. Child Psychology. New York: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1945.

Kallner, A. "Growth Curves and Growth Types," Annals
Pediatrics, 177 (August, 1951), pp. 83-102.

 

Kretschmer, Ernest. "Physique and Character: An Investi-
gation of the Nature of the Constitution and of the
Theory of Temperment." Translated from the rev. and
enl. ed. by W. J. H. Sprott. New York: Harcourt
Brace Company, 1926. Pp. XIV, 266, 20734.

Krogman, Marion Wilton. "A Handbook of the Measurement and
. Interpretation of Height and Weight in the Growing
Child," Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, XIII, No. 48(1948), pp. 61-63.

 

Lacey, Cfliver L. Statistical Methods in Experimentation.
New York: MacMillan Company, 1953.

Maridxi, W. Edgar. Basic Body Measurements of School Age
Children. United States Department 3? Healtfi,
Education, and Welfare. Washington, D.C.: Office

of Education, 1953.

 

80

Martin, W. Edgar. Children's Body Measurements for Planning
and Equipping Schools. United States Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. Washington, D. C.:
Office of Education, 1955.

 

Massler, Maury and Theodore Suher. "Calculations of 'Normal'
Weight in Children by Means of Monograms Based on
Selected Anthropometric Measurements," Child Develop-

ment, 22 (June 1951), pp. 75-94.

McCloy, Charles H. "Appraising Physical Status: Methods
and Norms,“ University of Iowa Studies, XV, No. 2

(1938), pp. 1 -

. "Appraising Physical Status the Selection of
Measurements," University of Iowa Studies, XII,
No. 2 (March 15, I936).

 

 

 

Millard, Cecil V. Child Growth and Development. Boston:
D. C. Heath and Company, 1951.

. School and Child, A Case History. East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State College Press, 1954.

 

 

 

Millard, Cecil V. and John W. Rothney. The Elementary
School Child, A Book of Cases. New York: Dryden
Press, 1957. '

 

Merideth, Howard V. "Anthropometric Measurements on Iowa
City White Males Ranging in Age Between Birth and
Eighteen Years," University of Iowa Studies, XI,
No. 3 (February 1935).

 

"Body Size Norms for Children Four to Eight 3
Years of Age," Journal of Pediatrics, 37 (August 1940),

pp. 183-189.

Merqdjld Margaret. "The Relationship of Individual Growth
to Average Growth," Human Biology, 3 (1931), pp. 37-70.

 

Olson, Willard C. Child Development. Boston: D. C. Heath
and Company, 1949.

 

Olson, Willard C. and Byron 0. Hughes. Manual for the
Description of Growth in Age Units. ‘UniverSIty of
Michigan Elementary SchodL Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Edwards Letter Shop, 1950.

 

Phnsch, Reuben R. "The Cyclic Pattern of Height Growth from
Birth to Maturity." Unpublished PhD. thesis,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,

1956.

81

Shuttleworth, Frank K. "The Physical and Mental Growth of

Stuart,

Wetzel,

Girls and Boys Age Six to Nineteen in Relation to
Age at Maximum Growth," Monographs for Research in
Child Development, IV, No. 3 Washington, D. C.:

19397

H. C. and H. V. Merideth. "Use of Body Measurements
in the School Program," American Journal of Public

Health, 36 (1946), pp. 365-386.

 

 

Norman C. "Physical Fitness in Terms of Physique,
Development, and Basal Metabolism: With a Guide to
Individual Progress from Infancy to Maturity: a
New Method for Evaluation," Journal of the American
Medical Association, 116 (19417,_pp.“1365?1386.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

MILLARD-ROTHNEY NORMS*
Child Development Laboratory--Michigan State University

GIRLS - WEIGHT AGE SCALE

 

 

 

weight Wt. Weight Wt. Weight Wt.
Pounds Age Pounds Age Pounds Age
10. 1 32.6 37 46.3 73
11.5 2 33.2 38 46.6 74
13.0 3 33.7 39 47.0 75
14.2 4 34.0 40 47.6 76
15.5 5 34.3 41 48.0 77
16.3 6 34.8 42 48.4 78
17.0 7 35.2 43 48.8 79
18.0 8 35.7 44 49.5 80
19.0 9 36.0 45 50.0 81
20.0 10 36.3 46 50.3 82
20.5 11 37.0 47 50.6 83
20.8 12 37.3 48 51.0 84
22.0 13 37.8 49 51.5 85
22.4 14 38.2 50 52.0 86
23.0 15 38.5 51 52.4 87
23.8 16 38.8 52 52.8 88
24.2 17 39.0 53 53.2 89
25.0 18 39.3 54 53.8 90
25.5 19 39.8 55 54.1 91
26.0 20 39.0 56 54.3 92
26.4 21 39.3 57 54.6 93
27.0 22 40.2 58 55.3 94
27.5 23 40.7 59 55.8 95
27.6 24 41.2 60 56.0 96
28.2 25 41.8 61 56.5 97
28.4 26 42.1 62 57.0 98
28.8 27 42.3 63 58.0 99
29.2 28 42.6 64 58.3 100
29.7 29 42.9 65 58.6 101
30.2 30 43.4 66 59.0 102
30.5 31 43.8 67 59.4 103
30.9 32 44.2 68 60.0 104
31.4 33 44.6 69 60.3 105
32.0 34 45.2 70 60.6 106
32.3 35 45.7 71 61.0 107
32.4 36 46.0 72 61.5 108

! J.

*Computed with the assistance of data from the United
EStates Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, June,
1953, Washington, D. C.

Girls - Weight Age Scale --(Continued)

84

 

 

Weight Wt. Weight Wt. Weight Wt.
Pounds Age Pounds Age Pounds Age
62.2 109 90.6 145 115.0 181
63.0 110 91.6 146 115.5 182
63.5 111 92.4 147 115.8 183
64.0 112 93.0 148 116.0 184
64.5 113 94.0 149 116.2 145
65.0 114 95.0 150 116.4 186
65.5 115 96.0 151 116.5 187
66.0 116 97.0 152 116.6 188
66.5 117 98.0 153 116.7 189
67.2 118 99.0 154 116.8 190
68.0 119 99.8 155 116.9 191
68.6 120 100.4 156 117.0 192
69.4 121 101.0 157 117.1 193
70.2 122 102.0 158 117.2 194
71.0 123 102.7 159 117.3 195
71.8 124 103.5 160 117.4 196
72.4 125 104.2 161 117.5 197
73.0 126 105.0 162 117.6 198
74.0 127 106.0 163 117.7 199
75.0 128 106.5 164 117.8 200
76.0 129 107.0 165 117.9 201
77.0 130 107.5 166 118.0 202
78.0 131 108.0 167 118.1 203
79.0 132 108.5 168 118.2 204
80.0 133 109.0 169 118.3 205
81.0 134 109.5 170 118.4 206
81.6 135 110.0 171 118.5 207
82.0 136 110.5 172 118.6 208
82.8 137 111.0 173 118.7 209
83.8 138 111.5 174 118.8 210
84.4 139 112.0 175 118.9 211
85.8 140 112.5 176 119.0 212
87.0 141 113.0 177 119.0 213
88.0 142 113.5 178 119.0 214
89.0 143 114.0 179 119.0 215
90.0 144 114 5 180 119.0 216

I

 

GIRLS - HEIGHT AGE SCALE*

 

 

Height Ht. Height Ht. Height Ht.
Inches Age Inches Age Inches Age
21.5 1 38.0 37 46.0 73
22.5 2 38.3 38 46.2 74
23.2 3 38.6 39 46.3 75
24.0 4 38.9 40 46.5 76
24.6 5 39.2 41 46.7 77
25.5 6 39.4 42 46.9 78
26.0 7 39.7 43 47 1 79
26.8 8 39.9 44 47 3 80
27.3 9 40.1 45 47 4 81
28.0 10 40.3 46 47.5 82
28.5 11 40.5 47 47.6 83
29.2 12 40.7 48 47 7 84
29.4 13 41.0 49 47.8 85
29.8 14 41.2 50 47.9 86
30.2 15 41.4 51 48.0 87
30.4 16 41.7 52 48.1 88
30.6 17 42.0 53 48.3 89
30.8 18 42.2 54 48.5 90
31.4 19 42.4 55 48.7 91
31.8 20 42.6 56 48.9 92
32.2 21 42.8 57 49.1 93
32.7 22 43.0 58 49 3 94
33.0 23 43.2 59 49.5 95
33.5 24 43.5 60 49.7 96
33.8 25 43.7 61 49.9 97
34.2 26 43.9 62 50 1 98
34.5 27 44.1 63 50 3 99
34.8 28 44.3 64 50 5 100
35.2 29 44.5 65 50 7 101
35.7 30 44.7 66 50 9 102
36.0 31 44.9 67 51 1 103
36.3 32 45.1 68 51 3 104
36.6 33 45.2 69 51 5 105
37.0 34 45.3 70 51 7 106
37.3 35 45.5 71 51 9 107
37.7 36 45.8 72 52 0 108

 

*Computed with the assistance of data from the United
Eitates Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, June
1953” Washington, D. C.

Girls - Height Age Scale (Continued)

 

 

 

Height Ht. Height Ht. Height Ht.
Inches Age Inches Age Inches Age
52.1 109 59. 145 63.3 181
52.2 110 59.2 146 63.3 182
52.3 111 59.4 147 63.4 183
52.5 112 59.6 148 63.4 184
52.7 113 59.8 149 63.4 185
52.9 114 60.0 150 63.5 186
53.1 115 60.2 151 63.5 187
53.3 116 60.4 152 63.6 188
5 .5 117 60.6 153 63.6 189
53.7 118 60.8 154 63.6 190
53.9 119 60.9 155 63.7 191
54.1 120 61.0 156 63.7 192
54.3 121 61.1 157 63.8 193
54.5 122 61.2 158 63.8 194
54.7 123 61.3 159 63.8 195
54.9 124 61.4 160 63.8 196
55.1 125 61.5 161 63.8 197
55.2 126 61.6 162 63.8 198
55.4 127 61.7 163 63.8 199
55.6 128 61.8 164 63.8 200
55.8 129 62.0 165 63.8 201
56.0 130 62.1 166 63.8 202
56.2 131 62.3 167 63.8 203
56.4 132 62.5 168 63.9 204
56.6 133 62.6 169 63.9 205
56.8 134 62.7 170 63.9 206
57.0 135 62.8 171 63.9 207
57.2 136 62.9 172 63.9 208
57.4 137 63.0 173 63.9 209
57.6 138 63.1 174 63.9 210
57.8 139 63.1 175 63.9 211
58.0 140 63.2 176 63.9 212
58.2 141 63.2 177 63.9 213
58.4 142 63.2 178 63.9 214
58.6 143 63.3 179 63.9 215
58.8 144 63.3 180 63.9 216

 

 

 

- WEIGHT AGE SCALE

87

 

 

 

Weight Wt. Weight Wt. Weight Wt.
Pounds Age Pounds Age Pounds Age
13.2 1 34.2 37 47.0 73
14.2 2 34.5 38 47.4 74
15.0 3 35.0 39 48.0 75
16.1 4 35.2 40 48.4 76
17.0 5 35.6 41 48.7 77
17.9 6 35.8 42 49.2 78
19.0 7 36.0 43 49.8 79
19.2 8 36.2 44 50.2 80
20.5 9 36.5 45 50.5 81
21.4 10 36,8 46 50.8 82
22.0 11 37.2 47 51.2 83
23.0 12 37.4 48 51.7 84
23.8 13 37.8 49 52.2 85
24.2 14 38.0 50 52.5 86
25.0 15 38.2 51 52.8 87
25.5 16 38.4 52 53.2 88
26.0 17 38.8 53 53.8 89
26.3 18 39.2 54 54.4 90
27.0 19 39.5 55 54.8 91
27.5 20 39.8 56 55.2 92
28.0 21 40.2 57 55.8 93
28.4 22 40.5 58 56.4 94
29.0 23 41.0 59 57.0 95
29.4 24 41.4 60 57.8 96-
30.0 25 41.8 61 58.4 97
30.2 26 42.2 62 59.0 98
30.5 27 42.4 63 59.8 99
31.0 28 42.8 64 60.4 100
31.4. 29 43.2 65 61.0 101
31.8 30 43.8 66 61.8 102
32.2 31 44.2 67 62.2 103
32.5 32 44.8 68 62.5 104
33.0 33 45.2 69 62.9 105
33.4 34 45.8 70 63.2 106
33.8 35 46.2 71 64.0 107
.34.0 36 46.8 72 64.4 108

 

 

.1 xvhomAh-A— L~

Boys — Weight Age Scale (Continued)

88

 

 

 

Weight Wt. Weight Wt. Weight Wt.
Pounds Age Pounds Age Pounds Age
64.8 109 85.2 145 122.8 181
65.6 110 85.8 146 124.0 182
66.2 111 86.4 147 125.0 183
67.0 112 87.0 148 126.0 184
67.6 113 88.0 149 127.0 185
68.2 114 89.2 150 128.0 186
68.6 115 90.0 151 129.0 187
69.4 116 91.0 152 130.0 188
69.8 117 92.0 153 130.5 189
70.2 118 92.8 154 131.0 190
70.4 119 93.8 155 131.5 191
71.0 120 94.0 156 132.0 192
71.4 121 95.5 157 132.5 193
71.8 122 96.8 158 133.0 194
72.2 123 98.0 159 133.8 195
72.5 124 99.4 160 134.4 196
73.0 125 100.2 161 135.0 197
73.6 126 101.4 162 136.0 198
74.2 127 102.4 163 137.0 199
74.6 128 103.6 164 137.5 200
75.2 129 104.6 165 138.0 201
75.8 130 106.0 166 138.5 202
76.2 131 107.0 167 139.0 203
76.8 132 108.2 168 139.5 204
77.2 133 109 0 169 140.0 205
77.6 134 110.0 170 140.5 206
78.2 135 111.0 171 141.0 207
78.6 136 112.2 172 141.5 208
79.2 137 113.4 173 142.0 209
80.0 138 114.8 174 142.5 210
80.8 139 116 0 175 143.0 211
81.6 140 117.4 176 143.4 212
82.6 141 118.2 177 143.7 213
83.2 142 119.8 178 144.0 214-
84.0 143 120.4 179 144.5 215
84.8 144 121.6 180 145.0 216

 

 

89

BOYS - HEIGHT AGE SCALE*

 

 

 

Height Ht. Height Ht. Height ‘ Ht.
Inches Age Inches Age Inches Age
22.5 1 38.5 37 46.2 73
23 2 38.8 38 46.4 74
24 3 39.0 39 46.7 75
24.5 4 39.2 40 46.9 76
25 5 39.4 41 . 47.0 77
26 6 39.6 42 47.3 78
26.5 7 39.7 43 47.5 79
27 8 39.9 44 47.7 80
27.5 9 40.1 45 48.0 81
28.2 10 40.2 46 48.2 82
29 11 40 4 47 48.4 83
29.4 12 40 6 48 48.6 84
30. 13 40.8 49 48.8 85
30.2 14 40.9 50 49.0 86
30.8 15 41 0 51 49.2 87
31.2 16 41 1 52 49.5 88
31.8 17 41 3 53 49.7 89
32.4 18 41 8 54 49.9 90
32.8 19 42 0 55 50 1 91
33 20 42 3 56 50 3 92
33.5 21 42 5 57 5o 5 93
34 22 42 9 58 50 7 94
34.5 23 43.1 59 50 9 95
34.8 24 43.4 60 51 0 96
35 25 43 5 61 51 1 97
35.4 26 43.8 62 51 3 98
35.5 27 44.1 63 51 4 99
35.8 28 44 3 64 51 5 100
36.2 29 44.5 65 51 7 101
36.5 30 44.8 66 52 0 102
36.8 31 44.9 67 52 2 103
37 32 45.1 68 52 3 104
37.4 33 45 5 69 52 4 105
37.6 34 45 7 70 52.5 106
38 35 45.8 71 52.7 107
38.2 36 46.0 72 52 8 108

 

*Computed with the assistance of data from the United
Stnites Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, June
1953, Washington, D. C.

 

 

V 1 171.114.!Illlll (.-.l I

.11. ,ulli. lit-LIT... ‘Iv

Boys - Height Age Scale (Continued)

9O

 

 

 

Height Ht. Height Ht. Height Ht.
Inches Age Inches Age Inches Age
52.9 109 58.2 145 65.8 181
53.0 110 58.4 146 66.0 182
53.2 111 58.6 147 66.1 183
53.4 112 59.0 148 66.3 184
53.6 113 59.1 149 66.4 185
53.8 114 59.3 150 66.6 186
54.0 115 5 .6 151 66.8 187
54.1 116 59.8 152 66.9 188
54.2 117 60.0 153 67.0 189
54.3 118 60.2 154 67.1 190
54.4 119 60.4 155 67.2 191
54.5 120 60.5 156 67.4 192
54.7 121 60.7 157 67.5 193
54.9 122 60.9 158 67.6 194
55.0 123 61.0 159 67.7 195
55.1 124 61.2 160 67.8 196
55.2 125 61.4 161 67.9 197
55.3 126 61.5 162 68.0 198
55.5 127 62.0 163 68.1 199
55.6 128 62.1 164 68.2 200
55.7 129 62.2 165 68.3 201
55.8 130 62.5 166 68.4 202
55.9 131 62.8 167 68.5 203
56.0 132 63.0 168 68.6 204
56.1 133 63.5 169 68.7 205
56.2 134 63.6 170 68.8 206
56.3 135 63.8 171 68.9 207
56.4 136 64.0 172 69.0 208
5 .6 137 64.2 173 69.05 209
56.8 138 64.4 174 69.1 210
57.0 139 64.6 175 69.15 211
57.2 140 64.8 176 69.2 212
57.4 141 65.0 177 69.25 213
57.6 142 65.2 178 69.50 214
57.8 143 65.5 179 69.55 215
58.0 144 65.7 180 69.6 216

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

OLSON-HUGHES NORMS

WEIGHT AGES FOR BOYS*

 

 

 

 

Arbor; University Elementary School, 1950.

Wt. in Wt. in Wt. in Wt. in .
Lbs. Age Lbs. Age Lbs. Age Lbs. Age
26.3 24 41.0 69 63.3 114 90.7 159
26.6 25 41.6 70 63.8 115 91.5 160
26.9 26 42.3 71 64.2 116 92.3 161
27.2 27 42.9 72 64.6 117 93.1 162
27.6 28 43.5 73 65.0 118 94.0 163
28.0 29 44.1 74 65.4 119 94.8 164
28.4 30 44.8 75 65.9 120 95.6 165
28.8 31 45.5 76 66.4 121 96.4 166
29.2 32 46.1 77 66.9 122 97.2 167
29.6 33 46.7 78 67.3 123 98.1 168
30.0 34 47.3 79 67.8 124 99.0 169
30.4 35 48.0 80 68.g 125 100.0 170
30.8 36 48.6 81 68. 126 101.0 171
31.1 37 49.2 82 69.3 127 102.0 172
31.4 38 49.8 83 69.8 128 103.0 173
31.6 39 50.4 84 70.3 129 104.0 174
32.0 40 50.8 85 70.8 130 105.0 175
32.4 41 '51.1 86 71.4 131 106.0 176
32.9 42 51.4 87 71.9 132 107.0 177
33.2 43 51.7 88 72.5 133 108.0 178
33.6 44 52.1 89 73.0 134 109.0 179
34.0 45 52.4 90 73.5 135 110.0 180
34.3 46 52.7 91 74.0 136 111.0 181
34.6 47 53.0 92 74.6 137 112.0 182
34.9 48 53.4 93 75.1 138 112.8 183
35.0 49 53.7 94 75.6 139 113.6 184
35.1 50 54.1 95 76.1 140 114.4 185
35.2 51 54.4 96 76.7 141 115.2 186
35.4 52 54.9 97 77.3 142 116.2 187
35.6 53 55.4 98 77.8 143 117.2 188
35.8 54 55.9 99 78.3 144 118.2 189
36.2 55 56.5 100 79.1 145 119.2 190
36.7 56 57.0 101 80.0 146 120.2 191
37.1 57 57.5 102 80.8 147 121.2 , 192
37.4 58 58.0 103 81.7 148 122.0 193
37.7 59 58.5 104 82.5 149 122.8 194
37.9 60 59.0 105 83.3 150 123.6 195
38.0 61 59.5 106 84.1 151 124.4 196
38.0 62 60.1 107 84.9 152 125.2 197
38.1 63 60.6 108 85.8 153 126.0 198
38.8 64 61.0 109 86.6 154 126.8 199
39.5 65 61.5 110 87.5 155 127.6 200
40.2 66 62.0 111 88.3 156 128.4 201
40.5 67 62.4 112 89.1 157 129.2 202
40.7 68 62.8 113 89.9 158 130.0 203
130.5 204
—7* EErom "Manual for the Description of Growth in Age Units,"

WEIGHT AGES FOR GIRLS

92

 

 

 

Wt. in Wt. in Wt. in Wt.
Lbs. Age Lbs. Age Lbs. Age Lbs Age
24.6 24 37.1 64 58.8 104 83.7 144
25.0 25 37.3 65 59.4 105 84.7 145
25.4 26 37.6 66 60.0 106 85.8 146
25.8 27 38.0 67 60.6 107 86.8 147
26.1 28 38.5 68 61.2 108 87.9 148
26.5 29 38.9 69 61.8 109 88.9 149
26.9 30 39.4 70 62.5 110 90.0 150
27.2 31 39.8 71 63.1 111 91.0 151
27.6 32 40.3 72 63.8 112 92.1 152
27.9 33 41.2 73 64.4 113 93.1 153
28.2 34 42.0 74 65.1 114 94.2 154
28.5 35 42.8 75 65.7 115 95.2 155
28.8 36 43.6 76 66.4 116 96.3 156
29.3 37 44.5 77 67.1 117 97.1 157
29.7 38. 45.3 78. 67.8 118 97.9 158
30.2 39 46.1 79 68.5 119 98.7 159
30.5 40 46.9 80 69.2 120 99.5 160
30.8 41 47.7 81 69.7 121 100.3 161
31.0 42 48.5 82 70.3 122 101.1 162
31.2 43 49.3 83 70.8 123 101.9 163
31.3 44 50.2 84 71.4 124 102 7 164
31.5 45 50.5 85 71.9 125 103.5 165
31.7 46 50.8 86 72.5 126 104.3 166
32.0 47 51.1 87 73.0 127 105.1 167
32.2 48 51.4 88 73.6 128 106.0 168
32.6 49 51.7 89 74.1 129 107.0 169
33.1 50 52.0 90 74.7 130 108.0 170
33.6 51 52.3 91 75.2 131 109.0 171
33.7 52 52.6 92 75.8 132 110.0 172
33.9 53 52.9 93 76.5 133 111.0 173
34.0 54 53.2 94 77.1 134 112.0 174
34.5 55 53.5 95 77.8 135 113.0 175
35.0 56 53.8 96 78.4 136 114.0 176
35.4 57 54.5 97 79.0 137 115.0 177
35.6 58 55.1 98 79.6 138 116 0 178
35.8 59 55.7 99 80.3 139 117.0 179
36.1 60 56.3 100 81.0 140 118.0 180
36.3 61 56.9 101 81.7 141 119.5 183
36.6 62 57.6 102 82.4 142 121.0 186
36.8 63 58.2 103 83.0 143 122.0 189
123.0 192
124.0 204

 

HEIGHT AGES FOR BOYS

93

 

 

Ht. in Ht, Ht. Ht. Ht. in Ht. Ht. in Ht.
Inches Age Inches Age Inches Age Inches Age
33.8 24 44.0 69 52.4 114 60.1 159
34.1 25 44.5 70 52.6 115 60.3 160
34.4 26 45.0 71 52.8 116 60.5 161
34.6 27 45.4 72 52.9 117 60.7 162
34.8 28 45.6 73 53.1 118 60.9 163
35.0 29 45.8 74 53.3 119 61.1 164
35.2 30 46.0 75 53.5 120 61.3 165
35.5 31 46.2 76 53.6 121 61.5 166
35.9 32 46.4 77 53.8 122 61.7 167
36.2 33 46.6 78 53.9 123 61.9 168
36.4 34 46.8 79 54.1 124 62.1 169
36.6 35 47.0 80 54.2 125 62.3 170
36.9 36 47.2 81 54.3 126 62.5 171
37.2 37 47.4 82 54.4 127 62.7 172
37.4 38 47.6 83 54.5 128 62.9 173
37.6 39 47.9 84 54.7 129 63.1 174
37.9 40 48.0 85 54.8 130 63.5 175
38.2 41 48.2 86 55.0 131. 63.7 176
38.4 42 48.3 87 55.2 132 63.9 177
38.6 43 48.5 88 55.3 133 64.1 178
38.9 44 48.6 89 55.4 134 64.2 179
39.1 45 48.8 90 55.6 135 64.3 180
39.2 46 48.9 91 55.7 136 64.5 181
39.2 47 49.1 92 55.9 137 64.7 182
39.3 48 49.2 93 56.1 138 64.9 183
39.5 49 49.4 94 56.3 139 65.1 184
39.8 50 49.5 95 56.4 140 65.3 185
40.1 51 49.7 96 56.5 141 65.5 186
40.3 52 49.8 97 56.6 142 65.7 187
40.5 53 49.9 98 56.8 143 65.9 188
40.7 54 50.1 99 57.0 144 66.1 189
41.0 55 50.2 100 57.2 145 66.3 190
41.3 56 50.3 101 57.4 146 66.5 191
41.6 57 50.5 102 57.6 147 66.8 192
41.7 58 50.6 103 57.8 148 66.9 193
41.8 59 50.7 104 58.0 149 67.0 194
42.0 60 50.9 105 58.3 150 67.1 195
42.1 61 51.0 106 58.5 151 67.2 196
42.1 62 51.2 107 58.7 152 67.3 197
42.2 63 51.3 108 58.9 153 67.4 198
42.6 64 51.4 109 59.2 154 67.5 199
43.0 65 51.6 110 59.4 155 67.6 200
43.3 66 51.8 111 59.6 156 67.7 201
43.5 67 52.0 112 59.8 157 67.8 202
43.7 68 52.2 113 60.0 158 67.9 203
68.0 204

 

HEIGHT AGES FOR GIRLS

 

 

 

 

Ht. in Ht. Ht. in Ht. Ht. in Ht. Ht. in Ht.
Inches "Age Inches Age Inches Age Inches Age
33.0 24 42.3 64 50.3 104 57.5 144
33.3 25 42.3 65 50.5 105 57.6 145
33.7 26 42.4 66 50.6 106 57.8 146
34.1 27 42.6 67 50.8 107 58.0 147
34.4 28 42.8 68 51.0 108 58.2 148
34.6 29 42.9 69 51.3 109 58.4 149
34.9 30 43.2 70 51.5 110 58.6 150
35.2 31 43.4 71 51.7 111 58.8 151
35.5 32 43.7 72 51.9 112 59.0 152
35.7 33 43.9 73 52.1 113 59.2- 153
35.9 34 44.1 74 52.3 114 59.4 154
36.2 35 44.3 75 52.5 115 59.6 155
36.4 36 44.6 76 52.7 116 59.8 156
36.7 37 44.9 77 52.9 117 60.0 157
36.9 38 45.3 78 53.1 118 60.1 158
37.1 39 45.7 79 53.3 119 60.3 159
37.3 40 46.0 80 53.6 120 60.4 160
37.5 41 46.4 81 53.8 121 60.6 161
37.8 42 46.7 82 53.9 122 60.7 162
38.0 43 ' 47.0 83 54.1 123 60.9 163
38.3 44 47.4 84 54.2 124 61.0 164
38.5 45 47.6 85 54.3 125 61.2 165
38.7 46 47.7 86 54.5 126 61.4 166
39.0 47 47.9 87 54.7 127 61.6 167
39.3 48 48.0 88 54.9 128 61.8 168
39.5 49 48.2 89 55.0 129 61.9 169
39.6 50 48.3 90 55.2 130 62.0 170
39.8 51 48.5 91 55.3 131 62.1 171
40.0 52 48.6 92 55.5 132 62.3 172
40.2 53 48.7 93 55.6 133 62.4 173
40.4 54 48.8 94 55.8. 134 62.5 174
40.7 55 49.0 95 56.0 135 62.6 175
41.0 56 49.1 96 56.1 136 62.7 176
41.2 57 49.2 97 56.3 137 62.8 177
41.3 58 49.4 98 56.4 138 62.9 178
41.5 59 49.5 99 56.6 139 63.0 179
41.7 60 49.7 100 56.8 140 63.1 180
41.9 61 49.8 101 57.0 141 63.3 183
42.0 62 50.0 102 57.2 142 63.4 186
42.2 63 50.1 103 57.3 143 63.6 189
63.7 192
63.8 204
64.0
65
66
67
68
69

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ll

 

mellTlWINllHSIWIIIIHWWW)" WIS
31293 03056 BSLZ