A comparison of somatotype methods

Abstract

Abstract In order to compare Parnell's and Heath's somatotype methods, the authors independently somatotyped a series of 59 adult male and 61 adult female subjects, (1) using the criteria of Heath's method, (2) using the criteria of Parnell's method, and (3) taking into consideration tentatively adapted Parnell criteria in addition to Heath's criteria. The authors conclude that when use similar rating criteria their mean differences are smaller, their overall correlations are similar, and their percentage agreements to a half‐unit are higher (96%) than for comparisons reported by other investigators. The study considers the potentially important relationships of measurements of subcutaneous fat to ratings of the first component. The similarity of distributions of subcutaneous fat measurements and of first component ratings in selected samples suggest important interrelationships among ratings of the first component, height/ weight ratios and subcutaneous fat measurements. The authors feel: (1) that Parnell's method fails to modify the basic weaknesses in Sheldon's somatotype method; and (2) that analyses of the anthropometric data basic to Parnell's method, if guided by the criteria of Heath's method, will further objectify and simplify Heath's method, will improve agreement among independent raters, and will increase the usefulness of somatotyping as a research instrument.