View report page

88
are such as enable them to stay. In one case it is a random
measurement, in the other the measurement of a selected child.
The limitations of the results of the investigation are two—
the paucity of the data, and any inaccuracies in the actual observation.
These two items are to a certain extent bound together in
that with a large number of figures the second consideration would
be of relatively less importance. With regard to this second point,
the measurements appear to have been taken by a number of
different observers who apparently have not followed the same rules.
There is no consistency about the conditions under which the observations
were taken in regard to the amount of clothing worn by the
child at the time of examination. The defects arising from this are
to a certain extent negatived by the fact that any particular
observer would follow the same practice with all the children
examined at that time, so that when Becontree and London
children were examined in equal numbers by the same person the
results would still be comparable. When however, as would more
often occur, there would be some disproportion in the numbers of
each class examined at that time, this source of inaccuracy is
important. Another point is the range within which measurements
were taken. The final comparisons of the average heights and
weights will be of figures varying by some fraction of an inch or a
pound. The actual measurements do not appear to have been
taken within a range of ½ an inch or of llb. A very large number
of these children of 5 years of age weighed 42 lbs. and measured
42 inches, this figure preponderating to such an extent as to suggest
that the measurement of these particular children were not taken
even with that degree of accuracy given to the measurements of
the other children. The effect of these figures will be to diminish
the real differences occurring in the two classes of children and
actually any differences found to exist between any two groups
should have been more than the amount recorded. In parenthesis,
one might question the utility of the routine taking of these measurements
of heights and weights. From the point of view of the
individual child they are of no value. For the purpose of comparison
or as records, they apparently carry little weight, as when
accurate data are required for an anthropometric survey, other
measurements are taken. It would seem that they could without
loss be omitted, and be replaced by a system under which any
particular child who requires observation is weighed at much more
frequent intervals.
The following tables give the average heights and weighty of
the London children and of the Becontree children of 5 years ofl age
of each sex, divided into various groups, namely, monthly intervais,
two monthly, 3 monthly and 5 monthly periods.