See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/20945592

Anthropometric data of children for non-specialist users

Article  in  Ergonomics · May 1990

DOI: 10.1080/00140139008927146 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

20 595

2 authors:

Bea Steenbekkers Johan F.M. Molenbroek

Wageningen University & Research Delft University of Technology
59 PUBLICATIONS   946 CITATIONS    136 PUBLICATIONS   1,223 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

sanitation View project

Making lifelike breast manikins to help teach palpation skills to detect breast cancer View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Johan F.M. Molenbroek on 11 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ergonomics

ISSN: 0014-0139 (Print) 1366-5847 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20

Anthropometric data of children for non-specialist

users

L. P. A. STEENBEKKERS & J. F. M. MOLENBROEK

To cite this article: L. P. A. STEENBEKKERS & J. F. M. MOLENBROEK (1990)

Anthropometric data of children for non-specialist users, Ergonomics, 33:4, 421-429, DOI:
10.1080/00140139008927146

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139008927146

Published online: 27 Mar 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 66

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=terg20

Download by: [Bibliotheek TU Delft] Date: 15 April 2017, At: 07:54

ERGONOMICS, 1990, VOL. 33, No.4, 421-429

Anthropometric data of children

for non-specialist users

L. P. A. STEENBEKKERS and J. F. M. MOLENBROEK

Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering,
Jaffalaan 9, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands

Keywords: Anthropometry; Children; Product safety; Wheelchair; Data-base.

In a pilot study, 33 anthropometric variables were measured on 633 children aged

0-5·5 years. The variableswherechosenon the basis of international standards and
on the results of preliminary analysis of accidents.
Methodical aspects of this pilot study are presented in this paper, followed by
two applications:
• anthropometric aspects of current regulations for cribs, playpens and toys;
• anthropometric aspects in the selection of wheelchairs for children.
The paper concludes with a discussion on how to present anthropometric data for
non-specialist users.

I. Introduction
The only available anthropometric data in The Netherlands with regard to children
and suitable for use in a product design-process, are the Dutch Growth Diagrams
(Roede and van Wieringen 1985). They include data on stature, body weight and head
circumference (of infants).
When designing products, it is necessary to know the body dimensions of the
possible users of the product. One reason for this is that accidents occur due to
incorrect product dimensions and sizes that do not meet the children's dimensional
requirements.
The possibility of children getting their heads wedged between the bars of a cot or a
playpen is a very real one. To prevent accidents of this type, more must be known about
body dimensions of children. In addition, these measurements should be available in
order to design safe and comfortable supports and playthings for children. In health
service centres, stature and body weight are measured, but in The Netherlands less data
are available where other measurements are concerned, such as reach height or foot
breadth.
When one compares the data on children in foreign countries, concerning stature
and body weight, with that available on Dutch children, one is led to the conclusion
that Dutch children are taller and relatively lighter in weight (Molenbroek 1988). This
results in the hypothesis that other dimensions also differ. Therefore, data on body
measurements collected in foreign countries, unless converted, are not suitable for use
in designing products for Dutch children, or in establishing guidelines and standards
for the manufacture of products for Dutch children. To verify this hypothesis, more
measurements were necessary. This was the reason for starting a pilot-study in one
province in Holland. The project was called the KIMA-project.
0014-0139/90 S30()() © 1990 Taylor & Francis Ltd.
422 L. P. A. Steenbekkers and J. F. M. Molenbroek

2. Method
2.1. Variables
The aim of the KIMA project was to obtain a list of dimensions, measuring children of
up to 5 years of age. The group was limited to children of this age, first of all, because
they are highly prone to accidents. A second reason was the fact that many products are
manufactured especially for this age-group. Examples of such products are cots,
playpens and toys.
To obtain this list of dimensions, products intended for use by these children were
analysed, in order to find out which dimensions would have to be known when
designing a product to comply with children's proportions. Products used to prevent
accidents were also analysed along the same lines: which body dimensions must be
taken into account when designing a particular product? Furthermore, Dutch
guidelines and standards for the manufacture ofthese products were examined in order
to obtain an overview of above-mentioned dimensions. These examinations resulted in
a list of 33 measurements, both structural and functional, measured whilst sitting and
standing. Children who were not yet able to sit, were measured in supine position; this
included 23 measurements.
The measurement definitions were mostly analogous to those of investigations from
the USA (Snyder et al. 1977)and FR Germany (DIN 33402 1981)or were in accordance
with the ISO-standard ISOjDP 7250 (1988). But in cases offunctional measurements,
there were almost no definitions available so we had to define our own.

2.2. Sample and organization of measuring

The desired number of children was at least 600: 30 children per sex and per age-group
(of6 months), to allow statistical analysis of the data. In order to attain this number, six
infant welfare centres were involved. Parents of children who normally visited these
centres were sent a letter requesting their participation. Two teams, each consisting of
three trained students, took the measurements of 633 children during a 10-week period.
One person actually took the measurements, another documented the results and a
third accompanied the parents and answered their questions about the investigation.
Measuring children ofthe ages above mentioned is not easy. One cannot explain to
most of them why the investigation is being done and what is going to happen: in these
cases they are sometimes unwilling to co-operate, certainly after 10-15 minutes.
Precautions were taken to deal with the problem of fear. The anthropometric device
had brightly coloured 'hands' instead of frightening measuring-blades; a measuring-
chair with bright colours was designed to be used while taking the 'seated'
measurements. The mother or child-minder was also always nearby to make the child
feel at ease. If none of these precautions helped, the taking of measurements was
cancelled.

3. Results
The results of this investigation are presented in a report (Steenbekkers 1989) which is
accessible to designers and other potential users of this data. The data on each
measurement are presented by means of tables for both sexes together, as well as for
boys and girls separately (table I). Scatterplots are used in order to make possible a
visual search (figure I).
The data is based on measurements of a sample of children in one province in
Holland, not representative of the entire Dutch population. Therefore, samples from
each province in The Netherlands are still necessary; this is one of the objectives of the
 Anthropometric data of children 423

Table 1. Table of popliteal height of the KIMA sample.

Popliteal height (em)

Age Standard 5th 95th

(year) Number deviation Minimum percentile Mean percentile Maximum

0·0-0·5 66 1·2 8·3 9-6 11·8 13-7 14·6

0'5-1·0 65 1·2 11-1 12·0 13-9 16·2 16·6
1·0-1·5 78 2·0 13-6 13-8 16·7 19·9 21·2
1,5-2,0 83 1·5 14·3 17-4 20'0 22'0 23-5
2·0-2'5 62 1'3 19·3 19'5 21·8 23-7 24·0
2·5-3'0 59 1·6 19·5 20·7 23-3 26·2 28·6
3·0-3'5 75 1·6 20·4 22·2 24·7 27·0 29·0
3·5-4·0 58 1·4 22·0 23-4 26·0 28'4 29·5
4·0-4'5 46 1·7 24·5 25·0 28·2 30·8 31'4
4'5-5,0 28 2·0 25·2 26·2 29·4 32-4 35·0
5·0-5·5 13 2·2 25·5 25·5 28'9 32'5 32'5

35

3B

25

popliteal height 28
[em}

~
~
5 + - - - - - + - - - + - - - + - - - + - - - - -....
B 1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure I. Scatterplot of popliteal height of the KIMA sample.

follow-up study. Until this is done, an estimation of the proportions ofthe entire Dutch
child population can be made by calculating confidence-intervals. For example: the
95% confidence interval of the mean is i -1,96 SE to i + 1·96 SE, meaning that with a
certainty of95% the mean of a certain variable in the population lies between those two
calculated values.
The width of an interval can be narrowed by measuring more children belonging to
this interval in order to obtain a smaller value for the standard error. In a similar way
confidence intervals can be calculated for percentiles.

3.1. Comparison with others

In the KIMA pilot project, the results of the sample are compared with data from the
Dutch Growth Diagrams (Roede and van Wieringen 1985) and data from foreign
countries, i.e. USA (Snyder et al. 1977) and FR Germany (DIN 33402 1981).
Not all variables were measured according to comparable measurement
definitions, yet some comparison is possible. Generally speaking, the KIMA-children
424 L. P. A. Steenbekkers and J. F. M. Molenbroek

are taller and less broad than American children. With regard to the German children
no general conclusions can be drawn: for some measurements, the KIMA-children tend
to be taller, while in other cases the children from the German population are taller.

4. Application of the KIMA data

The usability of the KIMA data from this pilot study is still limited because of the
above-mentioned small degree of representativity. When the follow-up study, which is
again financed by the Dutch Prevention Fund, is completed in 1992, the results will be
nationwide. In spite of this fact, we can already use the current data in many ways when
dealing with various assumptions.

4.1. General considerations for anthropometric design

One needs to remember several definitions in this context. In this article, the population
stands for the group for which a product is being designed. The user-model is an
incomplete simulation of anthropometric aspects from a population (Molenbroek
1987). A product-model is a description of a design in an early stage of the product
development process, and it is repeatedly tested against the user-model. An
anthropometric model consists of a combination of a product-model and a user-model.
To create proper guidelines for designers, two kinds of dimensions must be described: a
set of user-dimensions and a set of product-dimensions. The difference between each of
two related dimensions, both relevant to the same aspect, related to the product and to
the user respectively, (the allowance), implies how much comfort the product can offer
in that particular aspect. For example: an essential part of the anthropometric design
process is to discuss the allowance between seat-depth and buttock-popliteal depth
and to create guidelines related to it.
Anthropometric models can be divided into several types:
User-models Product-models
J. Tables Drawings
2. Two-dimensional manikins Drawings
3. Computer models of a user Computer models of a product
4. Test subjects Mock-ops

The user-model of the KIMA data is available only in table-form (Steenbekkers 1989).
Tables have several disadvantages for non-specialist users:
• a basic knowledge of functional anatomy and biomechanics is necessary;
• it is difficult to make a good interpretation of the standardized presentation when
more functional data is needed.
Therefore, a computerized anthropometric model is useful (Hoekstra 1988);one which
includes all the table data and, in addition is able to show whether a more functional
posture of the user is ergonomically justified in relation to the computer model of the
product or workplace which is designed.'
A computer model will be used later in the design process, following the use of a
table model. The computer.model is most advantageous at the stage in which various
solutions of the design-problem must be compared and criticized. Non-specialists can
easily learn to work with such a program without much foreknowledge; the
interpretation of the created situation (person in a workstation) is clearer and more
easily modified. There is, however, a point of which (not only) non-specialist users
 Anthropometric data of children 425

should be aware. The accuracy of a manikin is not as high as may be expected from such
a high-tech system. Dimensions can be presented on a screen in micrometres, but are, in
reality, often no more accurate than centimetres or even decimetres. This is a hidden
disadvantage of computer models. A recommendation to developers of such systems
would be to present zones, instead of lines, which would more clearly demarcate the
bodies of the target population.

4.2. The first application of the KIM A data: current regulations

4.2.1. Toys: In the regulations concerning toys, under Dutch law (Law for Consumer
Goods: Toys 1985), some anthropometric data is used. The following data can be
verified with the KIMA results: the distances around hinges to prevent
strangulation/wedging. The law requires that these distances lie outside the range of
5-12 mm. According to the KIMA pilot-data, the values of most relevant variables can
be taken from the frequency-distribution of the fingerbreadth. One per cent of the
sample had a fingerbreadth of exactly 5 mm (this was also the lowest value). This means
that, for safety reasons, the lowest limits should be 4 or even 3 mm by law. For the same
reason, the maximum limit of 12 mm should be 13 or 14 mm, because 2% ofthe sample
had a fingerbreadth of II mm and one subject even had a fingerbreadth of 12mm.

4.2.2. Cribs: For the Cribs and Playpen Regulation (Law for Consumer Goods: Cribs
and Playpens 1983), there are three relevant variables within the KIM A pilot project:
• The stature as an indication for the length of a crib or a playpen; according to the
above-mentioned law, it should not exceed 140 cm. This is in accordance with the
P97 stature of 5 year-old children and the P3 of children aged 8, with 20 em space
around head and feet.
• The distance between the bars: should not exceed 75mm by law. This is 14mm
lower than the minimum value of 89 mm ofthe head breadth found in the KIMA
pilot data. So, according to the pilot data, and including I cm for safety reasons,
the distance could be enlarged to 79 mm.
• According to the law, the interior vertical distance should be at least 600 mm, or
300 mm if the bottom is adjustable; the 600 mm distance is, in the KIMA pilot
data, the same as the minimum value of shoulder height (standing) in the age
group 1'5-2 years, and also the same as the maximum value of elbow height
(standing) ofthe 3 year-olds. This means that some of the 3 year-old children can
easily climb out. The 300 mm limit is in accordance with the P50 of the shoulder
height (sitting) in the age group 1'5-5 years.
These comparisons must be repeated with data from the follow-up study, but the
above-mentioned facts already imply that some regulations need to be updated.

4.3. The second application ofthe KIMA data: anthropometry for wheelchair selection
The second experience using the KIM A pilot data was during the preparation of a new
procedure of wheelchair-selection for children. Wheelchair designers wanted to know
which dimensions were relevant and how many types of wheelchairs would be
necessary to suit their target population. The supplier was interested in creating a
distribution set of wheelchairs in which there would be a wheelchair suitable for every
potential user. The GMD (Dutch Joint Medical Service) began a project to generate
guidelines for functionally dimensioned wheelchairs. The posturing part of the
426 1. P. A. Steenbekkers and J. F. M. Molenbroek

wheelchair consists of support for the head, back, arms, legs, or to secure shoulders,
hips, feet, etc. .
In order to determine the correct body-position, the following information was
necessary:
I. Which children would be using the new wheelchairs?
2. What were the relevant anthropometric dimensions of the population?
3. What are the relationships between the dimensions of the product and the child?
4. What were the correlations between the various human dimensions?
In this project the following choices were made:
The buttock-popliteal depth was used as the predictor of the other dimensions
needed; this choice was based more on wheelchair-fitting traditions than on statistical
analysis to determine the best predictor (Hobson and Molenbroek 1990).
For the various correlations, the KIMA pilot data (Steenbekkers 1989)and the data
from DELKI (ter Hark 1986) were used;
The following anthropometric model was noted as relevant for wheelchair
purposes:
Product dimension User dimension
Seat depth Buttock-popliteal depth
Seat height Popliteal height
Sitting breadth Hip breadth sitting
Height of back support Acromial height sitting
Height of arm rest Elbow height sitting
Breadth of back support Shoulder breadth
Height of head support Sitting height
In order to use the guidelines it was assumed that only the buttock-popliteal depth of a
child, as a future user, had to be measured. With knowledge of the correlations between
the buttock-popliteal depth and the other user-dimensions, some regression equations
were created with the buttock-popliteal depth as the independent variable.
Second, 95% confidence limits for these equations (figure 2) were plotted. This figure
shows, for example: with a buttock-popliteal depth of 19·0em, the hip breadth lies with
95% certainty between 15·0 and-19·6cm.
Designers involved in the project could therefore easily find out whether their
wheelchairs fitted the range of the population they wanted to reach. In order to
standardize several possible ranges of the relevant variables, a table was made such as

95x Prediction Li~its Plot

s: 24.2

~
...~
s.c

depth

Figure 2. The 95% confidence limits for the buttock-popliteal depth as a predictor for the hip
breadth.
 Table 2. Three records from the table for the designers and suppliers of wheelchairs for children.

Back Back
-...
~
::I
::r
c
.",
Buttock support support Arm c

Age"
Seat
depthj
popliteal
depth"
Hip
breadth"
Seat
breadth]
Popliteal
height"
Seat
height]
Shoulder
height"
height
lowt
height
highj
Elbow
height"
rest
height] -...
~
",.

2-3
3-4
4-5
200
220
240
200-250
240-275
260-300
180-245
180-260
180-275
210-320
210-335
210-350
200-310
200-330
200-350
200-330
220-350
230-370
310-420
310-445
310-465
200-320
200-340
200-350
280-475
280-500
280-525
120-200
120-210
120-215
120-210
120-220
120-225
-I>.
'"
'"
.sa,
"::r
• User dimensions. E:
t Product dimensions. ~
::I

it
....
428 L. P. A. Steenbekkers and J. F. M. Molenbroek

the three rows in table 2, after implementation of additional factors for clothing and
posture (depending on the impairment).
The entire study on wheelchair selection for children is presented in the report by
Henze and Staarink (1989).

5. Discussion
Anthropometric data, like the KIMA data, is the best understood and most readily
available form of ergonomic data. However, because there is a large variety of
experience in its use, the creation of a computer-assisted instruction programme is
recommended-keeping in mind the conference objectives-to guide the non-
specialist user of anthropometric data. A computer manikin alone, or even a
combination of a manikin and a product model, is not enough. The system should also
be able to tell the user, if he/she asks for the step height of the elderly, that it is not wise
to create steps for the elderly. It should tell the user, when he/she asks for reach height,
that the smallest percentiles are critical in case a comfortable posture is needed. It
should also tell the user, when he/she asks for the average value of the height for a
doorway, that 50% will bump their heads. Much ergonomic experience can be
incorporated into such a knowledge base, with algorithms and a type of a tutor.
Currently, several expert systems are being developed in areas such as work physiology,
lighting and the handling of manual material (Megaw 1988).
For the sake of usability, such a system should:
• be available on floppy-disk;
• be cheap «£100);
• run on MS-DOS;
• be menu directed;
• have the possibility to add own data.
Such systems could be used successfully by non-specialists if the programme manual
were very thin, or a manual may even be unnecessary. In general, five factors are
involved in a successful database (NV} 1989):
• quality and completeness of the data;
• actuality of the data;
• user-friendliness;
• reliability of the system;
• availability of the data.
At the department ofIndustrial Design Engineering, such a system is being developed.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Marc de Hoogh for his statistical assistance.

References
DIN 33402, 1981, Kiirpermasse des Menschen (Beuth Verlag, Berlin).
HARK, T. TER and MOLENBROEK, J. F. M. 1986, Antropometrie van kinderen (FacultyofIndustrial
Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology).
HENZE, L., and STAARINK, H. 1989, Richllijnen voor de maatooerinq van kinderrolsloelen (GMD,
Joint Medical Service, Amsterdam).
 Anthropometric data of children 429

HOBSON, D. and MOLENBROEK, J. F. M. 1990, Anthropometry and Design for the Disabled:
Experiences with the Cerebral Palsy Population, Applied Ergonomics, 21, 43-54.
HOEKSTRA, P. N. 1988, Developments in Accessibility of Computer-Aided Anthropometric
Assessment, Proceedings of 32nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Los
Angeles.
ISO-DP 250, 1988, Basic list of anthropometric measurements.
LAW FOR CONSUMER GOODS: CRIBS AND PLAYPENS, 1983 (Advisory Committee, The Hague).
LAW FOR CONSUMER GOODS: Toys, 10 December 1985, Speelgoedbesluit, Warenwet (Vermande,
Lelystad).
MEGAW, T. 1988, The future of European Ergonomic Databases, Ergonomics International,
Proceedings of the 10th conference of the International Ergonomic Association, Sydney.
MOLENBROEK, J. F. M. 1987, Anthropometry of Elderly People in The Netherlands, Research and
Applications, Applied Ergonomics, 18, 187-199.
MOLENBROEK, J. F. M. 1988, Ontwerpen voor kinderen. In R. Buurman den et al. (eds)
Ergonomie 3, Collegedictaat (Faculty ofIndustrial Design Engineering, Delft University of
Technology).
NVI, 1989, Results of Success- and Failure Factors of Electronic Data Services (Ministry of
Economic Affairs, The Hague).
ROEDE, M. J. and WIERINGEN, J. C. VAN, 1985, Growth Diagrams 1980, Netherlands third
nationwide survey, Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg, 63, 1-34, supplement.
SNYDER, R. G., SCHNEIDER, L. W., OWINGS, C. L., REYNOLDS, H. M., GoLOMB, D. H. and SCHORK,
M. A. 1977, Anthropometry of Infants and Youths to age 18 for Product Safety and
Design, SP450, (Society of Automotive Engineering, Michigan).
STEENBEKKERS, L. P. A. 1989, Ergonomische gegevens voor kinderveiligheid, verslag van een
proefonderzoek bij kinderen tussen 0 en 5,5 jaar in Zuid-Holland (Faculty of Industrial
Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology).

View publication stats