Workgold2018

Data for validation of osteometric methods in forensic anthropology

Natalie R. Langley · Lee Meadows Jantz · Shauna Lynn McNulty · Heli Maijanen · Stephen D. Ousley · Richard L. Jantz

18 citations0/0 files storedData in Brief

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies Body Composition Measurement Techniques Reliability and Agreement in Measurement

Abstract

Many techniques in forensic anthropology employ osteometric data, although little work has been done to investigate the intrinsic error in these measurements. These data were collected to quantify the reliability of osteometric data used in forensic anthropology research and case analyses. Osteometric data (n = 99 measurements) were collected on a random sample of William M. Bass Donated Collection skeletons (n = 50 skeletons). Four observers measured the left elements of 50 skeletons. After the complete dataset of 99 measurements was collected on each of the 50 skeletons, each observer repeated the process for a total of four rounds. The raw data is available on Mendeley Data ( DCP Osteometric Data, Version 1. DOI: 10.17632/6xwhzs2w38.1 ). An example of the data analyses performed to evaluate and quantify observer error is provided for the variable GOL (maximum cranial length); these analyses were performed on each of the 99 measurements. Two-way mixed ANOVAs and repeated measures ANOVAs with pairwise comparisons were run to examine intraobserver and interobserver error, and relative and absolute technical error of measurement (TEM) was calculated to quantify the observer variation. This data analysis supported the dissemination of a free laboratory manual of revised osteometric definitions ( Data Collection Procedures 2.0 [1] , pdf available at https://fac.utk.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/DCP20_webversion.pdf ) and an accompanying instructional video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtkLFl3vim4 ). This manual is versioned and updatable as new information becomes available. Similar validations of scientific data used in forensic methods would support the ongoing effort to establish valid and reliable methods and protocols for proficiency testing, training, and certification.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

References

1994Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results 2018Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results 2008Accounting for measurement error: A critical but often overlooked process 2016Quality assurance for accuracy of anthropometric measurements in clinical and epidemiological studies [Errare humanum est = to err is human]

Cited by

2022Ontogenetic patterns in human frontal sinus shape: A longitudinal study using elliptical Fourier analysis 2020Reproducibility of mandibular landmarks for three-dimensional assessment 2022The repeatability of standard cranial measurements on dry bones and MSCT images

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.