Cross-Sectional Versus Longitudinal Studies

  • Francis E. Johnston
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 49)


The conceptual basis for this consideration of research design in the interrelationships between physical anthropology, as a discipline, and nutritional status, as a parameter, rests on the assumption that the morphology and body composition of the individual, and the biomass of a population, are functions of the quantity, the quality, and the utilization of the diets of its members. While there are other determinants that contribute to the above features, and that prevent a simplistic application of resulting data, the use of measurements as indicators of the nutritional adequacy of a group has been shown to be of sufficient utility1–3 to suggest that such an approach be significantly informative under appropriate conditions.4


Nutritional Status Sampling Error Longitudinal Design Growth Spurt Physical Anthropology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brožek, J., (Ed): Body Measurements and Human Nutrition. Detroit, Wayne Press, 1956.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jelliffe, D.B.: The assessment of the nutritional status of the community (with special reference to field surveys in developing regions of the world). WHO Monog. Ser., 53:1, 1966.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kelsay, J.L.: A compendium of nutritional status studies and dietary evaluation studies conducted in the United States, 1957–1967. J. Nutr., 99, Suppl. 1:119, 1969.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keet, M.P., Hansen, J.D.L. and Truswell, A.S.: Are skinfold measurements of value in the assessment of suboptimal nutrition in young children? Pediatrics, 45:965, 1970.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dobbing, J.: Undernutrition and the developing brain, p. 241. In: Himwich, W.A. (Ed) Developmental Neurobiology. Springfield, Ill., Charles C Thomas, 1970.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holland, W.W.: Principles of study design, p. 45. In: Holland, W.W. (Ed) Data Handling in Epidemiology. New York, Oxford Univ. Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tanner, J.M.: Growth at Adolescence. Second edition. Oxford, Blackwell Sci. Publ., 1962.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldstein, H.: Longitudinal studies and the measurement of change. The Statistician, 18:93, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Susser, M.: Casual Thinking in the Health Sciences: Concepts and Strategies of Epidemiology. New York, Oxford Univ. Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Campbell, D.T.: From description to experimentation: interpreting trends as quasi-experiments, p. 212. In: Harris, C.W. (Ed) Problems in Measuring Change. Madison, Univ. Wisconsin Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boas, F.: Changes in bodily form of decendants ofimmigrants (1910–1913), p. 60. In: Boas, F. (Ed) Race, Language, and Culture. New York, Macmillan Co., 1940.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaplan, B.A.: Environment and human plasticity. Amer. Anthrop., 56:780, 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hulse, F.S.: Exogamie et hétérosis. Arch. Suisse d’Anthrop., 22:103, 1957.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Froehlich, J.W.: Migration and the plasticity of physique in the Japanese-Americans of Hawaii. Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop., 32:429, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dreizen, S., Spirakis, C.N. and Stone, R.E.: A comparison of skeletal growth and maturation in undernourished and wellnourished girls before and after menarche. J. Pediatr., 70:256, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamill, P.V.V., Johnston, F.E. and Lemeshow, S.: Height and Weight of Youths 12–17 Years, United States. DHEW Pub. 73–1606, Ser. 11, No. 124. Washington, D.C., U.S. Govt. Printing Ofc., 1973.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boas, F.: Remarks on the Anthropological Study of Children. Trans.15th Internat. Cong. Hygiene and Demog., Washington, D. C., 1913.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shuttleworth, F.K.: The Physical and Mental Growth of Girls and Boys Age 6 to 19 in Relation to Age at Maximum Growth. Monog. Soc. Res. Child Develop., 4, 1939.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnston, F.E., Borden, M. and MacVean, R.B.: Height, weight and their growth velocities in Guatemalan private school children of high socioeconomic class. Human Biol., 45:627, 1973.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scott, J.A.: Report on the heights and weights (and other measurements) of school pupils in the county of London in 1959. London, London County Council, 1959.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Center for Health Statistics: Plan, Operation, and Response Results of a Program of Children’s Examinations. PHS Pub. No. 1000, Ser. 1, No. 5. Washington, D. C., U.S. Govt. Printing Ofc, 1967.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hallman, N., Bäckström, L., Kantero, R.L. and Tiisala, R.: Studies on Growth of Finnish Children from Birth to Ten Years. Acta Paediat. Scand., Suppl. 220, 1971.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tiisala, R. and Kantero, R.L.: Comparison of height and weight distance curves based on longitudinal and cross-sectional series from birth to ten years. Acta Paediat. Scand., Suppl. 220, 1971.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Linden, F.P.G.M. van der: The interpretation of incremental data and velocity growth curves. Growth, 34:221, 1970.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Menken, J.A. and Sheps, M.C.: On relationships between longitudinal characteristics and cross-sectional data. Amer. J. Public Health, 60: 1506, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meredith, H.V.: On the distribution of anatomic increment data in early childhood. Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop., 20:519, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garn, S.M. and Rohmann, C.G.: On the prevalence of skewness in incremental data. Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop., 21:235, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tanner, J.M.: Some notes on the reporting of growth data. Human Biol., 23:93, 1951.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Johnston, F.E., Hamill, P.V.V. and Lemeshow, S.: Skinfold thickness of children 6–11 years, United States. DHEW Pub. 73–1602, Ser. 11, No. 120. Washington, D.C., U.S. Govt. Printing Ofc, 1972.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Deming, J. and Washburn, A.H.: Application of the Jenss curve to the observed pattern of growth during the first eight years of life in forty boys and forty girls. Human Biol., 35:484, 1963.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Murray, J.R., Wiley, D.E. and Wolfe, R.G.: New statistical techniques for evaluating longitudinal models. Hum. Dev., 14:142, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francis E. Johnston
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations