Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTuttle, Neilen_US
dc.contributor.editorDr. Shirleyann M. Gibbsen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-24T10:35:18Z
dc.date.available2017-04-24T10:35:18Z
dc.date.issued2004en_US
dc.date.modified2010-11-24T07:24:44Z
dc.identifier.issn10331875en_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://www.ergonomics.org.au/resource_library/journal.aspxen_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/5520
dc.description.abstractPopliteal height is the main anthropometric dimension used in school chair design and specification to determine appropriate seat height. Three methods of measuring popliteal height - anatomical, table (weight-bearing) and knee-crease methods were investigated in a sample of 10 university students measured twice by each of two observers. Inter- and intra-observer repeatability for each method was good with the exception of inter-observer repeatability for the knee-crease method which was poor. The knee-crease method was not considered repeatable enough for it to be of practical use. Popliteal height measurement obtained using the table method was significantly greater than the other two methods by between 63 and 89 mm (3.7% - 5.3%) of stature). In this small sample no variation was detected in the difference between the methods in relation to the size of the individual. Implications for specification of school chairs are discussed.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.format.extent108177 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherErgonomics Society of Australia Inc.en_US
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom14en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto18en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue1en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalErgonomics Australiaen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume18en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode321402en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode339999en_US
dc.titleA comparison of methods used for measuring popliteal heighten_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.rights.copyrightCopyright 2004 The Authors. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.en_AU
gro.date.issued2004
gro.hasfulltextFull Text


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record