A STUDY OF THE BEGINNING AND END POINTS OF THE ADOLESCENT CYCLE OF GROWTH IN HEIGHT, SKELETAL AGE, AND MENTAL AGE OF EIG-HTY-FOUR GIRLS OF THE THIRD HARVARD STUDY Thests Tor the Degree of ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Charles M. Greenshields 1958 mllHWfllljflllflllflllwlllWW \ & one- i 1 This is to certifg that the I thesis entitled A study of the Beginning and End Points of the Adolescent Cycle of Growth in Height, Skeletal Age, and Mental Age of Eighty—four I MflsoftMTmhdewmdSUMy presented by Charles Martin Greenshields has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .D. degree mm Major professor Date W— I 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University Wei 1" \ Wing.) .' . 11‘ MAR 163230! 4 Me OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to remove charge from circulation records A STUDY OF THE BEGINNING AND END POINTS OF THE ADOLESCENT CYCLE OF GROWTH IN HEIGHT, SKELETAL AGE, AND MENTAL AGE OF EIGHTY-FOUR GIRLS OF THE THIRD HARVARD STUDY by Charles M. Greenshields AN ABSTRACT 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 PHILOSOPHY Department of Foundations of Education 1958 Approved fl/ ktxéJ‘A—KQL 2 CHARLES M. GREENSHIELDS ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to examine the relation- ships between growth in height, skeletal age, and mental age in the adolescent cycle of growth at the beginning, at the end, and further, to examine the relationships between the beginning and end points of the adolescent cycle of growth in each of the three growths. The rates and incipiencies of both the adolescent and pre-adolescent cycle were exam- ined to demonstrate the individuality and concordance of growth of the individual. For this study, eighty-four girls were selected from the Harvard data. Courtis equations were computed, des— cribing two cycles of growth, for the three aspects of development in order to determine the rates, incipiencies, beginning points and the end points for each. Product moment coefficients of correlation were com- puted to discover the degree of relationship between the beginning points of growth in the adolescent cycle; the end points of growth in the adolescent cycle; and the beginning and end points of growth in each of the three growths. The following hypotheses were tested: 1. Beginning times of the adolescent cycle in height, skeletal age, and mental age would show a statistically significant relationship with each other. This hypothesis was not supported. 3 CHARLES M. GREENSHIELDS ABSTRACT 2. End points of the adolescent cycle in height, skeletal age, and mental age would show a statistically significant relationship with each other. Except for the relationship between height and skeletal age, this hypoth- esis was not supported. 3. The correlations at the beginning time of devel- opment in adolescence would be larger than the correlations at the end point of the cycle. This hypothesis was not supported. 4. The correlation between the beginning point and the end point within a growth would be statistically signif- icant for all three growths. This hypothesis was supported. In height the relationship was positive and in skeletal age and mental age the relationship was negative. To demonstrameconcordancecfi‘growth a test of the significance of the differences, using a non-parametric statistic, was done on the rates and incipiencies of the three growths. The following hypothesis was tested: 1. The variance between height, skeletal age, and mental age within the individual would not be statistically significant in terms of: a. rates of development in the pre—adolescent cycle; (This was supported.) b. rates of development in the adolescent cycle; (This was not supported.) )4 CHARLES M. GREENSHIELDS ABSTRACT c. incipiencies of the pre-adolescent cycle; (This was supported.) d. incipiencies of the adolescent cycle; (This was not supported.). Within the limitations of this study, it was con— cluded that no relationship exists between the beginning points of the adolescent cycle of growth in height, skeletal age, and mental age. This was also the case for end points of growth in height and mental age, and skeletal age and mental age. However, a relationship was found to exist between the end points of growth in height and skeletal age. A statistically significant, positive relationship was found between the beginning and end points of growth in height. The relationship between the beginning and end points for both growth in skeletal age and mental age was found to be statistically significant, but the relationship was negative. A Chi-Square test of the significance of the differ- ences revealed that within the individuals neither the rates nor the incipiencies of the three growths were significantly different for the pre-adolescent cycle. Both the rates and the incipiencies of the three growths in the adolescent I cycle were found to be significantly different within individuals. A STUDY OF THE BEGINNING AND END POINTS OF THE ADOLESCENT CYCLE OF GROWTH IN HEIGHT, SKELETAL AGE, AND MENTAL AGE OF EIGHTY-FOUR GIRLS OF THE THIRD HARVARD STUDY by \ Charles MTOGreenshields 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 PHILOSOPHY Department of Foundations of Education 1958 _ _ _ _ /6§2§ 3 ~2s‘-éo ACKNOWLEDGMENT The writer wishes to express his gratitude to Dr. H. Sundwall, Dr. B. Corman, Dr. R. Junge, and especially to Dr. C. V. Millard for their guidance and suggestive criticism that made this study possible. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. Definition of terms Statement of the problem. II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Studies of relationships. Studies of longitudinal aspects of growth . Related study III. PROCEDURE. Data Methods IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . Beginning and end points. Rates and incipiencies V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Summary . . . . Conclusions Implications. BIBLIOGRAPHY. APPENDIX . TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE \OO\O\-I1'UJ ll l2 l2 l3 17 17 21 28 28 29 30 32 36 TABLE II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. LIST OF TABLES PAGE Cochran Test for Homogeneity of Variance. . . 15 Means and Standard Deviations for the Time of One Per Cent and 99 Per Cent Development of the Adolescent Cycle. . . . . . . . . 1? Correlation Coefficients Between the Times of One Per Cent of Development of the Adolescent Cycle of Height, Skeletal Age, and Mental Age 18 Correlation Coefficients Between the Times of Ninety-Nine Per Cent od Development of the Adolescent Cycle of Height, Skeletal Age, and Mental Age. . . . . . . . . . . 19 Test for Linearity . . . . . . . . . . 2O Correlation Between the Time of One Per Cent and Ninety-Nine Per Cent of Development of the Adolescent Cycle. . . . . . . . . 2l Chi-Square Test of the Significance of the Dif— ferences Between Rates for First and Second Cycles of Incipiencies for First and Second Cycle of the Three Growths. . . . . . . 22 Sign Test of the Significance of the Differ- ences Between Rates (First and Second Cycle). 23 TABLE PAGE IX. Sign Test of the Significance of the Differ- ences Between Incipiencies. . . . . . . 25 X. Chi-Square Test of Significance Within Individ- ual's Rates and Incpiencies for the Three Growths . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In organismic theory as it is espoused by Millardl and Olson,2 the organism is said to grow as a whole.3 This theory asserts that all types of growth within the individ- ual are related and that any one growth pattern reveals the patterns of all the other growths of the individual. This study will consider the relationships between growth in height, skeletal age, and mental age in the adolescent cycle of growth at the beginning of the cycle, at the end of the cycle, and further, the relationships between the beginning and end points of the adolescent cycle growth in each of the three growths. The rates and incipiencies of both the l C. V. Millard, Child Growth and Development (Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1951. 2w. c. Wilson, Child Development (Boston: D. 0. Heath and Company, 1949). 3This is pretty much the common sense interpretation. There is little research that has been reported that would support or negate this concept. The primary reason for this has been one of methodology. We are not yet at the point where the whole organism can be studies in all its complexity. adolescent and pre-adolescent cycle will be examined to demonstrate the individuality and continuity of growth of the individual.“ Implicit in whole theory is that only through a knowl- edge of how the individual grows can we attempt to demon- strate growth relationships. Most studies of growth rela- tionships have used correlational techniques without taking into consideration the individuality of growth.5’6 These procedures actually mask individual differences. Nor do conventional methods enable the researcher to identify either cycles of growth or the parameters of growth. A technique developed by Courtis7 enables one to identify three parameters of growth, namely, rate, incipiency, and AS. A. Courtis, Maturations Units and How £2_Use Them (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Bros. (litho-printed),l950). 5Ethel Abernethy, "Relationship Between Mental and Physical Growth," Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. I (I936). 6w. M. Krogman, "Trends in the Study of the Physical Grgwth of Children," Child Development, Vol. 15 (1943), pp. 16 ~170. I 7The Courtis technique is a method which enables one to describe growth mathematically. (See "Chapter on Pro- cedures" for the manner in which this equation is solved.) It is a modification of Gompertz‘s curve (a double exponen- tial equation) using a unit called an isochron for simple computation. An isochron is one per cent of the total time required for a growth curve to change from a development of 0.000000l89 per cent to a development of 99.90917 per cent. Courtis calls this equation the "Universal Law of Growth.” (See S. A. Courtis, "Maturation Units for the Measurement of Growth," School and Society 30:689-690 (1929). Also S. A. Courtis, Maturations Units and How to Use Them, op. cit. maximum, as well as the cycles of growth and the individ- uality and continuity of growth. Thus, the components of the growth cycle, such as beginning and end point, can be determined and examined yielding information pertinent to the understanding of the development of the individual which would not be available using conventional methods. Definitionof Terms Growth cycle. A period of specific maturation. The adolescent cycle is the third of three cycles of growth through which the organism passes. It is during this cycle that the organism reaches physical and mental maturity. Rate. Magnitude of change per unit of time expressed in isochrons. Incipiency. The degree of development at the begin- ning of the cycle of growth expressed in isochrons. Maximum. The ultimate state or condition within a specific cycle. Beginning of a cycle. That point in time when an organism has reached one per cent of its development in a specific cycle. End of a cycle. That point in time when an organism has reached a development of ninety-nine per cent in a specific cycle. —_ -—__ _ —-——.——~.-.—_—_ no. . - ---—— Statement of the Problem A study of physical and mental growth using the twelve areas of growth reported in the Harvard Growth Study8 is now being conducted under the supervision of Dr. C. V. Millard. The present study will use three of these twelve areas, namely, height, skeletal age, and mental age to test the following hypotheses: 1. At the beginning time of the adolescent cycle growth in height, skeletal age, and mental age will show a statistically significant relationship with each other. 2. At the time when ninety-nine per cent of mature growth was achieved in the adolescent cycle, height, skeletal age, and mental age would show a statistically significant relationship with each other. 3. The correlations at the time of one per cent of development in adolescence would be larger than the corre- lations at the time of ninety—nine per cent of development in adolescence. A. The correlation between the time of one per cent of development and ninety-nine per cent of development within a growth will be statistically significant for all three growths. 8w. F. Dearborn, J. w. M. Rothney, and F. K. Shuttle- worth, "Data on the Growth of Public School Children," Mono- graphs of the Society for Research_£n Child Development, v"o"‘“l. '3',”1‘\To. l (1938). 5. Variance between height, skeletal age, and mental age within the individual will not be statistically signif- icant in terms of: a. b. rate of development of the pre—adolescent cycle; rate of development of the adolescent cycle; incipiency of the pre-adolescent cycle; incipiency of the adolescent cycle. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Studies of Relationships Baldwin in 1922 reported that, The mean mental age of physiologically accelerated children is higher than for physiologically retarded children when those above the norms in height and weight (the accelerated) are compared with those above the mean mental age for each year. . . . The correlations between physical and mental traits for 49 girls, for example, are, for height ane mental age +.l89; for weight and mental age +. 71; Simmons used longitudinal data, computed yearly cor- relations between height, weight, skeletal age, and mental age, and reported that the correlations were all to low to predict physical growth from mental growth.2 Reviews, such as those done by Abernethy,3 and Krogmanfl’5 have shown that status studies reveal very 1B. T. Baldwin, "Relation Between Mental and Physical Growth, " Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 13 (April, 1922), 202.' ' 2Katherine Simmons, "The Brush Foundation Study of Child Growth and Development. II Physical Growth and Devel- opment, " Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 9 TI9HET, pp. 1-87. 3Ethel Abernethy, "Relationship Between Mental and Physical Growth, ' Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 1 (19—6). ”w. M. Krogman, "Trends in the Study of Physical little about the individual pattern of growth and in most cases have produced results that are negligible. While studies that have used physical and mental growth have not been too fruitful, in terms of whole theory, 6 has shown that a knowledge of skeletal age and Bayley, present height enables one to predict adult stature. This was corroborated by Nicoloson and Hanley.7 While these types of studies have contributed knowl- edge about growth relationships, they have contributed little to the understanding of the growth of the individual. It is known that methods of this type do not reveal individ- ual differences but rather, make an understanding of the individual's growth impossible. A number of researchers have come to the conclusion that only through studying the individual and the individual patterns of growth on a Growth in Children," Child Development, Vol. 2 (1950), pp. 279-284. I 5W. M. Krogman, "The physical Growth of Children: An Appraisal of Studies, 1950-1955," Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, VOl. XX, SEFial'Nb. to, NET 1 (1955). V I 6Nancy Bayley, "Tables of Predicting Adult Height from Skeletal Age and Present Height," Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 28 (1946), 49-64. 7A. Nicoloson and C. Hanley,'"Indices of Physiological Maturity, Deviation, and Interrelationships," Child Develop— ment, Vol. 24 (1953), pp. 3—38. longitudinal basis can we arrive at an understanding of how the individual grows.8’9’lo’ll’12’l3’lu Courtis has said that this is now possible through the utilization of a mathematical curve that he has called, '"The Universal Law of Growth."15 Use of this equation enables one to identify three parameters of growth and to manipulate statistically these three parameters. It further allows one to demonstrate relative degrees of relationship through a study of the per cent of the individual's devel- opment. 8s. A. Courtis, Maturation Units and How to Use Them (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Bros} (lith-printed), 1950). 9W. F. Dearborn and J. W. M. Rothney, Predicting the Child's Development (Cambridge, Mass.: Sci-Arts‘Publishérs, 1941). 10K. L. Garrison, Growth and Development (New York: Longmans, Green, and Company, Inc., 1952). 11C. V. Millard, Child Growth and Development (Boston: D. C. Heath and Company,‘l951)7 ' ‘ ' ‘ 12W. C. Olson, Child Development (Boston, D. C. Heath and Company, 1949). ‘ 13L. K. Frank, "The Concept of Maturity," Child Devel- opment, Vol. 21 (1950), pp. 21-24. 14R. D. Tuddenham and M. M. Snyder, ”Physical Growth of California Boys and Girls from Birth to Eighteen Years," University of California Publication-~Child Development, V01. 1, No. 2 (1954?, pp. 1834364. 15S. A. Courtis, "Prediction of Growth," Journal of Educational Research, XXVI (March, 1933), 481-492. Studies of Longitudinal Aspect§_of Growth Relatively little work has been done in this area. There has been an attempt to demonstrate growth relation- ships on the basis of increments and rates of growth. Out of this approach has come the knowledge that growth is cyclic in nature. The number of cycles has not been agreed upon but a large number of researchers think there are at least four cycles of growth.l6’17’l8’19 Few researchers have employed methods that take this into consideration. One of the exceptions is Courtis. The Courtis technique has proven to be useful in examining aspects of growth. MillardgO correlated I.Q. with several aspects of growth and reported a high degree 16S. A. Courtis, "Maturation as a Factor in Educational Diagnosis," in Educational Diagnosis Thirty-Fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Chicago NSSE,1935), pp 117-178. l7Garrison, op. Cit., p. 87. 18R. E. Scammon, "The First Seriatim Study of Human Growth," American Journal pf Physical Anthropolggy, X, No. 3 (1927). 19K. F. Shuttleworth,'"The Physical and Mental Growth of Girls and Boys Age Six to Nineteen in Relation to Age at Maximum Growth, " Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. IX, No. ”(1939 200. V. Millard, "The Nature and Character of Pre- Adolescent Growth in Reading Achievement, " Child Development, Vol. 11, No. 2 (1940) , pp. 71- 114. 10 of relationship between I.Q. and reading maximum. In another study, Millard21 found that the degree of maturation in height at 110 months was correlated +.83 with I.Q. Rusch22 found that growth in height reached its maxi- mum in the pro-adolescent cycle before growth in weight reached its maximum. U'doh23 reported that the onset of menarche was related to the per cent of height development in the adolescent cycle. Graphical techniques have shown to be useful. Among the foremost is the Olson-Hughes method.24 This technique allows the researcher to change several growths to comparable units and then make graphical comparisons. Another method fififi 21C. V. Millard, "Further Comments on the November Issue," Educational Method, XIX, No. 8 (May, 1940), 445-447. 22R. R. Rusch, "The Relationship Between Growth in Height and Growth in Weight" (unpublished Master's thesis, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1954). 23E. A. Udoh, "Relationship of Menarche to Achieved Growth in Height" (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, College of Education Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michi— san, 19555. n 2 W. C. Olson and B. 0. Hughes, Tables for the Trans- lation 9: Physical Measurement into Age Units (Ann ArEor, Michigan: University Elementary SChool, 1938). 11 of analysis is the Wetzel Grid25 which by its very con- struction postulates a relationship between growth in height and weight. Armstrong26 used log log paper to demonstrate the relationship between growth in height and growth in mental ability. RelatedpStudy LePere27 has Just completed a parallel study to the present one using boys selected from the Harvard data. She found that at the time of one per cent of development a correlation of +.53 between height and skeletal age, a cor— relation of +.236 between height and mental age, and a cor- relation of +.357 between skeletal age and mental age. The last two correlations being significant at the .05 level. The present study will also investigate this timing aspect as well as the components of this growth cycle. v Va Wfififi 25N. C. Wetzel, "Physical Fitness in Terms of Physique, Development, and Basal Metabolism," Journal 9; the American Medical Ansocintion, 116 (1941). I ' 6 2 C. M. Armstrong, "The Relationship of Growth in Height and Growth in Mental Ability" (paper presented at American Educational Research Association Meeting, Atlantic City, February 20, 1957). 29Jean McKenney LePere, "A Study of Inter-Develop— mental Relationships Among Standing Height, Skeletal Age, and Mental Age for Sixty-Six Boys Selected from the Harvard Growth Data" (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1958). CHAPTER III PROCEDURE Data The data utilized in this study were taken from the Harvard growth study,1 which was begun in the Fall of 1922 and completed in 1936. This was the third of four longi- tudinal studies carried on at Harvard University, where data were collected on several thousand children and covered several areas of physical and academic growth including mental growth. The data were collected annually, beginning at six years of age and ending at seventeen years of age in most cases. The height data were reported in millimeters; skeletal age in months; mental age in months.2 For the present study, ninety girls were selected from the Harvard data. Of this ninety, six failed to 1W. F. Dearborn, J. W. M. Rothney, and F. K. Shuttle- worth, "Data on the Growth of Public School Children," Mono- graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, VEITISIINdT“I'TI9§BTT ' 7 “““ “ 2In the Monograph mental ages were reported from several different tests. For this study the mental ages were changed to equivalent mental ages using the tables re- ported in W. F. Dearborn and J. W. M. Rothney, Predicting the Child‘s Development (Cambridge, Mass.: Sci-Arts ' ' PublIshers, 194I), pp.136-139. 13 have skeletal age measures. They, then, were excluded from this investigation. Methods Courtis equations were computed for the three areas of growth in order to determine rates, incipiencies, begin- ning points, and end points. The Courtis equation was solved in the following manner: 1. Data for a specific growth of an individual were divided by the maximum growth the individual had attained and the resulting percentages plotted on probability paper where the cycle break was determined by a change in the slope of the line. 2. The maximum for the first cycle was computed using the Freedman Method.3 3. The data were then divided by the first cycle maximum and the resulting percentages plotted on isochronic paper. The equations were then solved for rate and incip— iency. 4. Derived scores for the first cycle were found by solving the equation and these then were subtracted from the actual scores and the residuals plotted on semi-log 3Devised by Seymour Freedman, a student of S. A. Courtis; reported in C. V. Millard, Problems 2f Pupil Growth andADevelopment (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Bros., an., 1948), p. 63. 14 paper, where the maximum was determined for the second cycle. The procedure was then the same as outlined in Step 3 above. 5. Derived scores from both cycles were added together and then subtracted from the actual scores to determine the error of the equation.“ From these multicycle growth curves, the time of one per cent of development (beginning point) in the adolescent cycle was computed for each individual in all three growths. The time at which ninety-nine per-cent (end point) was achieved was also computed for each individual. Using the time at which one per cent of development occurred, Pearson Product Moment Coefficients of correlation were computed for height and skeletal age, height and mental age, and skeletal age and mental age to test Hypothesis No.1. This was done also for the end points to test Hypothesis No. 2. In the original design of the study, an analysis of the variances of the rates and incipiencies was planned. The assumption of homogenity of variance could not be met. The rates and incipiencies for all three growths were found to be heterogeneous. In Table I can be found the results of the Cochran test which was used to test for homogeneity. “Jean McKenney LePere,'"A Study of Inter-Developmental Relationships Among Standing Height, Skeletal Age, and Mental Age for Sixty-Six Boys Selected from the Harvard Growth Data" (unpublished Ph.D.thesis, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1958). 15 TABLE I COCHRAN TEST FOR HOMOGENEITY OF VARIANCE - . m - fififi ii V fifi Critical Value Ratio for .05 = .452 Rate —"—*' .OllO2 1st C cle —_————. = . 6 6 Si nificant y .01846 59 9 E 2nd Cycle 122.52... = .80183 Significant .3603 Incipienny 1st Cycle lggiéggl = .66648 Significant 150.9248 2nd Cycle W = .45598 Significant 2147.2925 *firfifiJi LL ‘ ‘1‘-- if 4 iv -Vcfi-fiefie It was then decided to use a non-parametric statistic which would yield results similar to an analysis of variance. Rank methods as described by Wilcoxon were selected.5 The use of rank methods did not require the assumption of normality and homogeneity which would have been necessary for the analysis of variance. The assumption that the three growths are independent is somewhat more tenuous. Physiologically, differentiation of each of the three growths is dependent on the genotype fi‘ y a 5Frank Wilcoxon, Some Rapid Approximate Statistical Procedures (New York: ‘Kmerican”Cyanamid 60mpany; I949). 16 of the organism, each growth is controlled by specific genotypic combinations. Expression of these genotypes is influenced by common factors: chemical composition, elec— tric potential, or presence of necessary substrates, which are, however, specific for each genotype. The expression of a gene often depends on the effects of previous genetic differentiation.6’7 Srb and Owen say, the initial genetic action may be an effect on total growth, and the differences in proportions may derive from the fact that various relative growth ratgs prevail for different parts of the individual. Statistically speaking, LePere has shown that the multiple correlation between rates and incipiencies of growths for height, skeletal age, and mental age for boys was not statistically different from zero.9 This leads one to believe that they are independent, one of the other. wr- fi 6Brad1ey T. Scheer, General Physiology (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1953). 7A. M. Srb and R. D. Owen, General Genetics (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1952). 8 Ibid., p. 391. 9LePere, op. Cit. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Beginning and End Points In Table II can be found the means and standard deviations of the times of one per cent of development and of the times of ninety-nine per cent of development of the adolescent cycle. TABLE II MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE TIME OF ONE PER CENT AND 99 PER CENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADOLESCENT CYCLE —. w ‘Y‘fifi vww a fiiWfifi ‘wvvvfi vw fi'j —' Mean Stan. Dev. Growth (In Months) (In Months) 1% 124.87 14.84 Height 99% 194.02 18.89 Skeletal 1% 111.75 13.33 Age 99% 257.84 35.48 Mental 128.88 18.33 Age . 99% 251.95 . 32.83 a fifi V v w v w v vw v Vfifi v w Vifi Ha V vvv uv j w v VV ww—y Vfi’fifi The first major hypothesis to be tested was: At the beginning time (one per cent of development) of the adoles- cent cycle, growth in height, skeletal age, and mental age would show a statistically significant relationship. 18 To test this hypothesis, Pearson Product Moment Co- efficients of correlation were computed for height and skeletal age, height and mental age, and skeletal age and mental age at the time of one per cent of development of the adolescent cycle. The coefficients can be found in Table III. TABLE III CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN THE TIMES OF ONE PER CENT OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADOLESCENT CYCLE OF HEIGHT, SKELETAL AGE, AND MENTAL AGE Correlation Significance Variable df Coefficient .05 (.215) Height Skeletal Age 83 + 0.07 Not. sig. Height Mental Age 83 + 0.14 Not sig. Skeletal Age Mental Age 83 - 0.09 Not sig. a i V V V V a V Vi From Table III it can be seen that the correlation co- efficients were not significantly different from zero. An r of .215 was necessary for significance at the .05 level. The hypothesis that there was a relationship between the three variables was rejected. The second hypothesis was: At the time at which ninety-nine per cent would show a positive significant relationship. 19 Pearson Product Moment Coefficients of correlation were computed for height and skeletal age, height and mental age, and skeletal age and mental age, at the time of maturity. From Table IV it can be seen that the correlation between height and skeletal age was significant at the .05 level, while the correlations between height and mental age, and skeletal age and mental age, at the time of maturity were not significantly different from zero. Therefore, the second hypothesis was rejected. TABLE IV CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN THE TIMES OF NINETY-NINE PER CENT OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADOLESCENT CYCLE OF HEIGHT, SKELETAL AGE, AND MENTAL AGE V fl 7 : V: V fi- Lufi 3* Correlation Significance Variable Coefficient .05 (.215) Height Skeletal Age + 0.57 Sig. Height Mental Age + 0.05 Not sig. Skeletal Age Mental Age — 0.03 Not sig. a + v V V *7 The third major hypothesis to be tested was: The co- relations of the times of one per cent of development in adolescence would be larger than the correlations at the time of ninety-nine per cent of development. This hypoth- esis was not supported. Inspection of Tables III and IV 20 show only one of the six coefficients of correlation to be significant. The data were tested to see whether or not the assumption of linearity could be supported. From Table V it can be seen that the assumption was supported. That is, the hypothesis that there was a curvilinear relationship between the variables was rejected at the .05 level of confidence. TABLE V TEST FOR LINEARITY 1 Level of Variable df F—ratio Confidence .05 Beginning Points Height Skeletal Age 4,78 .41 Not sig. Height Mental Age 9,73 1.07 Not sig. Skeletal Age Mental Age 7,75 1.56 Not sig. I End Points II Height Mental Age 7,75 .71 Not sig. Skeletal Age Mental Age 14,68 .46 Not sig. 1 Differences in degrees of freedom are a function of the groupings used to obtain sufficient numbers in a given column or row. 21 The fourth hypothesis to be tested was: The correla- tions between the beginning point and end point would be statistically significant for each of the three growths. Pearson Product Moment Coefficients of correlation 'were computed for height between the time of one per cent of development and the time of ninety-nine per cent of devel- opment. The same was done for skeletal age and for mental age. The results are shown in Table VI. TABLE VI CORRELATION BETWEEN THE TIME OF ONE PER CENT AND NINETY-NINE PER CENT OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADOLESCENT CYCLE a fi f Vi fi fi v fl ~—v Significance Growth . Coefficient '.05 I 215) Height + .31 Sig. Skeletal Age - .25 Sig. Mental Age - .68 Sig. From Table VI it can be seen that all the coefficients were significant. Rates and Incipiencies Because of the heterogeneity of variances present it was necessary to use a statistic which did not make the assumptions which were necessary for a parametric analysis of variance. Friedman‘s Rank Method of Analysis of Variances 22 1 This non-parametric test makes the assumption was selected. that the data come from an ordinal scale and are independent. Rank methods.were then used to examine the variance present in the rates and incipiencies. Significant differences were found in the treatments which indicated a difference in the variances of the treat— ments. Rank Methods were then applied to test which growths, in terms of rates and incipiencies were significantly dif- ferent. Tables VII and VIII show the results of these tests for rates. TABLE VII CHI-SQUARE TEST OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIF- FERENCES BETWEEN RATES FOR FIRST AND SECOND CYCLES OF INCIPIENCES FOR FIRST AND SECOND CYCLE OF THE THREE GROWTHS df x2 Significance Rates, 1st Cycle 2 28.75 .05 Rates, 2nd Cycle 2 116.29 .05 Incipiencies, lst Cycle 2 29.75 .05 Incipiencies, 2nd Cycle 2 103.65 .05 lFrank Wilcoxon, Some Rapid Approximate Statistical Procedures (New York: American Cyanamid Company: 1949), p. 7. I ‘ 23 TABLE VIII SIGN TEST OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RATES (FIRST AND SECOND CYCLE) Vi V V w v w Significance Growth T (T.05 1345.33) First Cycle Height _ Skeletal Age 640.0 Sig. Height Mental Age 562.5 Sig. Skeletal Age Mental Age 1350.0 Not sig. Second Cycle Height Skeletal Age 2 Sig. Height Mental Age 52 Sig. Skeletal Age Mental Age 948 Sig. rfifi V a w 1 w ii The analysis of the rates for height, skeletal age, and mental age, in the first cycle revealed the following: 1. There was a significant difference (.05 level) between the three growth treatments. 2. The differences in the rates of growth for height and skeletal age were significant (.05 level). 3. The differences were significant (.05 level) for the rates of growth in height and mental age. 24 4. There were no significant differences (.05 level) in the rates of skeletal and mental growth. For the skeletal age, rates of the second cycle for growth in height, and mental age: 1. There was a significant difference (.05 level) in the 2. The and 3. The and 4. The three growth treatments. differences between rates of growth in height skeletal age were significant at the .05 level. differences between rates of growth in height mental age were significant at the .05 level. differences between rates of growth in skeletal and mental age were significant at the .05 level. The results of the tests for the significance of the difference for the incipiencnmsof the first and second cycles are shown in Table IX. The analysis of the incipienciesin.the first cycle show that: 1. There was a significant difference (.05 level) between the three growths. 2. The rates of growth in height were significantly different (.05 level) from the incipiencies of skeletal growth. 3. There were significant differences (.05 level) between the incipiencies of growth in height and mental age. \ \ 25 TABLE IX SIGN TEST OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INCIPIENCIES V—fi fl V V Va L w V V- V a V a Significance Growth T (T.05 1345.53) First Cycle I Height . Skeletal Age 24.0 Sig. Height Mental Age 89.0 Sig. Skeletal Age Mental Age 1532.0 Not sig. Second Cycle Height Skeletal Age 8.0 Sig. Height Mental Age 190.0 . Sig. Skeletal Age Mental Age 643.5 Sig. 4. There were no significant differences (.05 level) between the rates of skeletal and mental growth. For the incipiencies of the second cycle: 1. There were significant differences between the rates of the three growths (.05 level). 2. The differences between incipiencies of growth in height and skeletal age were significant at the .05 level. 26 3. The differences between the incipiencies of growth in height and mental age was significant at the .05 level. 4. There were significant differences (.05 level) between the incipiencies of growth in skeletal age and mental age. Using the growths as replicates and the individuals as treatments, the data were tested to determine whether or not the variances of the means of the rates and incipiencies within the individual were significantly different. Table X shows the results of the Chi-Square test. TABLE X CHI-SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE* WITHIN INDIVIDUAL'S RATES AND INCIPIENCIES FOR THE THREE GROWTHS Variable df x2 x? 05a Significance Rate, 1st Cycle 83 74.32 90.08 Not sig. Rate, 2nd Cycle 83 106.90 90.08 Sig. Incipiency, lst Cycle 83 77.37 90.08 Not sig. Incipiency, 2nd Cycle 83 101.24 90.08 Sig. a v fi fifi w *See Frank Wilcoxon, Some Rapid Approximate Statistical Procedures (New YCrk: AmeriCan Cyanamid Company, 1949), p.7. aBy extrapolation. 27 The hypothesis that there were no significant differ- erences was accepted for the rates and incipiencies of the first cycle and rejected for the rates and incipiencies of the second cycle. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Summary The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between the beginning points of growth in height, skeletal age, and mental age; the relationship between end points of growth in height, skeletal age, and mental age in the adolescent cycle of growth. Further, this study examined the variance, using non-parametric statistics, of the three growths in both the adolescent cycle and the pre-adolescent cycle. The following hypotheses were tested: 1. At the beginning time of the adolescent cycle of growth in height, skeletal age, and mental age will show a statistically significant relationship with each other. This hypothesis was not supported. 2. At the time when ninety-nine per cent of growth was achieved in the adolescent cycle, height, skeletal age, and mental age would Show a statistically significant rela- tionship with each other. This hypothesis was not supported. 3. The correlations at the time of one per cent of development in adolescence would be larger than the corre— lations at the time of ninety-nine per cent of development in adolescence. This hypothesis was not supported. 29 4. The correlations between the time of one per cent of development and ninety—nine per cent of development within a growth will be statistically significant for all three growths. This hypothesis was supported. 5. Variance between height, skeletal age, and mental age, within the individual will not be statistically signif- icant in terms of: a. rate of development of the pre-adolescent cycle (supported); b. rate of development of the adolescent cycle (not supported); 0. incipiency of the pre—adolescent cycle (supported); d. incipiency of the adolescent cycle (not supported). Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, no relationship exists between the beginning points of the adolescent cycle of growth in height, skeletal age, and mental age. This was also the case for end points of growth in height and mental, and skeletal age and mental age. Because of the different tests involved and the question of what is really being measured, the low correlations involving mental age may well be a function of the tests. There does exist a relationship between the end points of growth in height and skeletal age. A difference exists in the rates and incipiencies between individuals for both the pre—adolescent and the adolescent cycle. 30 In the pre-adolescent cycle, the organism exhibits a continuity of growth not found in the adolescent cycle. In the adolescent cycle there are significant differences between the rates of the three growths and between the incip- iencies of the three growths within the individual. This was not the case in the pre—adolescent cycle. Adolescence may have as one of its functions, the differentiation of growths within the individual in terms of rate of develop- ment. This differentiation would not necessarily account for the lack of relationship between beginning and end points as is shown by the significant relationship that exists between the end points of growth in height and skeletal age. Implications Proponents of organismic theory have proposed that there exists between growths relationships that would enable one to make predictions concerning other growths when a knowledge of one or more growths is available. This study has shown that a relationships does not exist between the beginning points of the three growths and also that no rela- tionship exists between the end points of growth in height and mental age, and skeletal age and mental age. While the hypotheses tested in this study cannot refute whole theory, the results have implications for whole theory. Based on the results of this study, whole theorists may have to be more specific concerning growth relationships. Until 31 hypotheses such as relative relationships in terms of per- centages of development have been tested to determine re- lationships that may or may not exist, whole theorists will have to be more cautious in terms of their generalizations concerning growth. The low correlations for beginning and end points of the adolescent cycle indicate that there exists no rela- tionship between these points except for the end points of height and skeletal age. Other factors warranting consid- eration as possible causal factors for the low correlations are early, average, and late maturation; socio-economic factors; ethnic origin; and a knowledge of the physical condition of the group. Probably the most important factor would be the separation of the individuals into categories of integrated or non—integrated growers. An examination of the rates and incipiencies of the .adolescent cycle has indicated that adolescence is a period of differentiation in terms of growth within the individual. This implies that secondary educators must concern them— selves not only with differences between individuals, but also with the differences that occur within the individual. Further studies need to be conducted to determine the generalization of this statement in terms of academic growth as well as physical growths not considered in this study. BIBLI OGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abernethy, Ethel. "Relationship Between Mental and Physical Growth,“ Monographs of the Society for Research in —-— Child Development, Vol *(1931 Armstrong, C. M. ‘"The Relationship of Growth in Height and Growth in Mental Ability." Paper presented to the American Education Research Association, Atlantic City, February, 1957. Baldwin, B. T. "Relation Between Mental and Physical Growth Journal of Educational Psychology, 13:193—203, (April 1922). Bayley, N. "Tables for Predicting Adult Height from Skeletal Age and Present Height," Journal 93 Pediatrics, Vol. 28 (1946), 49—64. Courtis, S. A. "Maturation Units for the Measurement of Growth," School and Society, 30 683—690 (1929). "Prediction of Growth,” Journal of Educational Research, XXVI (March, 1933), 481- 492. . "Maturation as a Factor in Diagnosis,” Educational Diagnosis Thirty-Fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago. National Society T5? EH5 Study 5? Education, 1935), pp. 117—178. . Maturation Units and How 33 Use Them. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Bros. IlitRo—printed), 1950. Dearborn, W. F. and J. W. M. Rothney. Predicting the Child‘s Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Sci—Art Publishers, 1941. Dearborn, W. F. J. W. M. Rothney, and F. K. Shuttleworth. "Data on the Growth of Public School Children," Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 3, No. ~"—__'_'_l—'("I938). Frank, L. K. ”The Concept of Maturity," Child Development, Vol. 21 (1950), p. 21—24. 34 Garrison, Karl L. Growth and Development. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1952. Krogman, W. M. "Trends in Study of Physical Growth in Ogildren," Child Development, Vol. 2 (1940), pp. 279- 2 ~ . ‘"The Physical Growth of Children: An Appraisal of Studies 1950—1955," Monograph of the Societ for Research in Child DevelopEEHET‘Vol.'§oj No. l 195?). LePere, Jean McKenney. "A Study of Inter—Developmental Relationships Among Standing Height, Skeletal Age, ‘ and Mental Age for Sixty-Six Boys Selected from the Harvard Growth Data.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, ‘ College of Education, Michigan State University, 1 East Lansing, Michigan, 1958. Millard, C. V. "The Nature and Character of the Pre- Adolescent Growth in Reading Achievement," Child Development, Vol. II, No. 2 (1940), pp. 71-114. . '"Further Comments on the November Issue," Educational Method, XIX, No. 8 (May, 1940), 445-447. Child Growth and Development. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1951. '"Freedman Method for Maximum," devised by Seymour Freedman, a student of S. A. Courtis; reported in Problems 2: Pupil Growth and Development. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Brothers, Inc., 1948. Nicoloson, A. and C. Hanley. "Indices of Physiological Maturity, Deviation and Interrelationships,” Child Development, Vol. 24 (1953), pp. 3—38. Olson, W. Child Development. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1949. Olson, W.C. and B. 0. Hughes. Tables for the Translation .——_ of Physical Measurement into Age Units. Ann Arbor, ~— Michigan: University Elementary School, 1938. Rusch, R. R. "The Relationship Between Growth in Height and Growth in Weight." Unpublished Master‘s thesis, College of Education, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, 1954. Scammon, R. E. "The First Seriatim Study of Human Growth," American Journal 93 Physical Anthropology, X, No. 3 (1927): 241—267. 35 Scheer, B. T. General Physiology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1953. Shuttleworth, Frank K. "The Physical and Mental Growth of Girls and Boys Age Six to Nineteen in Relation to Age at Maximum Growth, " Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 473"TI939). Simmons, K. "The Brush Foundation Study of Child Growth and Development, II Physical Growth and Development,’ Monographs 23 the Society :23 Research in Child Development, Vol. 9 (1944), pp. 1—87. Srb, A. M. and R. D. Owen. General Genetics. San Francisco, California: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1952. Tuddenham, Read D. and_Margaret M. Snyder. "Physical Growth of California Boys and Girls from Birth to Eighteen Years," University of California Publication--Child Development, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1954), pp. I83— 364 Udoh, E. "Relationship of Menarche to Achieved Growth in Height." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1955 Wetzel, N. C. 1"Physical Fitness in Terms of Physique, Development, and Basal Metabolism," Journal of the American Medical Association, 116: llU?‘“-l‘l‘9“5’Tl’9‘lTl). Wilcoxon, Frank. Some Rapid Approximate Statistical Procedures. New York: American Cyanamid Company, 19 9. A X I m E P P A 37 699. ;; INNNIC ORIGIN It, SOCIO-ECON STATUS NR mt 5 o: S of 5 01‘ ms in -0 we “0‘. “'0 50‘ D37. 76.5 1121 . . 66.5 71.97 42.96 90 45.7 88.0 1287 76.1 74.87 44.69 101 51.5 100.0 1555 79.9 87.17 52.05 114 57.9 112.2 1411 85.4 94.25 56.26 126 65.9 124.5- 1474 87.1 105.67 65.06 157 69.5 156.2 1555 60.7 111.68 ‘ 66.67 144 75.1 148.0 1610 95.2 121.45 72.49 155 76.7 160.0 1677 99.1 147.27 87.91 166 64.5 1 2.2 _ 1688 99.8 ' 167.05 99.71 192 97.5 .0 1692 100.0 N N 197 100.0 0889.3; ETHNIC ORIGIN gt, SOCIO—ECON= sums 1;: H’ mmt %d %w » %fl 1496. in - Dov. 4M. Dov. 8.4. Dev. 62.6 1075 65.1 64.5 57.67 72 56.5 74.2 1144 69.4 76.4 44.62 N N 86.4 1205 75.0 74.5 45.59 94 47.7 96.5 1261 76.4 87.5 51.10 106 55.8 110.5‘ 1298 78.6 99.5 56.11 116 56.9 . 122.5 1559 82.5 105.5 60.55 125 65.5 154.5 1412 85.5 107.4 ‘62.?4 140 71.1 146.2 1460 66.4 125.7 75.42 146 75.1 156.5 1516 91.8 ‘, 142.5 85.25 156 79.2 170.5 1575 95.4 156.5 79.61 162 82.2 162.4 1617' . 97.9 N N 170 66.5 194.5 1659 99.5 171.2 100.00 192 97.5 100.0 N N 197 100.0 207.4 1551 ETHNIC ORIGIN LE SOCIO-EGON STATUS NR 8015116 4 of % of % of H06. in u. Dov. 11.1. Dev. 8.1 097. _ 111.0 1216 81.0 96.7 46.37 98 49.7 125.12 1267 84.4 127.7 61.24 114 57.9 165.24 1558 90.4 129.3 62.01 140 71.1 147.24 1630 95.2 127.1 60.95 159 80.7 159.60 1465 97.4 173.7 85.30 170 86.6 171.60 1485 98.7 191.5 91.84 186 94.4 182.88 1992 99.58 198.9 92.99 195 98.98 195.48 1597 99.67 208.5 100.00 197 100.00 207.84 1497 99.67 197.4 94.67 197 100.00 251.84 1502 100.00 208.7 97.69 197 100.00 643. er , ; - ,; ETHNIC ORIGIN Jew SQUID-BOON 671706 In . Height 5 0t ' Z of S of H06. in II. Dov. n.1, Dov. S.A. Dev. 100.52 1244 . 78.5 75.28 54.70 90 45.7 118.16 1500 r 79.9 108.55 49.95 101 51.8 -124.92 1544_ 82.6 56.86 126.54 114 , 57.9 156.92 1591 85.5 N N' 127 64.5 168.62 1452 89.2 N N 142 72.1 160.52 1534 94.3 204.68 94.36 155 78.7 172.68 1585 97.4 169.94 78.34 166 84.5 £ 184.56 1610 99.0 190.84 87.98 183 92.9 196.56 1622 99.69 '191.94 88.49 191 96.95 90.62 208.56 1627 100.00 196.56 197 100.00 - L ,1. a... 7» 39 088'_ 11 F: ETHNIC ORIGIN EE h“ SOCIO-ECON STATUS. II Height x of % of z of ms. in -0 3'. MQ‘O DOV. 80A. D'Vo 102.48 1315 ' 80.5 112 45.49 98 49.7 114.96 1566 85.4 159.9 64.94 108 54.8 126.48 1404 85.7 117.2 47.60 121 61.4 158.84 1466 89.5 144.2 58.57 157 69.5 150.56 1547 94.4 159.7 64.86 153 77.7 162.60 1620 98.9 180.4 75.27 168 ' 85.5 174.48 1626 99.26 180.5 75.51 178 90.4 186.48 1654 99.75 205.5 85.58 184 _95.4 198.96 1657 99.95 220.0 89.55 195 98.98 210.48 1652 99.65 258.8 96.99 197 100.00 224.16 1658 100.00 210.48 100.00 197 100.00 Gas. .gfiF . EEHNIC. ORIGIN Jew SOCIO—ECON STATUS IV Height % of % of % of lbs. in II. Dev. 14.1. Dov. 8.1. Dev. 89.6 1168 _ 75.2 .95.5 48.8 82 41.6 101.4 1221 76.6 101.0 52.87 92 46.7 115.5 1281 80.3 108.6 56.85 102 51.8 125.5 1555 85.6 125.5 64.55 114 57.9 157.8 1586 86.9 155.4 70.89 125 65.5 149.6 1450‘ 90.9 158.1 72.50 158 70.1 ' 161.5 1515 95.0 145.0 74.86 149 75.6 175.5 ' 1550 97.2 165.1 86.43 167 84.8 185.5 1585 99.57 175.8 90.89 185 95.9 197.5 1595 100.00 169.6 88.79 196 99.5 209.4 1595 100.00 172.8 90.47 197 ‘100.00 221.6 1592 99.81 N N 197 100.00 ’40 Gas. 17! ETHNIC ORIGIN Mixed SOCIO-ECON STATUS NR Height x of % of z of M03. in -. Dev. H. A. Dev. SJ. Dev. 76.80 1081 71.86 99.1 48.64 66 55.5 89.28 1155 75.26 107.1 52.57 74 57.6 98.88 1189 78.84 111.1 54.54 86 45.7 115.04 1257 85.55 155 .6 66 .56 108 54.8 125.18 ' 1554 88,46 155.2 76 .19 158 70.1 137 .16 1428 ' 94 .69 181.1 88 .90 150 76 .1 149.04 1475 97 .81 189.5 92 .95 165 82.7 161.16 1492 98.95 185.5 90.96 180, 91.4 175.16 1497 99.27 192.2 94.55 195 98.98 185.16 1502 99.60 205.7 200.00 197 100.00 197.74 1504 99.75 197.6 97 .00 197 100.00 209.16 1508 100.00 192.4 94.45 197 100.00 0080 ’18]: .- ETHNIC ORIGIN NF. -7 5001040011 STATUS .1]; z or x of % of DOV. “.A. DOV. SOA. Dev. 72.46 107 .6 47 .77 72 56 .9 77.04 124.6 55.52 81 41.5 80.14 97.4 45.25 95 48.7 84.46 160.8 71.40 N ' N ' . 95.42 176 . 5 78.28 156 80 .0 97 .74 187 .9 85 .43 167 85. 99.16 197 .4 85.21 =1! R- . 100.00 196.7 87.54 180 92.5 99.67 225.2 100.00 189 96 .9 N 99 .87 N 195 100 .0. 0:80 21! ETHNIC ORIGIN It, SOCIO—EOON STATUS NR Height 7% of z of 5% of mi. in n. m'. “0‘. Dev. Sol. DOV. 74.04 1157 72.04 85.89 62.49 88 46.1 85.56 1228 78.48 92.40 67.22 99 51.8 97.80 1275 79.26 85.09 61.91 114 59.7 109.68 1556 84.45 89.94 65.45 155 69.6 121.92 1474 91.78 107.29 78.06 144 75.4 155.68 1547 96.52 115.65 82.67 N N 145.68 1578 98.25 154.05 97.51 158 87.95 157.56 1595 99.51 N N 178 95.2 169.68 1606 100.00 157.44 N 191 100.0 Gas, 29? ETHNIC ORIGIN NE' SOCIO—ECON STATUS NR Height % of % of 5 of Moo. in mm. Dov. 5.5. Dev. 8.1. Dev. 85.4: 1159 70.6 95.4 41.47 N N 94.7 1254 76.4 112.7 50.04 100 51.0 107.0 1509 79.7 108.1 48.00 106 54.1 119.5 1569 85.4 159.7 62.05 115 58.7 150.9 1411 85.9 151.9 67.45 152 67.5 145.2 1465 89.1 170.5 75.71 141 71.9 155.0 1554 95.4 176.7 78.46 148 75.5 166.6 1581 96.5 189.9 84.52 160 81.6 179.0 1616 98.4 204.1 90.65 178 90.8 191.5 1651 99.55 206.7 91.78 190 96.9 202.9 1851 99.55 225.2 100.00 194 98.97 215.5 1642 100.00 N N 196 100.00 42 ETHNIC MGIN NI: SOCIO—ECW STATUS II . _ Height 5 of Z of ' % of H08. u -9 DOV. M9“. DOV. 80A. DOV. 101.4 1245 79.2 118.58 48.58 100 50.8 115.9 1504 85.1. 140.95 57.51 112 56.9 125.5 1556 86.4 158.95 56.68 125 62.4 157.6 1405 89.5 152.84 62.56 155 67.5 149.5 1447 92.2 170.67 69.64 144 75.1 161.4 1522 97.0 176.15 71.87 156 79.2 175.4 1555 98.9 195.29 79.68 172 87.5 185.4 1562 99.5 209.81 85.61 185 92.9 197.6 1561 99.4 226.19 92.29 194 98.5 209.5 1562 99.5 245.07 N 196 99.49 222.6 1569 100.0 242.76 99.05 197 100.00 Case 45F ETHNIC ORIGIN NP: SOCIO-ECON STATUS II Height 1, of z of i of lbs. in II. Dov. 14.1. Dov. S.A. Dev. 86.8 1205 75.6 112.41 49.00 . 77 59.1 99.5 1265 77.4 155.14 58.91 84 42.6 110.8 1514 80.4 151.74 57.45 95 48.2 125.1 1566 85.6 156.74 ' 68.55 109 55.5 155.1 1418 86.8 171.85 74.92 124 62.9 146.9 1496 91.6 184.50 80.55 142 72.1 158.9 1574 96.5 204.62 89.20 155 77.7 4170.5 ~1605 98.2 224.79 98.00 169 85.8 182.8 1618 99.0 225.84 97.58 185 .95.9 194.6 1622 99.5 229.57 N 196 99.49 206.6 1651 99.8 N N 197 100.00 100.0 N N 197 100.00 1+3 04» 481' me ORIGIN gt. scam-Econ sums NR .. 3018119 2 or 56 or 56 of ”a. n "-0 m0 "0‘. Dev. 80A. DOY- 77.18 1186 71.65 79.5 41.86 86 45.7 88.68 1244 75.54 102.0 55.71 101 51.5 100.92 1609 79.28 95.9 49.44 114 57.9 112.80 1567 82.79 115.9 59.97 125 65.5 125.04 1420 86.00 117.5 61.87 140 71.1 156.80 1501 90.91 125.9 66.29 150 76.1 148.80 1586 95.88 144.5 75.96 1.61 81.7 160.8 1627 98.54 N N N N 172.68 1646 99.69 189.9 100.00 180 91.4 184.68 1651 100.00 179.1 94.5 197 100.0 Cue 521' mam: ORIGIN 16. 90010-88017 STATUS _I__ Height 8 or 7 or z of 303. in -. Dev. 11.1. Dov. S.A. Dev. 87.24 1211 71.8 76.8 64.57 68 54.5 96.84 1251 76.9 99.0 44.57 88 4 44.67 109.62 . 1607 77.2 108.2 48.71 94 47.7 120.96 1464 . 79.4 106.4 47.90 101 51.5 166.62 1401 82.8 11.8.? 55.44 115 58.4 144.84 1480 86.6 140.5 66.25 121 61.4 156.72 1589 92.1 149.0 67.08 N N 169.08 1629 96.5 150.5 67.76 148 75.1 180.60 1668 98.6 180.6 81.51 172 87.5 192.96 1678 99.17 189.1 65.14 188 95.4 ' 204.84 1690 99.88 200.7 90.56 197 100.0 1692 100.00 222.1 N 197 100.0 216.72 44 ETHNIC ORIGIN N E.- SOCIO—ECON STATUS III . 881356 % of % of z of H09. in In. 3 Dev. M.A. Dev. 8.1. Dev. 84.5 1114 68.8 69.5 54.82 75 58.1 95.8 1145 70.7 100.4 50.45 82 41.6 106.6 1206 74.5 109.8 55.17 92 46.7. 118.1 1264 78.1 121.6 61.10 108 54.8 150.4 1552 82.5 154.5 67.48 118 59.9 142.8 1589 85.8 - 162.6 81.70 152 67.0 154.2 1468 . 90.7 . 157.5 79.04 144 75.1 , 186.2 1556 96.1 V 172.9 86.88 158 80.2 177.8 ‘- 1591 ' 98.27 192.0 96.48 177 89.8 19031; ' 1605 99.01 195.8 , 98.59 196 . 92.49 202.1 " 1614 99.69 194.0 97.48 196 ‘ 92.49 214.0 1619 100.00 199.0 100.00 197 100.00 0888 59F ETHNIC ORIGIN N Eu- SOCIO-ECON STATUS III Height 5 of Z of ' 5 of M08. in II. Dov. M.A. Dev. S.A. Dev. 84.72 1180 75.6 94.04 48.97 76 58.8 96.84 1240 77.5 104.59‘ 54.47 v 86 45.87 109.52 1289 80.4 104.95 54.66 99 50.5 120.98 1545 85.9 125.80 65.52 112 _ 57.1 152.84 1589 86.6 146.12“ 76.10 125 ; 62.8 145.08 1460 91.0 166.12 86.52 158 . 70.4 ‘ 156.48 1528 95.5 159.61 85.13 152 77.6 ' 168.84 1581 98.8 186.57 97.17 165 84.2 180.96 '1587 98.9 172.82 90.01 182 92.9 192.96 1604 100.0 192.00 100.00' 195 98.5 204.84 1602 99.87 100 0 185.58 96.55 196 61! ETHNIC ORIGIN N E. SOCIO-ECON STATUS III . 804805 5 of 5 of % of ha. in -. Dev. 14.1. Dev. S.A. Dov. 81.00 1195 70.8 81.00 42.21 I! N 90.84 .1245 75.8 91.75 47.81 77 59.1 105.52 ‘ 1501 77.1 1106.42 55.46 90 45.7 115.08 1554 80.05 114.50 59.67 106 55.8 127.52 1414 85.8 117.77 61.57 125 62.4 158.84 1469 87.1 156.76 71.27 158 70.1 150.72 -1575 95.2 157.50 82.08 149 75.6 165.08 1640 97.2 157.57 82.01 165 82.7 174.60 1661 98.5 161.51 84.17 _174 88.5 188.96 *1671 99.05 175.87 90.61 188 95.4 198.84 1675 99.17 191.88 100.00 192 97.5 210.72 1687 100.00 188.59 98.28 197 100.0 Case 62? ETHNIC ORIGIN N E. SOCIO—ECON STATUS III Height 5 of 2 of % of 1498. in In. Dov. 14.4. Dov. S.A. Dev. 92.18 1251 77.4 99.55 55.95 105 55.6 104.28 1286 80.8 115.75 62.74 114 58.2 116.64 1545 84.5 157.64 74.60 125 62.8 128.28 1592 87.5 155.22 84.15 150 66.5 140.76 1481 95.1 154.84 85.95 140 71.4 . 152.52 1557 96.6 175.87 94.24 154 78.6 164.04 1567 98.5 147.64 80.05 168 85.7 176.52 1584 99.56 162.40 88.05 177 90.5 188.52 1591 100.00 180.98 98.10 189 96.4 184.48 N 196 100.0 200.52 ' ‘5 46 ETHNIC ORIGIN It, SOCIO—ECON STATUS NR % of 1 of % of Dev. 14.1. Dov. S.A. ' Dev. 110.88 1284 81.5 126.40 68.12 88 44.7 121.56 1555 84.6 125.20 67.47 102 “ 51.8 154.64 1567 86.8 144.06 77.64 117 59.4 146.04 1408 09.4 157.72 85.00 156 69.0 157.92 1482 94.1 161.07 66.81 N N 170.40 1559 97.7 156.76 84.48 162 82.2 182.28 1575 99.87 158.58 85.46 168 85.5 194.28 1569 99.61 ‘178.75 96.52 175 88.6 206.18 1575 100.00 185.54 ' N 197 100.0 219.84 1574 99.95 169.27 91.25 197 100.0 088. 84F ETHNIC ORIGIN It, SOCIO~ECON STATUS NR Height 5 of Z of % of Non. In Ill. Dov. ILA. Dov. S.A. Dev. 87.96 1157 71.0 70.54 60.64 78 45.6 98.88 1218 74.8. 80.09 69.01 89 52.0 111.00 1271 78.0 76.59 66.00 100 58.5 122.88 1525 81.5 78.64 67.85 110 64.5 155.12 1589 85.5 99.99 86.16 125 71.9 146.88 1454 89.5 88.15 75.94 158 80.7 158.76 1544 94.8 95.26 82.09 145 84.8 170.64 1605 98.5 116.04 100.00 162 94.7 182.76 1629 100.0 115.51 97.64 171 100.0 47 1597 0:36 101! ETHNIC ORIGIN N E SOCIO—ECON STATUS III Hbight % of % of % of ”‘0‘ 111-. DOV. “9‘. D07. SCAG DOV. 90.60 1165 75.28 82.4 50.58 75 58.1 100.52 1206 78.06 90.5 55.43 95 47.2 112.52 1266 81.94 94.5 57.88 111 56.5 124.68 1559 86.67 _ 104.7 64.27 150 65.98 156.52 1422 92.04 109.0 66.91 147 . 74.6 147.96 1495 96.65 118.4 72.68 158 60.2 160.56 1525 98.71 118.8 72.92 171 86.8 . 171.96 1555 99.55" 125.6 77.10 184 95.4 184.52 1557 .99.48 141.9 87.10 197 100.0 196.44 1559 99.61 155.2 94.04 197 100.0 208.80 1545 100.00 162 9 100.00 197 100.0 Gas. 104! ETHNIC ORIGIN N‘E' SOCIO~ECON STATUS NR Hbight % of % of % of be. in In. Dev. M.A. Dov. S.A. Dev. 76.8 1144 71.65 N N 72 57.9 86.4 1190 74.51 94.2 57.78 78 41.1 99.1 1247 78.08 159.7 56.05 87 45.8 110.4 1298 81.27 132.5 55.14 97 51.1 122.9 1558 85.78 142.6 57.20 106 55.8 154.4 1576 86.16 155.2 61.45 117 61.6 146.8 1424 89.16 151.2 60.64 129 67.9 158.6 1468 91.92 184.0 75.80 155 71.1 170.5 1525 95.56 214.6 86.08 147 77.4 182.5 1570 98.50 220.8 88.56 166 87.4 194.4 1588 99.45 249.6 100.00 176 92.6 206.4 100.00 241.5 96.87 190 100.0 48 Case .1051 ETHNIC ORIGIN N E‘ _ SOCIO—ECON STATUS II Hbight % of % of % of lbs. in In. Dev. M.A. Dev. S.A. Dev. _ 72.96 1115 68.19 75.0 52.48 65 55.2 82.52 1155 70.64 101.5 45.08 74 58.9 95.14 1215 74.51 105.6 46.99 86 45.5 ' 106.56 1266 77.44 125.6 55.00 97 51.1 118.92 1515 80.50 156.8 60.88 108 56.8 151.04 1575 84.09 148.1 65.91 120 65.2 142.52 1440 88.07 156.6 69.69 152 69.5 154.80 1518 , 92.84 157.9 70.27 147 77.4 166.52 1574 96.26 189.6 84.57 156 82.1 178.56 1599 97.79 207.1 92.16 171 90.0 190.56 1625 99.26 200.1 89.05 178 95.7 202.44 1655 100.00 224.7 100.00 190 100.0 0999 106! ETHNIC ORIGIN N E' score-Econ STATUS II Height % of % of % of Moo. 1!: n. Dev. ".4. Dev. 3.1. Dev. 75.12 1155 69.41 70.6 45.87 , 66 55.7 86.04 1195 75.08 90.5 56.12 75 58.5 98.16 1250 76.45 98.2 61.05 _ 87 45.8 110.64 1502 79.65 115.1 71.55 94 47.95 122.28 1549 82.50 111.2 69.12 111 56.65 154.16 1414 86.48 119.2 74.08 125 62.8 146.16 1490 91.15 151.5 81.72 141 75.0 157.92 1566 95.77 255.8 84.40 150 76.5 170.16 1608 98.54 146.5 90.92 168 85.7 182.16 1622 99.20 145.7 90.55 185 95.4 206.28 ' 1655]. 100.00 160.9 .100.00 196 100.0 49 559. 115? ETHNIO ORIGIN N E'__ SOCIO-ECON STATUS IV " Height 5 of ‘ % of ' % of Hos. _ . infill, Dov. . 11.1. Dev. S.A. Dev. 75.00 , 1095 69.44 65.75 51.26 61 50.96 85.92 1149 72.29 . 92.79 45.51 74 57.56 98.40 1228 78.01 95.68 46.95 87_ 44.16 110:52 1279 81.25 111.65 54.75 102‘ 51.77 122;16j_. 1529 84.45 155.60 66.51 116 58.88 154;04 1582 ' 87.80 151.47 74.29 156 69.05 146.16 . 1449 92.05 146.16 71.69 145 72.58 157.68 1515 96.25 167.14 81.98 162 82.25 170.04 1559. 99.04 175.14 A 85.90 177 89.84 182.28 1565 99.42 191.59 95.87 186 94.41 194.16 1574 100.00 . 205.87 N N N 206.04. .;1575 99.95 _ _195.747 96.01 .‘ .197. N 0895 120! ‘ ETHNIC ORIGIN N I: SOCIO-ECON STATUS III ‘ Height % of 1 of 9.! of Hon. inn. Davy. 11.1. , 087. [8.1. Dev- 106.52 1208 75.0 94.62 51.76 89 45.18 117.12 1250 77.6 N N 95 50.25 128.88 1502 80.9 125.01 68.59 , 111 56.54 140.68 -. 1546 85.6 151.02 71.68 124 ‘ 62.94 152.88 1425. 88.5 7N Nv N N 164.404. 1505. 95.5 149.60 81.85 144 . 75.09 176.76 _ 1561 97.0 150.25 _ 82.20 159 80.71 188.64 1597 99.19 ' 152.80 85.60 172 . 87.51 200.28 1610 100.00 172.24 94.25 184 95.40 212.52 1610.._ 100.00 182.77 N 195 98.98 258.20 17.1612 . - 1005,- .1 . N - N . 197 ‘ .__ N 50 089. 152! NTHNIG ORIGIN E SOCIO~ECON STATUS NR ' Height % or ‘ 5% of ‘ % of m. .. 1n..ne _ ‘ Dev. . . “0‘0 - DOV. ”$qu Deve- 105.84 1258 0. 99.6 52.55 92 46.70 117.96 1 1284 85.4 115.6 60.74 108 54.82 150.08 . 1557. 86.9 152.7 69.75 125 62.45 142.08 1417 92.1 154.5 70.67 141 71.57 154.44 1480 96.2 159.1 85.60 158 ' 80.20 166.52 1509 V 98.1 N N 176 89.54 177.84 1526 99.15 177.9 95.48 189 95.95 190.52 1555 99.61 190.5 100.00 196 _ 99.49 202.56 1559 100.00 182.5 95.79 197 N. 214.52. ‘;1§56 . 99-80-. . 180.0 9.94.58 . 197 8. One 1551‘" ' WIS ORIGIN 5 SOCIO-ECON STATUS NR ' ~ Height 5 of z of z of H98;_1 ---1n Inq. ,4-D9V5.w_4__ H.4.»-.,J__ppv.\r . 5.1.. Dey. 102.84- 1511, 79.6‘ N N 100 ‘ 50.76 _ 116.04 1578 85.7 N N 4 115 57.56 127.56 1455 . > 87.1 154.0 75.74 ,. 126 65.95 159.20 1514' 91.9 148.9 81.94 140 71.06 151.44 1585 96.1 . 168.0 92.46 156 79.18 165.52. 1628, 98.8 ' 165.5 - 89.87 169. 85.78 174.84 ' 1645_ 99.75 157.5 86.57 192‘ 97.46 . 187.50 N N 168.6 92.79 .; 196 99.49 199.56 ' 1647 N . 175.6 96.64' 197 N 211.52._ 1945.74.‘ _99.87;,. ,191'7_-....199~99- . . 197 ..N 51 one 15 I name ORIGIN Jew SOCIO—ECON STATUS Iv ' ' 30181117 % of % of ' ' % or 74.16 1100 69.22 68.22 - 50.52 72 . 58.54 66.28 - . 1155; . 72.68 A. 86.71 58.54 84 42.65 98.28 ‘ 1204 75.77 100.75 44.77 ‘ 98 48.75 110.16 1255 78.85 104.10 48.27 107 54.51 129.40 1509 82.57 152.19 58.75 122 61.92 154.40 1557 85.59 140.44 62.42 150 65.98 148.40 1454 90.24 155.18 68.97 146 74.11 158.40 1518 95.40 159.19 70.76 156 78.19 170.52 1555 97.86 175.07 78.95 174 88.52 182.40 1575 99.11 197.90 87.96 188 95.45 194.40 1579 99.57 201.20 89.45 197 N . 206.949 ' ,. ; was - ' ' 100.00 ‘, 22%97 ‘ _... ‘ N..- ~ 1197.4. 1'3 .. ' ' “‘2‘: - - use 1581" ' ‘ mum: ORIGIN N m SOCIO-ECON STATUS III ' - Height % of % of % 'of M98. 18 m. Dov. 11.4. Dev. 8.4. ‘ Dew. 68.81 70.52 57.77 40 25.15 71.56 99.08 55.22 64 55.50 75.86 91.40 49.09 72 57.69 78.54 107.55 57.77 85 45.45 82.06 125.01 66.07 _ 96 50.26 85.58. 149.72 80.42 109- 57.08 88.78 142.86 76.74 128 67.01 - 95.67 150.14.. . 80.6.5- 148. 77.48 98.25 165.47 87.81 166 86.91 .. 109.00. 186.16 . N. ,- 9.191. N . 52 00.50 1651" ETHNIC ORIGIN N , ‘E SOCIO—ECON STATUS III Height % of % of z of Hoe. 111 II. Dev. M.A. Dov. $.11. Dov. 92.40 1250 75 . 85 77 .17 67 .96 9o 45 .88 105.12 1298 79.90 117.35 . 61.59 102 51.77 117 .00 1544 82 .86 106.17 67 .76 108 54 .82 128 .64 1588 85 .45 117 .00 65.94 > 118 59 .89 140 .52 ' 1454 88 .40 115 .85 68 .77” 128 64 .97 152.76 1489 91.80 118 .74 N 142 72 . 08 164.16 1548 95.45 146 .10 84 .62 155 77 .66 176 .52 1592 98 .15 145 .65 84.54 167 84 . 77 188.52 1618 99 .76 146.10 84 .62 187 94 .92 200.76 1622 100.00 172.85 N 197 N 635'. 1711' ETHNIC ORIGIN It . . SOCIO—ECON STATUS IV. . 881318 % of % of % of M08. in II. Dev. 11.1. Dev. S.A. Dev. 105 .08 1201 . 79 .16 85. 5 52.00 108 58 . 57 118 . 28 . 1251 82 .46 N N 125 66 .48 127 .80 1507 86 .15 N N 151 70 .80 159.80 ~ - N N 118.8 , 78.26 N N 165.20 1497 98.68 151.8 100.00 . 168 90.80 175. 56 1515 99 .75 151.00 99.47 178 96 .21 151.6 99 .86 185 N ' 187.08 1517 100.00 Case 1791" mum ORIGIN N ~5:. SOCIO—ECON STATUS NR Height % of z of 4 of Mon. 11: 1.. Dev. 14.1. Dev. S.A. Dev. 95.64 1215 76.09 76.5 45.69 95 48.22 107.76 1278 80.17 88.4 52.80 106 55.80 119.40 1555 85.62 100.5 59.91 119 80.40 151.04 1584 86.82 110.0 65.71 151 66.49 142.80 1480 91.59 118.5 70.78 145 75.60 154.92 1527 95.79 150.0 77.65 156 79.18 186.76 1568 98.56 158.5 82.61 168 65.28 179.64 1581 99.17 154.7 80.46 N N 190.92 1584 100.00 167.4 100.00 192 97.46 088. 18617 ETHNIC ORIGIN N E 50010—50011 STATUS III H.181“ % of % of 5% of M05. in no D". MOAO mvo SOA. Dev. 102.0 1228 78.08 151.58 57.94 84 42.65 114.0 1282 81.65 111.72 49.20 98 49.74 125.64 1521 84.14 145.74 64.18 111 56.54 158.0 1572 87.58 189.06 85.27 126 65.95 150.48 1458 91.59 185.09 81.51 144 75.09 162.24 1508 96.05 191.44 84.57 156 79.18 175.76 1542 98.21 194.61 85.70 170 86.29 186.56 1561 99.42 212.45 95.56 187 94.92 198.48 1567 99.80 214.56 94.40 196 99.49 00 210.24 1570 100. 227.06 N 197 N case 200? ETHNIC ORIGIN SE - SOCIO—EOON STATUS III- Hbight % of % of % of ' ha. in -. mv. MgA. DEV. SOA. Dev. 82.68 1118 _ 70.05 78.55 59.20 75 58.26 . 94.80 1178 75.80 90.06 44.94 84 42.86 106.92 1251 77.15 100.50 50.15 95 .47.45 118.92 1286 80.57 115.55 57.56 104 55.06 151.40 1552 84 .71 151.40 65 .57 122 62 .24 142.92 1450 89.59 _145.78 72.75 155 70.41 154.76 1504 94.25 145.74 71.75 146 74.49 186.80 1561 97.90 155.12 77.41 156 79.59 178.92 1576 98.74 181.60 90.62 170 86.75 190.92 1589 99.56 189.01 94.52 185 95.57 205.04 1596 N 194.92 97.27 192 97.96 217.80 1595 99.81 200.58 N 196 N 0030 215F ETHNIC ORIGIN N E SOCIO-ECON STATUS NR Height % of Z of % of Mos. in In. Dev. M.A. Dev. S.A. Dev. 88.? 1222 77.00 150.58 54.66 94 47.71 98.5 1269 79.96 N N 105 55.29 ‘110.9 1551 85.86 115.75 48.52 118 59.84 125.1 1405 88.40 127.55 55.47 151 '66.49 154.8 1478 95.15 148.28 62.17 145 - 72.58 147.1 ’ 1554 96.66 175.78 75.70 162 82.25 170.4 1568 98.80 169.74 71.08 197 N _ 182.9 . - 1584 99581 195.70 82.05 197 N 195.1 1560 99.55 255.09 98.57 197 N 206.9 1586 99.95 256.90 99.55 197 N 218.8 1587 100.00 258.49 N 197 N 55 Case 2191" MIC ORIGIN N E SOCIO-ECON STATUS II Heigh$ % of % of % of H03. in NI. Dev. M.A. Dev. S.A. Dev. 96.00 1161 75.90 92.2 45.84 84 42.64 _108 .12 1222 77 .78 96 .1 47 .76 94 47 .71 120.80 1274 81.09 111.0 55.19 111 56.54 152.42 1526 84.40 141.5 70.56 124 62.94 144.12 1585 88.16 154.2 76.67 142 72.08 156.56 1471 95.65 148.6 75.89 152 77.15 167 .76 1524 97 .00 156 .1 77 .62 164 65 . 25 180.12 1548 98.55 160.5 79.71 175 88.85 192 .56 1562 99.42 180.9 89 .95 187 94 . 92 204. 24 1571 100.00 187 .9 95.45 196 99 .49 216. 24 1568 99.80 201. 1 100.00 197 N 0899 2201" ETHNIC ORIGIN N E SOCIO-ECON STATUS NR Height % of Z of z of “NOS. in m. Dev. 14.1. Dev. 8.5. Dev. 101. 5 1196 76.5 101.28 48 . 55 84 42 .64 114.0 1.251 80 .0 196.59 50 .87 96 48 . 75 126.0 1500 85.1 110.25 52.62 108 54.82 157. 5 1552 86 .4 141.65 67 .60 127 64 .47 149.4 1441 92 .1 152 . 59 72.75 140 71.06 161.6 1507 96 . 4 180.25 86 .02 156 79 .19' 175.0 1528 97 .8 185.42 87 .54 164 85 . 25 ‘ 185.4 1555 99 . 5 .59 90 .96 176 89. 54 _197 .6 1558 99‘. 49 200.60 95 .74 192 97 .46 ' 209 . 5 1562 99 .87 209.5 100.00 196 99.49 221.5 1564 100 .00 207 .12 98 .85 197 N '56 Case 228? BEENIC ORIGIN N E SOCIO-ECON STATUS III Hbisht % of % of % of m. a “0 RV. MQAO mv. SCAG Dev. 107.6 1285 80.5 127.02 65.56 90 45.68 119.5 0 1555 85.6 127.65 65.66 105 55.50 150.9 1400 87.7 '145.52 72.48 124 62.94 145.2‘ 1499 95.9 158.19 78.90 142 72.08 155.0 1566 98.1 177.52 88.55 57 76.69 166.6 1580 98.9 169.06 84.55 175 88.85 179.0 1594 99.81 180.85 90.20 184 95.40 191.5 1597 100.00 194.15 96.84 195 97.97 205.5 1595 99.75 200.47 N 197 N 0630 228F . 7 ETHNIC ORIGIN N E‘ SOCIO—ECON $TATUS_ III Height . % of z of % of Nos. in II. Dov. M.A. Dav. S.A. Dev. 100.92 -—1252 77.47 166.5 76.50 90 71.7 115.40 1509 81.00 180.5 82.65 110 79.7 124.80 1555 85.72 149.8 68.65 125 89.1 157.16 1591 9 86.07 167.4 76.71 N N 148.56 _ 1442 89.25 188.7 86.48 141 24.72 161.04 1552 96.05 185.2 84.87 152 58.25 172.92 1575 97.55 204.0 95.49 168 65.58 184.92 1606 99.58 218.2 100.00 179 80.81 197.28 1616 100.00 N N 187 95.56 ETHNIC ORIGIN It. 57 80010-30011 STATUS III Height 1% of z of % of lbs. in In. Dev. ILA. Dev. 8.5. Dev. 78.54 1079 71.74 70.50 57.25 69 55.02 87.96 1116 78.12 95.25 49.26 78 59.59 100.56‘ 1175 81.44. 95.52 49.41 87 44.16 -112.20 1225 84.24 96.49 50.98 101 51.26 124.56 1267 87.56 114.59 60.55 111 56.54 155.96 ' 1514 91.55 122.56 64.65 125 62.45 147.84 1577 95.81 151.57 69.52 N N 160.20 1441 98.07 145.78 77.05 155 78.68 171.72 1475 99.55 159.69 84.58 171 86.80 184.08 1494 100.00 175.05 91.45 185 95.90 195.96 1504 100.00 176.56 95.19 N N 207.96 1504 100.00 189.24 100.00 197 N 0380 248? ETHNIC ORIGIN N E SOCIO—ECON STATUS IV , Height 56 or z of z of M08. in “9 WV. MOAO mv. SOA. Dev. 95.96 1195 75.58 95.84 45.02 84 45.65 105.80 1259 78.17 122.48 54.98 95 47.20 116.52 1297 81.82 141.05 65.51 105 55.29 128.52 1544 84.79 125.95 56.55 114 57.86 152.40 1501 94.70 185.95 85.46 159 80.71 164.16 1554 98.04 187.14 84.00 168 85.27 175.80 1571 99.11 195.58 86.80 185 92.89 188.16 1584 99.95 205.21 91.21 184 95.95 200.52 1585 100.00 222.58 ‘99.91 197 N 212.16 1585 100.00 222.7? N 197 N _ 58 08.96 2581“ ETHNIC ORIGIN Jew SOCIO—ECON STATUS II . Height 2 of z of % of . 1406. in II. Dev. ILA. Dev. S.A. Dev. 79.44 1108 75.62 N N 71 56.04 89.04 1141 75.81 107.74 48.70 86 45.65 101.88 1198 79.60 155.50 61.25 96 48.75 115.28 1246 82.79 154.80‘ 60.95 105 55.29 125.64 1504_ 86.64' 144.49 65.51 120' 60.91 157.04 1545 89.56 156.25 70.62 156' 69.05 149.04 1429 94.95" 180.54 81.52 N N 161.40 1472 97.80 - 196.91 89.01 168 85.27 172.92 1485 98.55 ' 191.94 86.76 180 91.57 185.28 1495 99.00 _ 214.92 97.15 197 N 197.04 1496 99.40 221.21 100.00 197 * N 209.04 1505 100.00 215.51 97.55 197 N Case 260F ETHNIC ORIGIN N E SOCIO‘ECON STATUS III Height. % of 1 of 1 of ms. - m -0 Dev. 'Mvo “V. 80A. Dev. 119.96 . 1227 77.56 101.88 55.59 95 48.22 124.56 1271 80.54 144.49 78.84 108 54.82 155.96 1515 85.12 122.56 66.77 117 59.59 148. 52 1571 ‘ 86 .66 129 .04 70 .41 151 66 .50 '159.96 1428 90.26 157.57 75.07 144 75.10 172.52 1514 95.70 148.20 80.87 155 77.66 184.08 1555 98.29 152.79 85.57 165 85.76 195.84 1568 99.11 166.46 7 90.85 175 87.82 208.20 1571 99.50 174.89 95.45 185 92.89 219.96 1576 99.62 180.57 98.42 195 98.98 .251.96 1582 100.00 185.25 100.00 197 N 59 0888 275! ITEIIC ORIGIN It. SOCIO-ECON STATUS NR Height % of z of % of 1108. in II. Dev. ILA. Dev. S.A. Dev. ‘ 87.4 1214 77.05 95.48 47.55 102 51.78 111.0 1551 84.45 129.87 64.66 128 64.97 125.4 1595 88.58 141.91 70.65 149 75.65 155.4 1469 95.21 155.71 77.52 158 80.20 169.1 1556 98.75 182.96 91.09 176 89.54 170.8 1571 99.68 169.09 84.18 197 N 185.1 1570 99.61 179.45 89.55 197 N 195.0 1575 99.80 200.85 x 197 N 206.9 ' 1576 100.00 190.54 94.76 197 N Cal. 287? EEHNIC ORIGIN It, SOCIO-ECON STATUS III Height % of z of % of M08. in II. Dav. ‘ -M.A. Dev. S.A. Dov. 90.72 1154 75.01 87.99 41.72 69 55.02‘ 100.56 1175 75.66_ 102.57 48.65 84 42.65 112.28 1252 79.55 126.87~ 60.16 95 47.20 125.28 1278. 82.29 126.55 ‘ 59.90 105 55.29 156.80 1544 86.54 155.95 75.95 120 60.91. 149.16 1596 89.89 155.12 75.55 152 67.00. 160.92 1469 94.59 157.70. 74.78 144 75.09 172.80 1506 96.97 174.52 82.75 161. 81.72 184 92 1556 98.90 170.12 80.67 174‘ 88.52 207:28 1547 99.61 198.98 94.55 186 94.41 . 208.80 1555 100.00 210.88 N 197 N ...... 6O 888. 292: ETHNIC? ORIGIN N SOCIO-ECON STATUS III Height % of % of % of lbs. ‘ 'in m. Dov. M.A. Dev. S.A. Dev. 60.16 1189 71.45 N N- 71 56.04 89.88 1229' 75.85 85.58 42.57 85 42.15 102.48 1291 77.58 102.48 50.86 96 48.75 114.12 1550 81.12 109.55 54.57 107 54.51 126.48 1407 84.55 154.06 66.55 125 62.45 157.88. 1487 89.56 159.25 69.11 156 69.05 149.76 1585 95.15 159.27 69.12 149 75.65 162.24 1625 97.55 168.72 85.74 165 82.74 175.64 _ 1647 98.97 170.16 84.45 177 89.84 186.12 1655 99.45 189.84 94.22 195 98.98 198.00 1660 99.75 190.08 94.54 ->- 197 ' N 209.88 1664 100.00 201.48 100.00 197 N 088. 509! ETHNIC ORIGIN N Ei. SOCIOuECON STATUS NR Height % of z of %' of lbs. in II. Dev. ILA. Dev. S.A. Dev. 77.2 1208 72.29 77.20 55.01 87 44.16 89.5 1277 76.42 97.55 44.24 101 51.26 101.8 1554 79.85 102.81 46.62 115 57.56 . 115.8 1404 84.02 119.49 54.19 125 62.45 125.8 1466 87.75 155.99 70.74 152 67.00 157.5 1557 95.17 154.00 69.84 147 74.61 149.4 1615 96.52 188.24 85.56 165 g 85.75 161.2 1654 97.78 191.82 , 86.99 179 90.82 175.5 1649 98.68 187.58 84.97 189 95.95 175.5 1664 99.58 220.50 100.00 197 N 197.4 1671 100.00 209.24 94.89 197 N 61 Can. 315; me ORIGIN N E' scam—Econ STATUS III I Ebiaht % of % of % of m. in u. D". MQAQ M. SOA. Dev. 96.12 1188 78.54 109.57 55.91 89 45.17 108.60 1251 82.84 115.11 49.05 111 56.54 120.12 1544 89.00 158.15 70.49 141 71.57 152.48 1456 95.09 151.02 77.07 159 80.71 144.00 1476 97.74 158.12 80.69 171 86.80 156.24 1494 98.94 157.80 80.55 177 89.84 168.24 1509 99.95 154.75 78.98 186 94.42 180.12 1509 99.95 160.50 81.80 192 97.46 192.48 1510 N 192.48 98.22 v195 98.98 204.12 1509 99.95 195.95 100.00 197 100.00 217.44 1508 99.86 N N 197 100.00 Gas. 555? ETHNIC ORIGIN N E SOCIO-ECON STATUS III 'Height % of % of % of ms. in “9 Dev. ”0“ mv. 80A. Dev. ‘ 92.76 1225 76.75 124.74 47.40 N N 105.48 1274 79.82 146.61 55.71 106 55.80 117.00 1522 82.85 169.65 64.46 116 58.88 129.56 1567 85.65 182.59 69.51 129 65.48 141.56 1444 90.47 190.51 72.59 144 75.09 ~ 155.00 1516 94.98 195.84 74.42 156 79.18 164.52 1551 97.18 205.65 78.14 169 85.78' 176.76 1585 99.18 215.64 81.94 192 97.46 189.12 1590 99.62 247.74 94.14 195 98.98 200.88 1596 N 265.15 100.00 197 N 212.88- 1594 99.87 249.06 94.64 197 N .LLL. -62 can. 554? ITENIC ORIGIN N Ek SOCIO—ECON STATUS IV Ehight % of % of % of Mos.' in In. Dev. M.A. Dev. S.A. Dev. 92.40 1195 74.96 , N N 87 44.16 105.48 1264 79.29 148.72 61.18 102 51.78 116.40 1524 85.06 156.18 56.02 117 59.59 129.56 1571 86.01 161.70 66.52 125 65.45 141.56 1455 89.89 182.55 75.02 155 68.55 155.12 1512 94.85 179.01 73.64 147 74.62 164.52 1551 97.50 190.84 78.51 165 85.76 176.76 1576 98.88 240.59 98.90 179 90.86 189.12 1587 99.56 256.40 97.25 192 97.46 200.88 1594 N 245.06 100.00 197 4 N 212.88 1592 99.87 242.68 99.84 197 N 088. 546F ETHNIC ORIGIN N E?’ SOCIO-ECON STATUS III Hbight % of z of % 9! Man. in II. Dov. M.A. Dav. S.A. Dev. 75.48 1109 69.09 N N N N 84.72 1157 72.08 88.95 42.54 85 42.15 96.84 1219 75.05 101.68 48.65 95 47.20 108.96 1271 79.19 106.78 51.07 107 54.51 120.96 1557 85.50 155.08 65.65 120 60.91 155.44 1455 89.40 157.45 75.51 155 68.52" 146.08 1522 94.82 147.25 70.42 N N 156.60 1564 97.44 164.45 78.65 167 84.77 168.84 1595 99.26 194.16 92.87 179 90.86 181.20 1600 99.68 184.82 88.40 191 96.95 192.96 1610 N 185.51 87.68 197 N 204.96 1605 100.00 209.05 N 197 N Gas. 555; mm ORIGIN N E‘- SOCIO—ECON STATUS Iv ' Height % of % of % of lbs. in u. Dev. 11.4. Dev. S..A. Dev. 72.56 1010 69.08 75.81 55.01 60 50.45 85.76 1057 72.29 96.52 45.08 72 56.54 96.00 1105 75.58 107.04 47.88 84 42.65 108.00 1165 79.54 116.10 51.95 97 49.25 120.12 1212 82.90 150.55 58.50 108 54.82 151.88 1252 85.65 128.58 57.51 125 62.45 145.76 1559 91.58 152.59 68.17 145 72.58 155.88 1407 96.25 168.55 75.51 161 81.72 167.76 1451 97.87 175.51 78.42 171 89.84 139.76 1449 99.11 206.72 92.47 185 95.90 1 1.88 1456 99.58 225.54 130.00 '196 99.49 204.12 1462 100.00 217.59 97.24 197 N 216.96 1455 99.52 N N 197 N 8889 561! ETHNIC ORIGIN N F:- SOCIO—ECON STATUS IV Height % of % of ft of mg. m -0 Dev. "8&9 DOV. 80A. Dev. 85.9 1150 71.88 95.54 56.45 75 58.07 98.6 1206 76.71 89.72 55.10 87 44.16 110.5- 1248 79.58 111.40 65.95 100 49.24 122.6 1506 85.07 152.86 78.65 112 56.85 154.2 1565 86.70 114.07 67.51 12 65.45 . 92.40 129.94 76.91 158 70.05 96.75 142.47 84.52 151 76.64 98.47 158.00 95.51 164 85.24 99.61 165.50 96.77 185 95.90 99.95 168.95 100.00 19.7 N 100.00 N N 197 N 61+ 0:80 588! ETHNIC ORIGIN N g h_ SOCIO—ECON STATUS IV. _ Height % of % of % of Mos. in In. Dev. 11.1. 007. 8.4. Dev. 72.80 1158 72.62 64.79 29.98 94 47.71 84.84 1207 77.02 71.26 52.97 108 54.82 96.84 1258 80.28 91.99 42.56 118 59.85 108.72 1525 84.55 101.10 46.78 128 64.97 120.96 1400 89.54 159.10 64.56 148 75.12 152.84 1477 94.25 160.75 74.57 156 79.18 144.84 1525 97.51 170.91 79.08 166 84.26 156.84 1548_ 98.78 169.58 78.57 179 90.86 188.96 1560 99.55 180.78 85.65 191 96.95 180.98 1561 99.61 195.45 90.45 197 N 192.96 1565 99.74 216.11 N 197 N 204.84 1567 100.00 206.88 95 .72 197 N Case 411? ‘ ETHNIC ORIGIN N E‘ SOCIO—ECON STATUS III Height % of % of % of M09. in II. Dev. M.A. Dev. 8.4. Dev. 84.60 1192 75.44 90.52 45.99 71 56.41 96.60 1255 77.52 100.46 48.82. 81 41.55 109.20 1509 80.65 105.58 51.21 95 47.69 120.72 1562 85.91 155.40 64.85 111 56.90 152.60 1412 86.99 141.88 68.96 25 65.07 145.08 1507 92.85 158.71 77.14 155 69.25 156.56 1568 96.61 186.50 90.55 150 76.92 168.60 1604 98.82 195.65 94.11 171 87.69 180.96 1612 99.52 189.85 _ 92.26 185 95.84 192.72 1618 99.69 205.74 100.00 195 N 204.72 1625 100.00 N N 195 N 65 422! 218310 ORIGIN N E1 SOCIO-ECON STATUS .IV Height % of % of % of Hon. 1: n. Dev. M.A. Dev. 8.1. Dev. 100.4 1307 79.06 139.55 71.48 93 47.20 112.6 1361 82.33 127.23 65.17 102 51.77 124.7 1411 85.35 133.42 68.34 114 57.86 156.7 1575 89.23 139.43 71.42 131 66.49 149.0 1553 93.95 154.96 79.37 144 73.09 160.8 1603 96.97 154.36 79.06 159 80.71 172.4 1824 98.24 151.71 77.71 171 86.80 184.9 1645 99.51 168.25 86.18 183 92.89 197.2 1651 99.87 195.22 100.00 192 97.46 208.8 1653 N 187.92 96.26 197 N 222.7 1649 99.75 N N 197 N Capo 424F ETHNIC ORIGIN N E’ SOCIO¢ECON STATUS IV Height % of % of % of ms. in no DOV. "0‘. Dev. SOAO DOV. 78.2 1132 71.23 61.77 44.45 72 36.54 87.5 1186 74.63 97.12 69.90 84 42.63 99.6 1236 77.78 86.65 62.36 95 48.22 111.7 1286 80.93 93.82 67.52 105 53.29 123.7 1326 83.44 86.59 62.32 120 60.91 136.2 1381 86.91 99.42 71.55 135 68.52 147.7 1461 91.94 115.20 82.91 147 74.61 159.4 1525 95.97 122.73 88.33 159 80.71 171.7 1569 98.74 121.90 87.73 171 86.80 183.7 1572 98.93 130.42 93.86 185 93.90 195.7 1589 100.00 138.94 N 195 98.98 209.6 1587 99.87 N N 197 N 66 ETHNIC ORIGIN NE SOCIO—EOON STATUS NR % of % of % of Dev. M.A. Dov. S.A. Dev. 82.44 1252 74.08 88.21 42.65 95 47.21 95.96 1299 78.11 91.14 44.04 105 55.50 105.72 1548 81.05 125.80 60.79 117 59.59 117.84 1402 84.50 129.62 62.64 129 65.48 129.80 1461 87.85 145.15 70 .14 141 71.57 141.84 1542 92.72 170.20 82.25 150 76.14 153.48 1614 97.05 178.05 86.05 162 82.25 165.60 1646 98.97 182.16 88.05 177 89.85 177.84 1646 98.97 179.16 86.58 191 96.95 189.84 1665 N 206.92 100.00 197 N 201.72 1661 99.87 198.16 95.76 197 N Case 549! NTflNIC ORIGIN NE SOCIO-ECON STATUS III mm 1 at z of % of M98. in II. Dov. 14.1. Dev. S.A. Dev. 98.24 1250 78.02 88.54 47.50 104 52.79 120.48 1558 84.76 112.05 59.86 124 4 62.94 132.84 1442 90.01 115.57 61.74 144 73.09 144.48 1517 94.69 152.92 71.01 160 81.21 156.72 1572 98.12 145.75 77.87 186 94.41 148.60 1581 98.68 156.80 85.77 189 95.95 180.24 1599 99.81 176.64 94.57 197 N 192 .96 1602 N 187 .17 100.00 197 N 204 .48 1601 99.95 179 .94 96 .15 197 N 218.28 1597 99.68 N N 197 N —. 67 case 558! ETHNIC ORIGIN NE SOCIO-ECON STATUS II Nbight % of % of % of Mba. in nu. Dev. M.A. Dev. S.A. Dev. 96.72 1292 78.68 158.51 64.65 95 48.22 109.52 1555 82.52 129.54 60.55 102 51.77 120.60 1429 87.02 155.07 65.15 125 62.45 152.96 1509 91.90 157.56 75.65 N N 144.60 1572 95.75 177.86 85.15 159 80.71 156.84 1615 98.55 184.29 86.14 171 86.80 168.72 1651 99.55 180.55 84.58 186 94.41 180.72 1655 99.57 196.08 91.65 197 N 195.08 1652 99.59 202.75 94.76 197 N 204.72 1657 99.69 215.92 N 197 N 218.40 1642 100.00 N N 197 N 0888 921F ETHNIC ORIGIN It. SOCIO—ECON STATUS III Height % of % of % of M05. in mm. Dev. M.A. Dev. S.A. Dev. 107.88 1179 79.02 86.50 65.72 109 59.25 120.48 1257 82.90 89.79 68.58 121 65.76 151.76 1281 85.85 94.21 71.74 142 77.17 144.12 1552 89.27 105.05 78.47 148 80.45 155.76 1586 92.89 105.92 80.66 154 85.69 167.88 1451 95.85 124.25 94.60 160 86.95 179.88 1475 98.86 151.51 100.00 174 94.56 191.52 1492 100.00 130.25 99.17 184 N Gas: 922? ETHNIC ORIGIN NE SOCIO—ECON STATUS III Wt % of % of 56 of flu. in In. Dev. M.A. Dev. S.A. Dev. 75.08 1060 70.05 59.19 48.09 68 59.76 82.80 1105 72.90 74.52 60.55 79 46.19 95.40 1141 75.41 N N 95 54.58 106.92 1190 78.65 70.59 57.56 102 59.64 119.04 1245 82.28 95.44 75.95 112 65.49 150.68 1294 85.52 92.12 74.85 124 72.51 142.80 1560 89.88 107.81 87.60 155 78.94 154.80 1421 95.91 125.06 100.00 144 84.21 166.44 1476 97.55 96.55 78.44 158 92.59 178.68 1515 100.00 115.24 95.64 171 N Case 1026F ETHNIC ORIGIN NE SOCIO-ECON STATUS NR Height % of % of 1 of M03. in II. Dev. M.A. Dev. S.A. Dev. 86.16 1248 74.57 95.05 46.59 87 44.16 '95.?6 1297 77.29 105.42 51.79 96 48.75 108.60 1551 80.51 119.46 59.82 107 54.51 120.24 1405 85.75 N N 117 59.59 152.04 1475 87.78 155.67 67.94 129 65.48 145.76 1555 91.47 149.51 74.87 145 72.58 156.00 1624 96.78 166.92 85.59 155 78.68 168.12 1662 99.04 168.12 84.19 165 85.75 180.00 1679 100.50 179.10 89.69 185 92.89 192.00 1678 N. 199.68 N 195 98.98 217.56 1678 100.00 165.55 82.80 197 N 68 69 0880 1027F ETHNIC ORIGIN NE SOCIO-ECON STATUS NR Height % af % of % of Hoe. in In. Dev. M.A. Dev. S.A. Dev. 111.48 1251 78.72 100.55 57.99 105 55.29 125.84 1510 82.44 128.79 74.44 118 59.89 155.00 1555 85.27 124.20 71.78 150 65.98 147.56 1424 89.61 126.75 75.25 142 72.08 158.76 1491 95.85 151.62 87.65 N N 170.76 1555 97.86 154.54 98.52 166 84.26 182.52 1571 98.86 157.87 91.24 179 90.86 195.48 1584 99.68 162.25 95.78 N N 219.00 1589 100.00 175.01 N. 197 N Case 1286F EI'HNIC.,DRIGIN NE SOCIO—ECON STATUS III Height z of % of z of Moo. 1!: In. Dev. ILA. Dev. SJ. Dev. .86.88 1215 75.45 105.99 52.52 77 59.09 99.60 1267 76.70 112.05 55.51 90 45.68 111.60 1518 79.68 118.62 54.86 100 50.76 125.12 1582 85.55 121.89 57.54 117 59.59 155.00 1442 87.18 145.10 67.52 150 65.99 147.24 1555 95.89 164.17 77.25 144 75.09 158.76 1612 97.46 174.64 82.16 160 81.22 171.00 1655 98.85 197.51 92.91 172 87.51 185.24 1645 99.55 212.56 100.00 184 95.40 195.12 1654 N 186.54 87.66 194 98.48 207.12 1655 99.95 197.80 95.05 197 N. 70 Base 1287? ETHNIC ORIGIN NE SOCIO~ECON STATUS III Height % of 5 of z of lbs. in In. Dev. ILA. Dev. S.A. Dev. 86.88 1195 75.58 116.41 52.52 88 44.67 100.08 1245 76.66 119.59 55.96 98 49.75 111.60 1287 79.24 114.94 51.86 106 55.81 125.12 1545 82.69 157.89 62.22 118 59.90 155.00 1595 85.85 164.02 74.01 129 65.48 147.24 1486 91.50 164.17 74.08 140 71.06 158.76 1550 95.44 178.60 80.59 150 76.14 171.00 1596 98.27 214.60 96.85 162 82.25 185.24 1812 99.28 219.88 99.21 172 87.51 195.12 1624 N 205.90 92.00 184 95.40 207.12 1624 100.00 221.61 100.00 197 N Case 1508? ETHNIC ORIGIN It. SOCIO-ECON STATUS NR Height 5 of % of 5 of Mos. in u. Dev. M.A. DeV. S.A. Dev. 106.80 1224 79.52 77.96 50.55 111 56.54 118.80 1275 82.65 98.01 65.55 126 65.95 150.68 1550 87.49 95.44 60.58 141 71.57 142.92 1429 92.61 97.19 65.02 150 74.16 ‘154.80 1495 96.75 110.68 71.76 161 81.72 166.80 1516 98.25 115.42 75.54 177 89.84 178.80 1555 99.55 121.58 78.85 N N 191.04 1540 99.80 129.91 84.25 196 99.49 202.80 1540 99.80 157.90 89.41 197 N 214.80 1558 99.64 146.06 94.70 197 N 226.80 1545 100.00 154.22 N 197 N 71 0080 1509? ETHNIC ORIGIN Itg SOCIO-ECON STATUS NR Height 5 of % of V % of “Se in .0 Dev. HoA. DOV. S.A. Dev. _95.18 77.95 N N N N 106.80 1215 81.04 71.55 45.72 99 50.25 - 118.80 1261 85.86 78.40 50.09 115 . 57.56 150.68 1555 90.48 84.94 54.27 N N ‘142.92 1408 95.50 105.76 67.58 145 72.58 154.80 1486 97.50 102.16 65.28 155 78.68 166.80 1514 98.77 115.09 75.54 171 86.80 178.80 1557 99.61 116.22 74.26 185 92.89 '191.04 1550 99.55 124.17 79.54 196 99.49 202.80 1549 99.85 155.87 86.82 196 99.46 214.80 1554. 100.00 148.21 94.70 197 N 226.80 1556 100.00 156.49 N 197 N Case 1591F ETHNIC ORIGIN NE SOCIO—ECON STATUS III Height % of at of % of lbs. in m. Dev. ILA. Dev. S.A. Dev. 85.28 1164 70.95 71.62 59.89 N N 89.40 1205 75.45 85.82 47.80 84 50.90 102.12 1259 76.72 104.16 58.02 95 56.56 115.40 1501 79.28 109.99 61.26 99 60.00 ' 125.76 1548 82.14 152.04 75.55 105 65.65 157.76 1595 84.88 141.20 78.65 111‘ 67.27 149.40 1456 87.50 149.40 85.22 117 70.90 161.40 1469 89.51 146.06 81.56 126 76.56 175.04 1504 91.65 162.65 90.60 155 81.81 185.40 1551 84.51 169.64 94.49 147 89.09 197.28 1602 97.82 179.52 100.00 155 92.72 209.16 1641 100.00 175.69 97.86 165 N 72 0889 1989F ETHNIC ORIGIN NE SOCIO—ECON STATUS III Height % of 1: of z of MOI. in II. Dov. ILA. Dev. S.A. Dev. I . 150.52 1281 84.72 115.57 64.59 152 67.00 141.56 1560 89.95 106.20 60.52 145 72.58 ’ 154.08“ - 1445 95.57 158.67 78.76 156 79.18 165.60- 1471 97.29 167.25 94.99 169 85.78 177.84. 1498 99.07 161.85 91.91 185 92.89 189.84 1508 99.75 161.56 691.65 197 N 201.72 1511 99.95 161.57 91.65 197 .N 214.08 1512 100.00 175.54 99.70 197 N 225.72 1506 799.60 176.06 100.00 197 N 240.12 1507 99.67 170.48 96.85 197 N Case 990! ETHNIC ORIGIN NE SOCIO-ECON STATUS III Height % of Z of % of Hoe. 111 n. Dev. FLA. Dev. S.A. ' Dev. 150.52 1515 85.85 152.92 64.04 114 57.87 141.60 1599 91.52 141.60 68.22 158 70.05 154.08 1472 96.08 150.99 72.74 155 78.68 165.60 1495; 97.45 165.90 79.95 165 85.76 177.84 1525 99.54 161.85 77.97 174, 88.52 189.84 1524 99.48 165.26 78.66 185 92.89 201.72 1552 100.00 169.44 81.65 195 98.98 214.08 1552 100.00 205.57 97.98 197 N 225.60 1551 99.95 207.55 N 197 N 73 0380 2685? ETHNIC ORIGIN Jew SOCIO—ECON STATUS‘ IV Height % of 5 of % of 3 H98. in m. Dev. 14.11. Dev. S.A. Dev. 72,72 1154 67.98 77.81 55.46 85 52.99 82.44 1175 70.52 95.65 45.59 72 56.54 95.28 1255 75.92 104.80 47.77 85 42.15 106.52 1581 76.79 106.52 48.46 96 48.75 -118.68 1545 80.51 129.56 58.96 108 54.82 150.52 1582 82.85 144.65 65.95 119 60.40 142.50 1447 86.75 175.54 79.92 158 70.05 154.44 1507 90.54 149.80 68.28 147 74.61 166.20 1578 94.60 159.55 72.75 156 79.18 178.52 1629 97.66 178.52 81.28 165 85.75 190.52 1656 99.28 184.65 84.17 185 92.89 _ 202.44 1664 ‘99.?6 210.55 95.97 197 N 217.20 1668 100.00 219.57 N 197 N Case 2684F ETHNIC ORIGIN Jew SOCIO-ECON STATUS -IV Height % of % of % of MOS. in no Dev. M08. Dev. SuA. Dev. 98.64 1211 76.11 88.78 54.57 87 44.16 108.56 1245 78.25 84.52 51.76 1.94 47.71 121.08 1290 81.08 N N 105 52.28 152.48 1524 85.21 111.95 68.56 108 54.82 144.72 1565 85.66 N N 118 59.90 156.24 1414 88.81 124.99 76.54 129 65.48 188.48 1469 92.55 142.57 87.19 152 77.15 180.56 1522 95.66 142.48 87.26 160 81.22 192.00 1570 98.68 140.16 85.84 168 85.28 204.24 1582 99.45 156.24 95.68 189 95.94 216.24 1587 99.74 162.18 99.52 197 N 228.56 1591 100.00 165.28 N 197 N 145.12 1590 99.95 165.28 N ' 197 N 74 Ciao 2912! ETHNIC ORIGIN NE SOCIO-ECON STATUS NR Height 2 of % of % of M08. in m. Dev. ILA. Dev. S.A. Dev. 82.92 1185 70.58 72.14 41.25 77 59.09 92.64 1250 75.58 108.58 61.97 84 42.64 '105.72 1291 77.02 112.06 64.08 90 45.68 117.24 1549 80.48 115.72 65 .05 101 51.27 .128.88 1596 85.29 117.28 67.06 114 57.87 141.24 1441 85.97 148.50 84.80 129 65.48 155.00 1495 98.20 145.55 85.11 158 70.05 164.52 1574 95.91 155.00 87.49 155 77.66 177.00 1657 97.67 157.55 90.08 165 85.76 189.24 1660 99.04 160.85 91.98 177 89.85 201.00 1665 99.22 174.8? N 195 98.98 215.48 1676 100.00 174.87 N 197 N Case 544F ETHNIC‘ORIGIN N E SOCIO—ECON STATUS II Height % of % of % of M09. in u. Dov. ILA. Dev. 8.1. DeV. 67.44 1195 70.05 N N I 74 ,57.56 80.04 1269 74.5 N N 88 44.67 91.68 .1545 78.8 115.51 49.41 105 55.29 105.56 1415 85.08 122.20 52.27 120 60.91 115.90 1494 ' 87 .14 1:57.90 58.95 154 68.02 127.80 1552 91.15 149.57 63.85 145 ' 75.60 159.68 1651 95.77 169 .01 72.50 158 80.20 151.80 1668 97 .94 185.19 79.22 177 89.84 165.80 1688 99.11 198.19 84.78 187 494.92 175.80 1705 N 221.50 94.75 196 99.49 187.80 1702 99.94 229.11 98.01 197 N 199.80 1705 100.00 255.76 100.00 196 N 75 0&8. 1170F IHHNIC ORIGIN N E SOCIOHECON STATUS III Height % of 75 of 5% of MOS. in Ill. Dov. M.A. Dev. S.A. Dev. 79.2 1096 69.85 N 70 58.04 91.8 1149 75.23 78.05 45.66 79 42.95 105.6 1204 76.75 86.99 48.67 88 47.82 115.4 1260 80.50 96.59 55.95 107 58.15 127.7 1510 85.49 112.56 62.87 120 65.21 ' 139.7 1359 86.61 150.60 75.07 155 75.56 151.6 1828 91.01 152.52 85.25 148 80.45 ,1 165.6 1495 95.15 152.11 5.11 159 86.41 175.8 1538 98.02 157.54 88.04 167 90.76 187.7 1560 99.42 167.97 95.95 176 95.65 199.7 1569 N 178.71 N 184 100.00 211.7 1567 99.87 175.45 97.04 N N Case 1800! ETHNIGJORIGIN N E’ SOCIO—ECON STATUS III Height % of % of %of M03. in m. Dov. M.A. Dov. S.A. Dev. 89.9 N N 79.09 50.74 54 27.41 102.0 1190 76.25 102.00 65.45 67 54.01 114.1 1251 78.85 115.55 72.84 78 59.58 126.7 1286 82.58 95.04 60.97 94 47.71 158.2 1554 85.45 124.42 79.82 109 55.52 150.7 1500 89.68 140.92 90.40 121 61.42 162.4 1490 95.45 155.87 100.00 148 75.12 174.0 1556 98.59 146.16 95.77 160 81.21 186.1 1556 99.68 154.48 99.10 172 87.50 226.0 1561 100.00 N N 197 100.00 76 0888 2849? ETHNIC ORIGIN N E‘ SOCIO—ECON STATUS II Ehight % of % of % of H03. in 3.. Dev. M.A. Dev. S.A. Dev. I . . - i 72.6 1157 69.2 87.85 40.78 72 56.54 | 81.96 1180 71.9 115.10 52.50 87 44.16 94.8 1259 75.5 125.14 58.09 99 50.25 106.3 1291 78.6 122.27 56.76 107 54.51 118.7 1557 81.4 167.08 65.64 114 57.86 150.7 1593 84.8 154.96 71.89 129 65.48 142.3 1455 88.5 159.56 78.62 145 72.58 154.5 1558 95.7 175.15 81.51 155 78.68 165.96 1602 97.6 190.02 88.22 N N 178.5 1622 98.8 197.94 91.89 177 89.84 190.0 1854 99.51 198.65 92.21 189 95.95 214.5 1642 100.00 215.59 N 197 100.00 One. 2915F ETHNIC ORIGIN NE SOCIO—ECON STATUS NR Height % of % or % of M03. in an. Dev. M.A. Dev. S.A. Dev. 70.52 1069 68.48 71.72 55.45 65 55.55 80.04 1112 71.45 92.84 45.89 75 59.68 92.52 1180 75.59 105.47 52.14 84 44.44 104.16 1227 78.60 114.57 56.63 95 50.26 116.28 1271 81.42 115.11 56.90 107 56.61 128.16 1510 85.92 157.15 67.79 117 61.90 140.28 1560 87.12 145.08 70.75 129 68.25 151.92 1417 90.77 164.07 81.11 158 75.01 164.16 1486 95.19 170.72 84.59 149 78.85 176.40 1542 98.78 194.04 95.92 161 85.18 188.16 1555 99.61 186.27 92.08 175 91.55 200.28 1561 100.00 202.28 100.00 189 N 77 9F ETHNICTORIGIN NE SOCIO-ECON STATUS III Height % or % of % of in ““9 D07. “.8. D07. S.A. Dev. 1266 77.19 92.49 61.05 92 46.94 1500 79.26 97.95 64.55 105 52.55 1555 82.62 120.95 79.84 116 59.18 1414 86.21 110.77 73.12 127 64.79 1458 88.90 124.14 81.94 140 71.45 1528 95.17 151.54 86.69 152 77.55 1584 96.58 157.95 91.06 162 82.65 179.52 1514 98.41 149.00 98.55 174 88.77 191.76 1640 100.00 151.49 N 196 N Case 5175F ETHNIC“0RIGIN NE‘- SOCIO—ECON STATUS NR Height % of % of % of H08. in m. Dev. MA. Dev. S.A. Dev. 82.80 1211 73.88 97.70 55.10 87 ' 44.16 92.04 1258 76.75 108.60 59.02 96 48.75 104.04 1561 90.29 106.12‘ 57.67 102 51.77 116.16 1552 82.48 114.99 62.49 117 59.59 128.16 1400 85.41 125.05 66.86 129 65.48 140.64 1452 88.59 154.70 84.08 141 71.57 152.16 1541 94.02 155.90 72.77 147 74.61 165.80 1602 97.74 149.05 81.00 161 81.72 176.16 1620 98.84 165.59 89.99 168 85.27 188.28 1651 99.51 178.86 97.21 185 95.90 200.16 1658 99.95 182.14 98.99 197 N ‘212.28 1659 N 169.82 92.29 197 N 227.16 1654 99.69 185.99 N 197 N C) 78 08.3. 5571“ ETHNIC ORIGIN N E' SOCIO-ECON STATUS III 3018’“ i 01‘ % of % of _ H03. ' l I 1!! no mo “.8. DBV. 3.8.. Dev. E‘ ., . . ~ . 90.48 _ 1219 72.00 99.55 56.19 66 55.50 i . 100.08 1260 74. 42 85 .08 46 .90 80 40 .60 112.68 1525 78 .26 96 .92 54 .71 94 47 .71 124.52 1574 81.15 108.14 61.04 105 55 .29 158 .44 1455 84 .76 120.05 67 .75 116 58.88 168 .52 149‘ 88 .24 124.57 70.52 150 65 . 98 180 .44 1585 95.50 152 . 58, 86 .02 142 72.08 171.96 1658 96 .75 149. 64 84.47 150 76 .14 184.52 ‘ 1674 98.87 165.78 95.58 179 90.86 196 .58 1682 99.55 159.24 89 .89 179 N. 208 .44 1695 100.00 177.14 N - 179 N APPENDIX B 80 Hbight Skeletal Age Mental Age In. 1521 150 116 59.9 .4050 .5065 .2255 110.97 12.96 +20.01 189.9 54. 62 7.5 .7650 .8055 .5061 .79.05 —92.81 -1600 119.4 155.50 100.59 ,197.49 206.6 500.55 197.49 204 160 67.4 of Equation 7.597 2.70 6.40 Case_j§L Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. X1 1576 155 115 62.19 1‘1 ‘ .1455 .5055 .3665 11 130.42 14.89 .10.61 K2 151 69 60 5.94 ’2. .6196 .2167 .4110 12 -60.92 _4.21 -52.69 t2 122.05 66.60 115.58 ‘5. 220.9 666.0 264.45 K5 1727 204 17s 68.04 Av.Ernn- of Equation 5.98 5.65 6.57 mm. 81 Haight Skeletal Age Mental Age In. 1592 158 182 54.8 .2957 .2500 .1755 417.45 15.00 +18.80 122.5 68 55 4.8 1.119 .5618 .5168 -118.97 547.89 -50.86 119.4 111.46 126.91 174.2 219.6 245.47 1514.5 206 2.55 59.7 Av. Error of Equation 2.49 5.05 1.15 Skeletal Age Mental Age In. 124 150 59.0 .2980 .6858 ' 12 . 55 ’25 .82 79 68 ‘6.0 .5458 .8142 —22.77 -91.71 108.44 150.72 285.6 205.98 205 198 65.0 2.51 11.46 ‘1 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. K1 1566 . 124 167 61.7 1'1 .1954 .5592 .2271 11 .27.45 10.60 416.57 K2 154 76 72 5.2 1“2 1.001 . .4210 .6165 12 -112.4 —51.45 -76.05 t2 127.00 109.64 147.25 *5 166.21 254.4 246.65 ‘5 1700 200 259 66.9 av. Error of Eqmtiou 11.60 1.68 9.24 Oeee 46; Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. K1 1517 124 191 59.7 1'1 .2152 .5064 .1400 11 .24.25 11.44 418.55 K2 124.6 79 16 11'2 .6720 .4659 .5275 4.9 12 41.45 .41.61 -66.45 *'2 126.24 121.55 155.91 15 219.4 252.0 270.11 K5 1641.6 205 209 64.? Av. Etru- of Equation 6.54 2.74 4.14 83 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. 1419 175 195 55.9 .2165 .1965 .2264 .26.09 14.60 15.55 156 50 25 5.4 1.0515 .64 .5155 —99.74 .69.62 -45.96 106.6 124.25 114.55 167.1 196.6 255.65 1557 225 218 61.5 Av. Error of Equation 15.05 5.50 7.97 Ceee_;§§_ Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. Kl 1456 176 205.6 57.4 1.1 .1976 .1597 .2059 ‘ 11. +28.57 19.24 .16.14 K2 146 40 57 5.6 1'2 1.127 .5666 .6416 12 .102.02 —19.90 -107.65 t2 104.46 79.05 145.57 t5 156.64 164.4 216.16 K5 1606 216 240.6 65.5 Av. Erma- of Equation 6.10 4.91 10.07 84 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. I1 1469 169 109 57.9 51 .2510 .5255 .2565 11 .27.09 6.41 .22.16 1‘2 176.2 52 55 7.0 1.'2 1.295 .4225 .2697 12 .116.01 -52.505 —6.55 t2 102.66 111.6 76.06 t5 150.04 256.8 505.26 K5 1647.20 201 144 64.9 A'e m of Equetian 4.97 2.956 5.84 on. 297 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. K1 - 1547 154 185 60.1 1'1 .2564 .1640 .2646 11 422.88 22.7 .11.50 K2 120 52 55 4.7 1'2 .9157 .5946 .4662 12 406.65 -6125 -50.12 I"2 152.75 127.7 155.56 ' *‘5 199.66 250.4 259.59 X5 1667 206 256 65.7 Av. Error of Equation 5.55 4.73 5.99 1-4-5-1 J Height &eletel Age Mental Age In. K1 1490 142 177 56.7 .5051 .5525 .2755 11. 416.48 7.55 .14.47 ‘2 95.6 58 75 5.6 1'2 1.1 .4679 .4666 12 454.66 -4610 -48.29 t2 155.60 111.6 126.96 t5 191.5 250.6 254.56 ‘5 1585.8 200 252 62.5 ‘ Av. Error _ or mat-.160 7.74 5.0 5.79 Geee _fiL Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. K1 1510 159 176 60.0 ' 1'1 .2197 .1491 .1755 11 .25.64 22.52 420.58 ‘2 165 80 65 6.5 1'2 _ .6677 ' .4406 5126 12 ' -97.65 —54.66 45.12 "2 126.57 115.4 116.75 t5 195.59 250.6 256.28 K5 1675 219 245 66.0 At. Error of Equation 10.11 2.926 4.57 ‘1 1540 160 126 60.7 ’1 .2456 .2545 .5555 11 .24.07 14.515 410.04 1!2 157.0 54 61 1.'2 .9514 .4556 .5206 6.2 12 .97.66 -5140 -48.62 t2 120.6 105.65 121.64 t5 166.6 246.0 259.29 I5 1697 214 169 66.9 Av. Envr _ ' of Equation 5.68 8.7755 5.26 - use _521; Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. ‘1 1500 150 152 59.1 ’1 .2062 .2760 .2662 _ 11 .27.02 10.65 .10.72 1‘2 225 72 80 6.9 ’2 .7006 .5705 .5269 12 -71.60 -61.56 -25.81 t2 127.75 155.77 125.26 1”5 215.18 241.2 509.55 K5 1725 202 252 68.0 Av. Error of Equation 5.96 5.57 6.27 Skeletal Age 1506 126’ 165 59.5 1“1 . .1465 .2117 .2919 *1 .29.77 16.52 7.72 K2 200 62 4o _‘ 7.9 1'2- .7617 .5455 .4946 ' 12 .74.54 -21.61 .44.10' t2 116.95 105.16 116.69 ‘5 197.57 262.0 242.72 I5 1706 210 205‘ 67.2" Av. Error , - . - of mmuoe 15.04 2.97 4.80 Geee 331 Height 62.16661 1g. 2466641 Ag; 16. KJ. 1440 147 151 56.7 '-'1 .5054 .2454 .2456 11 419.65 15.26 419.68 1‘2 179 56 67 1"2 .7969 .5222 .6069 7.1 _12 -85.07 -50.28 -56.74 t'2 125.07 124.4 117.76 “'5 . 201.66 241.2 216.72 K5 ' 1619 205 196 65.6 Av. Error of Equation. 6.21 7.92 1.95 of Equation - .7111 .5665 .4075 i2 47.50 .66.51 -51.04 .t2 115.5 141.49 112.52 ‘5 201.5 245.6 262567 1‘5 1759 206 191 68.5 Av. Error ' or Equation 6.41 1.67 44.09 One 621" 2.1366 Skeletal Age’ 666661136" In. .‘1 1445 154 164 57.0 1'1 ' .5566 .5291 .5065 ‘ 11 917.26 15.04 .6.66 , ‘ 32 154.2 72 26 ' 6.1" 1 1'2" .9260 .5909 1.1455 12' ' -96.98 -50.05 475.65 ‘ *2 " 120.5 114. 56 164.75 ‘ $5 166.4 271.5 216.54 ; K5 1599.2 206 190 65.0 ‘ Av. Error 5.24 1.65 6.92 89 In. 56.5 K2 119 65 26 4.7' ’2 1.221 .5695 .5261 i2 9155.65 .19.49 .56.11 *‘2 159.52 92.66 154.14 t5 169.70 256.6 250.16 1‘5 1605 165 191 65.2 . 1'. mo? of ligation 6.57 6.70 7.45 Case 841" . Belght Skeletal Age Mental Age In. 1‘1 1471 124 .66 56.0 1'1 .2246 .5576 .2055 _11 -.24.79 5.97 726.86 _ ~32 200.6 62 55 7.9' . "2 .757 .4056 .6900 12 ' .76.47 —51.11 -66.?8 t'2 125.74 115.52 116.15 1"5 206.67 265.2 206.95 K5 1671.6 166 121 65.9 Av. Error or 161647.166 6.77 1.59 5.64 ‘1 1469 170 122 ”57.9 ’1 ' .2561 .5575 .2610 11- - .22.92 1.05 .15.71 K2 125.0 54 54 4.6 ’2 1.275 .4512 .5055 *2 455.57 «56.20 -60.98 t2 117.8 117.51 149.77 *'5. 165.9 255.0 270.96 x5 1604.57 204 176 65.2 Av. Error or Equetiou 10.11 1.94 1.56 Case £93 K1 1555 116 166 60.5 ’1 .1945 2556 .5696 11 .26.94 19.44 +2.18 K2 102.5 62 96 -, 4.0 3'2 .9167 .2955 .6055 ._*2 416.69 —14.86 $8.92 t2 145.0 100.62 156.61 .‘5 209.7 509.6 240 ,‘5 1657.5 196 262 64.5 Av. Error ' of Emotion 7.69 2.87 8.298 Skelotal Ago 91 Mental Ago In. K11 1466 , 116 162 58.6 1‘1 .1916 .5456 .5726 11 427.91 9.54 45.17 ‘2 166.6 62 69 7.4 1"2 .5904 .5550 .5466 12 -55.61 -2o.55 .57.16 1‘2 115.75 105.51 151.47 t5 219.52 266.9 245.52 ‘5 1676.60 200 251 66.0 Av. Error of Equation 4.10 1.247 5.59 0666 1061" . Height Skeletal Age Mental Ago In. K-1 1511 97 159 59.5 ’1 .1625 .5575 .4290 11 428.80 12.46 -5.27 K2" 175.1 104 24 6.9 rz‘ .6225 .5160 .6164 12 .65.11 .15.52 .11o.91 t2 116.9 66.64 155.69 t5 195.4 261.5 226.94 K5 1666.1 201 165 66.4 Av. Ermr of Equation 4.42 2.96 7.37 92 Height -. Skeletal Ago Mental Age In. 1460 150 176 58.5: .2260 .2000 .2996 424.14 17.92 6.96 159 75 56.0 5.5 .622 .5560 .5767 '58.“ ”15.45 -55903 116.44 64.77 152.09 216.94 250.9 294.74 1619 205 212 65.6 6.02 2.55 4.97 0666. 1206 . .5 Height 9:61.561 Ag. 14656551 Ago In. K1 1419 157 154 56.0 r1 .2556 .2596 .7292 11 421.22 10.96 -56.95 _‘2 216.5 70 60.0 6.6 ' ’2 .7271 .5559 .6205 12 .62.62 -24.66 _.64.56 t2 155.66 117.66 160.05 t5 516.15 500.2 256.79 1!5 1657.5 207 194 64.5 Av. Error 5.26 2.64 4.11 93 Height Skeletal Age Mental Ago In. 1550 150 124 61.1 .2260 .2000 - ~15 .5156 422.67 17.92 7.96 111.9 75 50.0 4.4 175.76 .5560 .5261 47.51 45.45 -56.42 154.65 64.77 159.04 215.50 250.9 255.50 1661.9 205 179 65.5 5.44 2.55 5.45 0‘80 .1211. " Height 92.16541 Age 2466561 Ago In. K1 1464 152 150 . . 57.7 ’1 .2406 .2255 .4465 i1 422.28 14.17 6.66 K2 106 64 44.0 4.5 ’2 1.049 .4455 .4761 1.2 415.52 -55.69 .50.41 ‘2 ' 124.16 115.74 156.25 t5 182.57 251.9 264.46 K5 1572 216 194 61.9 4v. m 01‘ Equation 4.9 2.28 5.60 3:61le Age Mental Age ‘1 1545 142 166 60.6 1'1 .5446 .5150 .5055 11 42.54 6.05 7.76 1‘2 125 62 19 4.6 1‘2 .6605 .4561 .6129 12 _69.94 -55.57 .124.25 t2 121.65 114.56 170.94 t5 192.66 262.5 246.4 1‘5 1666 204 167 65.6 AV. Error . 91‘ Equation 6.66 2.21 4.09 0666 1521‘ Height Skeletal Ago Mental Me‘ In. K1 1475 140 166 56.0 1‘1 .1614 .2508 .2721 11 —5o.55 15.51 10.74 K2 177 72 72 7.0 ’2 .9556 .4155 .5752 i2 —1oo.64 -52.74 -69.91 ’02 125.49 114.60 147.66 t5 166.9 262.9 254.5 X5 1650 212 240 65.0 Av. Ermr of Equation 195 5.97 95 Height Skeletal Ago Mental Ago In. 1456 142 155 56.6 .1917 .2500 .2212 26.71 ‘12.15 16.61 155 70 60 6.1 .9211 - .4886 .5078 -—64.60 .46.66 -22.95 121.2 126.05 122.55 195.6 251.4 522.4 9 1591 212 255 62.7 Av. Error 0: Equntian 16.26 -5.05 6.15 c380..l§§£_ Height 61616541 Agi Mentn1 A36 In. X1 1541 117 125 60.7 r1 .2075 .5475 .5254 11 .25.67 11.45 15.54 K2 126 60 55 5.0 ll‘2 .7167 .5451 .4494 . 12 .79.50 -22.50 -46.05 t2 150.6 196.51 155.24 *5 216.0 267.0‘ 271.5 ‘5 1667.0 197 160 65.7 96 Skeletal Ago Mental Ago In. K1 1416 157 125 55.9 ’1 .2526 .2910 .2797 11 425.64 14.21 15.14 K2 142 56 44 5.6 1‘2 .9566 .4455 .6612 12 -96.57 42.54 -99.87 _t2 116.6 106.56 150.04 ‘5 164.2 244.6 199.5 K5 1560 195 167 61.5 AV. Error of mmuan 4.52 1.64 5.66 666. 1796 Height Skeletal Ago Mental Ago In. K1 1496 142 127 59.0 1'1 .2677 .2659 .5049 11 47.55 11.65 7.65 K2 120 60 27 4.7 ll‘2 1.1661 .5556 .5600 12 457.99 -25.44 -55.07 ‘2 150.9 107.66 121.07 t5 165.5 265.9 250.5 K5 1616 202 154 65.7 Aw. Error of Equation 6.38 1.64 4.99 .av ‘ a. 97 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. 1472 130 158 58 .0 .1990 .5206 .2694 426.78 6.55 18. 50 159.5 72 92 5.5 1.172 .4955 .6764 414.29 44.61 -75.69 155.6 119.76 155.67 167.9 245.5 242.2 1611.5 202 250 63.5 6.61 2.56 1.65 Ceee 20°F Height Skeletal gge Mhntal Age In. 1492 96 156 56.6 .1827 .4772 .20627 427.50 5.85 17.25 165.5 96 50 6.5 ‘ .7429 .5858 .6175 ‘ .75.5o ~25.6l -67.56 ‘ 118.49 105.95 152.97 200.96 265.5 252.2 ‘ 1657.5 196 206 65.5 ‘ \ 6.90 4.50 5.66 ‘ 98 new» Skeletal Age Mental Age In. 1465 144 152 58.5 .2452 .5065 .2797 .24.67 11.15 17.56 127.7 59 90 5.0 .6559 .4676 .4955 .76.74 -58.17 40.62 106.6 106.49 152.54 176.4 254.1 256.0 1612.70 205 242 65.5 1v. m 6: Equation 4.97 1.92 12.6 0666- 2196 Height Skeletel Age Mental Me In. ‘1 1465 144 157 56.5 1'1 .2065 .1966 .5756 *1 624.17 25.01 .42 K2 127.5 86 50 5.0 1“2 1.1065 .5729 .5419 £.2 454.40 -21.55 -59.95 '_'2 154.55 96.70 159.92 t5 169.64 261.0 559.1 K5 1612.5 202 207 65.5 Av. Error 0! Equation 4.05 5.49 5.81 99 one. 2201; Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. K1 1465 150 159 57.7 1‘1 .2225 .2466 .2400 ‘1 425.28 15.16 11.26 ‘2 154.7 70 59 5.5 ll'2 1.519 .4294 .4061 12 461.15 _55.59 .51.97 ‘2 155.52 112.55 114.55 ‘5 179.76 255.2 265.9 K5 1599.70 200 216 65.0 Av. Error of Equation 5.90 2.92 4.70 669. 2266 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. K1 1467 105 170 56.6 :1 .2502 .5520 .2791 1'1 .22.16 9.45 12.06 K2 147 95 56 5.6 1['2 1.0 .4564 .6705 12 402.96 -52.92 419.26 ‘2 117.71 105.95 155.94 ‘5 176.96 257.6 224.2 K5 1654 196 206 64.4 AV. mm of Equation 7.58 1.87 4.74 Gene 2281' Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. 1‘1 1519 156 196 59.6 1‘1 .2010 .5079 .5814 1-1 426.50 9.64 5.26 K2 142.1 55 55 5.6 1'2 1.062 .5020 .6459 12 451.42 45.25 .66.47 ‘2 155.07 96.99 157.16 ‘5 191.7 502.1 252.5 K5 1661.10 195 229 65.4 AV. mar of Equation 5.69 5.42 1.2.5l Gene 238? Height Steletal Age Mental Age In. K1 1417 126 155 55.6 1‘1 .1815 .2450 .2976 11 425.95 15.72 10.99 K2 156 75 49 5.4 1‘2 .6529 .4650 .5052 12 .67.95 40.50 -24.57 ‘2 125.25 115.67 129.61 ‘5 196.61 240.0 551.6 K5 15.55 201 164 61.2 AVe M? 01' Equation 5.67 2.11 4.54 101 Gene 248 F Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. I‘1 1462 129 166 57.6 .2512 .5205 .2656 11 422.46 6.54 10.02 K2 151.6 71 45 6.0 ’2 .9611 .5922 .5976 12 409.25 40.45 42.55 ‘2 126.56 115.19 ‘5 166.61 271.5 246.1 K5 1615.6 271.5 246.1 Av Error of Equation 5.04 6.16 6.06 Game 2581" Height Skeletal Age Mental 4g. In. K1 1415 115 160 55.6 ' ll‘1 .1940 .5900 .2691 11 428.46 6.04 15.16 K2 151 66 65 5.2 :2 1.565 .4476 .7676 1-2 466.20 452.67 .67.50 t2 126.55 159.96 129.51 ‘5 167.75 245.1 207.2 K5 1546 201 225 60.9 Av. Error of Equation 7.88 1.74 5.55 102 0960 2801' Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. K1 1470 126 147 57.9 ‘1 .1779 .5966 .4651 11 427.09 -1.94 410.95 K2 159 69 56 6.5 1'2 1.1755 .5914 .6054 12 .155.25 -55.99 .65.20 ‘2 144.6 124.46 161.76 ‘5 197.0 261.0 265.2 1‘5 1625.25 197 165 64.0 Av. Error 0: Equetion 6.15 2.95 5.51 Case 275]: Height Skeletel Age Mental Age In. ‘1 1494 151 170 56.9 r1 .2665 .4616 .2955 11 —21.56 1.64 10.05 K2 122.5 67 40 4.6 r2 .7256 .4122 .4250 12. .64.27 -25.02 -58.85 ‘2 109.1 91.58 126.02 ‘5 195.6 240.2 270.1 x 5 1616.5 196 210 65.7 Av. Error of Equation 9.51 4.58 5.90 133 One 287! Height Skelétal Age Mental Age In. 1‘1 1464 112 167 57.7 1‘1 .1740 t .5417 .2779 11 .26.04 6.06 8.49 X2 144.5 94 52 5.7 1.2 .6615 .5450 .4507 i2 ” -64.25 -25.51 -56.04 t2 119.56 110.26 122.52 t5- 211.96 267.6 264.7 ‘5' 1606.50 206 219 65.4 - Av. Error of Equation 6.52 2.70 12.61 X1 1554 125 140 61.2 1‘1 .2107 t .5465 .2660 11 426.23 7.58 11.96 K2 155.7 75 67 6.1 1.2 1.647 t .5775 .4405 12 -201.09 -23.85 .59.01 t2 1707.7 102.25 99.54 t5 151.0 264.6 261.1 K5 1707.7 196 207 67.5 Av. Error of Equation 1-.52 5.17 4.87 Skeletal Age Mental Age Kl 1602 155 168 65.1 1.1 .1725 t .5571 .2270 11 429.55 12.14 14.87 ‘2 149.4 65 79 5.9 1‘2 .5675 t .5659 .4560 12 .45.11 -50.55 -59.61 t2 96.45 111.42 116.64 t5 202.74 216.5 252.5 K5 1751.4 196 247 69.0 Av. Error of Equtiou 8.99 1.90 9.09 Case 515F Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. K1 1476 176 154 58.2 1‘1 .4150 t .2620 .5000 11 +4.92 6.64 10.92 K2 50 u 26 60 2.0 1‘2 1.107 t .7195 .5507 12 .109.70 .67.56 -60.19 ‘2 112.40 114.09 156.04 t5 167.75 199.2 247.2 K5 1526.00 206 214 60.2 Av. Error of Equation 12.66 5.98 14.15 135 Geee 5559 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. 1‘1 1429 152 196 56.5 1.1 .2769 t .5500 .5575 11 .22.69 10.92 4.67 K2 179.5 66 76 7.1 ’2 . .7919 t .4657 .6250 i2 -80.55 -57.55 -75.94 t2 120.22 112.27 142.52 t5 197.66 244.4 240.6 K5 1608.5 196 272 65.4 Av. Error of aquatic: II 3.51 8.00 Case 5541' , Height 52.14551 12. Mental Age In. K1 1522 155 192 60.0 1‘1 .2262 t .5456 .2729 11 425.19 6.59 12.20 K2 : 109 66 60 1.2 1.077 t .4604 .6115 12 .125.55 .45.42 .95.70 ‘ 150.25 121.04 156.06 1"5 167.14 246.5 211.5 K5 1651.00 199‘ 152 64.5 Av. Error of Equation 4.79 2.65 9.66 Skeletal Age 106 ‘1 1466 152 168 58.6 1.1 .2040 t .2657 .2665 11 426.61 14.69 9.72 X2 171 70 45 ' 6.7 ,’2. =’- ' .9657 t .5675 4200 12 .9641 .46.54 -51.52 #2 114.76 111.49 109.64 ‘ t5_ 176.94 219.4 255.4 K5_ 1659 202 211 ' 65.5 Av. Error or'Equat1au 9.50 2.57 7.60 Glee §§§§ _ Height Skelet61_Age mental Age In. K1 1571 154 154 54.0 1.1 .1710 .2570 .5405 11 429.27. 15.15“ 12.75 7 K2 154.9 66 91 ‘ 6.1 I 1.2 1.054 .5244 .5164 I 12 -112.01 .45.94 .14.22 ’ t2 122.57 111.66 90.92 5 t5 161.62 226.7 265.5 K5' 1525.9 202 225 60.1 Av. Error , of Equation N 1.62 8.21 107 561! Height Skeletal Age Mbntal Age In. 1475 150 150 58.0 .2095 .2659 .2947 625.22 15.45 14.19 148.8 72 42 5.9 .9790 .5245 .5775 —106.75 —49.04 -22.58 124.06 121.65 98.50 186.64 258.4 260.5 1621.8 202 172 65.9 Av. Error 02 Equation 9.95 4.21 7.56 Case 586F Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. 1496 164 178 58.9 .2151 .2178 .1696 +27.61 20.17 17.59 118 44 65 4.6 1.5144 .8520 .7950 -l25.66 -92.27 -91.75 105.28 128.6 155.95 151.90 201.90 201.8 210.9 1614 208 241 65.5 Av. Error of Equation 10.72 5.67 1.80 138 Height Skeletal Age hate]. Age In. 1526 110 150 60.1 .2175 t .2525 .1962 425.55 19.09 19.55 142.1 90 64 5.6 1.166 . .5965 .4206 .155.59 .57.42 -50.09 127.05 120.55 106.51 179.57 222.0 252.00 1666.1 200 214 65.7 6.55 5.16 5.62 Caee 422! Height Skeletel Age Mental Age In. K1 1541 125 156 60.7 r1 .2667 .2944 .2676 1'1 .21.01 12.64 14.01 1:2 152.7 76 '45 5.2 1‘2 .9054 t .5910 .2605 12 -98.77 -27.68 _2o.72 t2 125.55 106.4 126.47 t5 195.05 265.0 545.00 K5 1675.70 201 205 65.9 Av. Error . of Equation 5.55 1.6 7.91 139 Case 424! Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. ‘1 1497 118 104 59.0 1.1 .1911 .5878 .4565 11 .27.42 16.76 2.46 K2 155.2 66 42 6.1 1.2 .6207 t .5565 .5740 12 —88.05 -2179 -25.66 t2 125.21 102.4 106.56 t5 199.66 274.5 272.4 K5 1652.2 204 146 65.1 Av. Extra:- of Eqmtim 8.24 1.85 7.18 c“. .5321. Skolotal Ago 110 Skeletal Age Mental Age In. K1 1495 155 119 56.6 ’1 .2552 .2755 .2200 - 1L1 22.50 17.25 20.95 K2 141.5 47 60 5.6 1‘2 .9525 .7972 .6955 12 .97.05 -75.94 -65.10 ‘2 117.55 111.2 115.11 t5 161.69 167.2 205.4 K5 1654 162 199 4.4 Av. Error o: Equation 7.97 9.21 10.55 c... 558. . ' Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. K1 1596 116 165 62.9 ’1 .2764 .5567 .2511 11 16.50 11.29 16.15 K2 65.1 65 45 . 5.5 r 2 1.0760 .5275 .5970 12 411.66 .41.12 -75.04 t2 117.60 105.9 150.56 t'5 174.50 222.0 252.9 K5 1661 201 226 66.2 Av. Error of Equation 1554. 2.24 5.19 111 Case .32).; Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In." K1 1452 157 96 56.4 1‘1 .2472 .2616 .5650 ‘1 19.50 9.50 14.27 K2 102.2 45 47 4.0 :12 .5667 .4562 .7945 12 .62.14 41.49 .95.91 ‘2 150.50 128.2 159.20 t5 254.60 267.6 216.5 K5 1554 200 145 60.4 Av. Error of Equation 5.95 5.47 8.00 K1 1404 122 96 55.5 1‘1 .1990 .5571 .4271 5*1 27.57 10.60 5.76 K2 166.0 65 55 6.5 1'2 6606 .5561 .7625 i'2 467.64 -25.04 -66.42 ‘2 121.02 105.4 129.26 ‘5 211.04 276.4 207.4 X5 1570 187 129 6.16 AV. mm:- of Equation 7.75 1.16 7.61 112 Skeletal Age Mental Age In. I1. 1570 159 156 61.6 1.1 .2167 .2766 .2576 11 25.60 15.55 26.55 ‘2 157.2 64 72 6.2 ’2 .9402 .4640 .5080 i2 .100.15 .4091 .46.44 -‘2. 122.10 119.9 120.41 ‘5 167.50 251.6 240.9 ‘6 1727 205 210 66.0 Av. Error of Equation 10.28 2.04 10.01 0‘80 1221 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. ‘1 1497 160 150 59.0 ’1 .2550 .2105 .1746 11 20.95 15.56 26.67 ‘2 127.8 44 55 5.0 ll‘2 .9266 .4150 .4710 ‘2 .107.65 -55.22 -44.62 ‘2 152.04 120.5 151.70 ‘5 196.15 267.9 256.0 ‘5 1624 204 165 64.0 Av. Error of Fquetim 4.54 1.55 7.16 113 Ceee 1508 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. ‘1 1474 160 101 56.0 ll'1 .1605 .2406 .6250 ‘1 50.15 14.27 -25.75 ‘2 159.9 46 62 5.5 1"2 .9595 .4406 .5571 1'2 -97.61 -55.60 -29.60 ‘2 117.90 109.6 152.09 ‘5 160.90 246.6 515.6 K15 1615 206 165 65.5 Av. Error 6: Equation 11.92 2.91 5.57 Case 1509 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In . K1 1476 155 106 58.2 1“1 .2619 .2562 .2165 11 16.00 16.16 16.91 ‘2 105.2 70 65 4.1 1‘2 1.006 .4525 .5655 ‘2 415.15 .55.56 .40.96 "2 126.64 111.1 145.29 ‘5 1.67.62 246.4 505.0 K5 1565 205 169 62.5 Av. Error of Equation 6.29 2.24 5.91 llLL Gene 1591 Height Skeletal Age IMental Age In. ‘1 1564 106 155 61.6 1{'1 .1670 .4516 .2510 11 26.56 6.14 14.51 K2 149.4 71 27 5.9 ’2 .5059 .2776 .5566 12 .60.19 -15.91 .46.66 ‘2 146.06 1.10.5 110.2 t5. 269.20 550.9 219.6 I$5 1715 177 162 67.5 Av. Error* 01‘ Equation 10.57 1.51 5.69 Case 1989 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. ‘1 1467 160 126 56.6 1‘1 .2525 .2560 .2201 11 17.66 15.17 16.46 K2 69.0 51 57 2.7 1‘ 2 1.2107 .4407 .5712 12 -147.21 -59.97 -56.50 "2 155.65 124.1 127.6 ‘5 164.56 265.0 254.0 K5 1556 211 165 61.5 Av. Error 01‘ Equation 15.48 5.50 6.78 115 068'._l£§§_ Height Sceletal Age Mental Age In. ‘1 1596 116 124 62.9 ’1 .2764 .5066 .4454 11 16.50 12.25 6.27 32 65.1 65 76 5.5 ’2 1.0760 .4996 .5665 12 -111.86 .42.21 -49.65 t'2 117.60 115.9 115.56 t5 177.64 256.5 221.2 X5 1661 201 200 66.2 Av. Error ' 0t Eqmuen 13.54 2.96 7.22 Case 1287 Height Skeletal Age 14.5541 Age In. X1 1512 120 167 59.6 ’1 .1650 .2990 .2661 ‘1 26.56 16.02 15.79 K2 196.2 65 66 7.7 ’2 1.1400 .5591 .6112 12 .126.51 -25.-10 -61.55 t’2 125.69 115.5 124.47 t5 200.10 292.2 224.6 K5 "1706 205 255 67.5 Av. Error or Equation 9.00 5.42 6.76 116 Cese 1339 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. 1‘1 1510 144 165 59.5 1.1 .2676 .2065 .2776 11 14.09 16.62 9.49 K2 61.0 61 46 2.4 1"2 1.1057 .5585 .4240 12 -146.17 -22.56 -52.42 #2 145.76 105.51 156.5 ‘5 201.29 274.4 502.4 K5 1571 205 211 61.9 Av. Error of Equation 20.43 5.09 6.46 Case 2685 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. K1 1565 150 155 61.6 1.1 .1650 .1666 .2755 11 29.07 19.92 15.92 K2 164.5 60 65 6.5 1‘2 .7165 .2726 .4665 12 -75.77 -11.25 —52.56 t2 125.90 95.25 144.2 1"5 211.20 519.6‘ 274.6 K5 1729 210 240 66.1 Av. Error - - - o: Equatiaw 7.99 4.47 7.29 117 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age. In. 1496 112 128. 56.9 .1652 .1714 .2755 26.99 26.24 11.92 159.6 92 59 5.5 .5990 .5664 .4550 .67.26 -26.46 .42.67 156.91 117.95 155.0 259.19 265.1 275.6 1655 204 167 64.4 Av. Error of Equation 7.02 4.10 4.29 Case 2912 5.1355 9141.541 Age Mental Age In. X1 1572 110 116 . 61.9 r1 .2050 .2570 .5565 11 25.07 16.67 25.17 52 140.5 96 _ 47 5.5 1.'2 .6600 .2756 .6672 12 -106.55 .12.55 -66.65 t2 157.60 96.19 122.2 t5 207.40 520.2 215.6 K5. 1 1712 206 165 67.4 Av. Error 01‘ Equation 6.93 2.83 6.54 £118 Cese 1800 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. K1 1449 150 127 57 .0 1"1 .1996 .2266 .2955 11 25.74 10.57 12.96 K2 162.0 65 42 6.4 ll’2 1.5710 .5275 .9065 12 4.78.23 -22.24 400.46 ‘2 140.74 112.66 116.56 ‘5 165.45 299.6 220.9 K5 1611 215 ' .165 65.4 Av. Error of Equauoe 7.56 2.64 5.26 Case 2849 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In . K1 1504 160 159 59.5 ’1 .1695 .1655 .4516 11 26.76 21.27 6.65 K2 180.0 62 76 7.0 ’2 .6405 .2957 .4500 12 .65.60 46.50 —51.97 ‘2 116.96 105.61 106.6 ‘5 169.6 512.7 250.6 K5 1664 222 217 66.5 Av. Error of Equation 12.89 5.58 3.89 w 119 Case 5175 Height 52.16541 Age 1446641 Age In. K1 1524 142 124 60.0 1.1 .2225 .2106 .5612 11 25.94 19.45 14.59 K2 146.1 66 62 . 5.7 1'2 1.2250 .6006 .7650 12 -146.22 -66.46 -91.55 ‘2 155.24 125.14 156.9 ‘5 165.54 257.1 216.4 ‘5 1670 206 166 65.7 A'e wt of Equatim 5.97 5.49 5.85 K1 1596 151 152 65.0 1:.1 .1966 .5419 .5275 11 25.52 2.71 5.60 K2 142.4 70 52 5.6 1‘2 1.0600 .4769 .5616 12 -152.05 446.16 -27.56 ‘2 156.45 151.67 110.55 ‘5 196.25 260.2 270.6 X5 1740 201 164 66.6 AV. Error of Enuation 6.62 _ 5.16 10.24 ‘v' 120 Case _§4_4_ Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. 1‘1 1616 154 154 65.7 1‘1 .2295 .2590 .5726 11 26.45 19.26 6.16 K2 150.2 66 69 5.1 1‘2 .7751 .6575 .4750 12 .70.50 -5494 -59.95 ‘2 110.20 105.99 151.91 ‘5 169.40 199.2 245.9 K5 1746 202 245 66.6 Av. Error 01‘ Equation 10.55 4.91 9.7? Case 1170 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. K1 1481 158 125 56.5 1.1 .1752 .1525 .2627 11 26.25 21.46 11.65 ‘2 156.7 52 60 6.2 1.2 .6495 .5695 .5965 12 -65.90 -21.19 —56.25 ‘2 124.14 92.47 116.56 ‘5 216.47 249.4 220.9 K5 1657 210 165 64.5 Av. Error of Equation 6.40 1.19 5.26 121 0466 2915 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. 1!1 1455 122 120 57.5 ’1 .1660 .2555 .5256 11 26.50 18.14 1.76 1‘2 155.2 77 95 6.0 r2 .6664 .2664 .5895 ‘2 _72.09 -15.60 -5506 ‘2 126.46 98.25 116.4 ‘5 215.74 510.6 222.0 x5 1606 199 215 65.5 Av. Error of Equation 5.00 2.14 7.42 Case 3169 Height Skeletal Age Mental Age In. K1 1566 144 125 61.7 ’1 .1654 .2465 .2690 11 27.50 14.15 15.57 K2 155.2 74 52 5.5 1‘2 .7960 .2451 .5571 ‘2 .86.64 -10.25 -20.56 ‘2 129.66 102.76 104.0 ‘5 206.65 554.7 265.6 K5 1701 216 157 67.0 Av. Error 01‘ Equatim 4.18 2.45 5.59 2095 “SE 5111- RGBM 555 mu. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII flIllWHILHIIIIHIJINIIIHIIHIIHEJHIIIIWIYIHIleUHl