Preliminary and Comprehensive Static Anthropometric Measurements of Jordanian Children for Various Age Groups

Abstract

This study measured 354 Jordanian children in six age group categories from 6 months to 9 years. The linear static measurements included the skeletal dimensions between body joints and the middle- and lower-body dimensions. The results showed negligible differences in seat height, seat depth, and seat width for males and females. However, desk surface height and elbow rest height differed for male and female children older than 5 years. These data can inform the design of various functional items such as tools, clothes, protective equipment, or furniture for Jordanian children.

Keywords

children’s anthropometry furniture design anthropometric measurement

The standardized, systematic measurement of the human body dimensions for the purpose of fitting the design of tasks, instruments or objects to their human users is called anthropometry (Bridger, 1995). It focuses on how different designs for furniture, fixtures, tools, and equipment interact with the human body, with the intent to optimize such interactions in order to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of work and other activities. Such enhancements can ensure more comfortable tools, reduced stress and fatigue, safer work and leisure environments, and increased job satisfaction (Sanders & McCormick, 1993). On the other hand, bad designs may cause various major problems. For example, bad furniture design can cause head, neck, or back pain (Molenbroek et al., 2003). Poor design and awkward body postures can cause discomfort and musculoskeletal disorders(MSDs), which may lead to lost work time or unnecessary major disabilities (Buckle, 2005). Such anthropometric data based on body dimensions vary with regard to demography and geography (e.g., designing tools and instruments for a Middle East population may differ from the U.S. population).

Thus, collecting such anthropometric data can benefit many disciplines. For example, growth rate abnormalities or variances from typical standards for healthy development can be investigated using anthropometric measures. In this regard, measuring children can be especially beneficial due to their faster growth rates and increased sensitivities compared to adults. Such anthropometric data can improve safety practices and determine age-appropriate product sizes (Snyder et al., 1975). Existing regression methods to estimate anthropometric dimensions (e.g., Agha & Alnahhal, 2012) need to be adjusted to accommodate the increased time and effort needed to measure infants and children due to the challenge of maintaining stable postures during measurement. Moreover, determining point to point distances can be problematic due to this natural instability and musculoskeletal flexibility; yet exact dimensions are needed to establish accurate and reliable databases suitable for designing furniture, toys, tools, and clothes. In spite of considerable human factors anthropometric research, little of this work has focused on children, especially populations outside the United States and Canada. For example, in Jordan, few if any anthropometric data for children are available, and in any case, such data rarely informs relevant design.

In fact, guiding product design based on ergonomics principles or human factors research enjoys little interest in Jordan. Not surprisingly, most of these designs do not adequately match children’s relevant body dimensions, especially for products such as furniture (e.g., desks). Inadequate designs of tools for children are common in Jordan, mostly due to their being imported from other countries and based on irrelevant anthropometry.

In this regard, anecdotal observations of desks, tables, and chairs being used in schools and kindergartens do not reflect the application of ergonomics principles, especially anthropometric considerations based on the Jordanian population. Such evaluations in educational and health care environments found various problems, such as acute and chronic pain, related to a lack of data for minimum and maximum dimensions, and so on. A database of Jordanian children’s anthropometric measurements would be beneficial and hopefully influential for the design of comfortable, safe tools, instruments, furniture, and other objects for children. If applied appropriately, these data could reduce the incidence of MSDs and increase user satisfaction.

For this study, a representative sample of local kindergartens, schools, and hospitals were selected to create an initial database of anthropometric dimensions for Jordanian children. These data can be used to improve the design process for various functional items in addition to informing health care and medical services related to body dimensions and associated growth rates.

Literature Review

Many relevant studies have considered specific parameters of human body dimensions. For example, Oyewole et al. (2010) generated some regression equations to estimate anthropometric dimensions related to the ergonomic design of school classroom furniture, recommending that such products accommodate at least 90% of relevant populations for dimensions such as seat height, depth, and width; desk height, and back- and armrest position. Similarly, an investigation of students aged 17 to 37 years attending a college of engineering measured relevant anthropometric dimensions in India (Taifa & Desai, 2017), resulting in adjustable classroom furniture based on these data along with training in appropriate sitting postures, and so on.

A related study conducted in Brazil (Zanuncio et al., 2012) measured anthropometric dimensions for children aged 6 to 11 years, collected and categorized by year. The 10 dimensions measured included stature, weight, elbow width, hip width, buttock-knee distance, buttock-popliteal distance, height, knee height, popliteal height, and thigh length—all measured using a seated posture. The design processes implemented by Brazilian furniture manufacturers in particular benefited from these data.

Although reports of such anthropometric dimensions for children in the Middle East are rare, a few relevant studies have been conducted in India, Ghana, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, and Brazil (Adu et al., 2015; Alrashdan et al., 2014; Bendak et al., 2013; Dawal et al., 2015; Taifa & Desai, 2017; Zanuncio et al., 2012). These studies evaluated students in primary schools and adults but did not include children younger than 6 years. Another study proposed ergonomic furniture design for 200 primary school students divided into 5 to 8, 9 to 12, and 13 to 14 years of age, addressing seat depth and width, backrest, armrest, and desk height (Ismaila et al., 2015).

In the United States, Snyder et al. (1977) gathered 87 body measurement points for children and infants to inform design aimed at product safety. They divided their measures into four main categories: Category 1 included core measures further subdivided into three groups: body shape measures, linkages, and center of gravity. The second, third, and fourth categories involved face, head, and hand measures, respectively. Steenbekkers (2009) conducted another large-scale study of U.S. children using a population synthesis approach, combining linear regression models with principal component analysis to improve overall estimates of dimensions, particularly in the tails of relevant distributions (cf. Pagano et al., 2015; Parkinson & Reed, 2010).

To summarize, measurements of anthropometric dimensions among children have been rare, especially for children in the Middle East; thus, such investigations represent an urgent area of interest to document body size differences and related lifestyle diversity. The present study measured children from a wide range of ages to establish an initial comprehensive database of numerous body dimensions, constituting a milestone toward formulating a complete, exhaustive set of data for Jordanian children.

Materials and Methods

According to 2019 Census data provided by the Department of Statistics in Jordan, children younger than 9 years represent 23.75% of the total Jordanian population. Therefore, sample size of 273 is needed for proper population representation using 90% confidence level and 5% of marginal error, the calculation was based on the following equation:

Sample size = \frac{\frac{z^{2} \times p (1 - p)}{e^{2}}}{1 + (\frac{z^{2} \times p (1 - p)}{e^{2} N})},

(1)

where, N is the population size (about 2.5 million), e is the margin of error (0.05 is used), z is the z score (1.65 for 90% confidence level), and p is the standard deviation among responses (0.5 is used for worst case). In this research, a total of 354 (more than 273) voluntarily healthy Jordanian children was randomly chosen from different schools, kindergartens, and child care centers. 177 females and 177 males from different cities were surveyed to ensure gender equality. The ages were selected to be between 6 months and 9 years old to provide a comprehensive and detailed database. The samples were classified into six main age groups: A, B, C, D, E, F as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

The Distribution of Subjects and Their Age Intervals

Ages	Group designation	Males	Females	Sum	Percentage
6–12 months	A	35	35	70	19.77
13–24 months	B	20	20	40	11.3
25–36 months	C	20	20	40	11.3
3–5 years	D	20	20	40	11.3
5–7 years	E	35	35	70	19.77
7–9 years	F	47	47	94	26.55
Total		177	177	354	100

Different instruments were used to measure the static anthropometric dimensions. For example, the Lafayette large caliper was employed to measure the longer dimensions, while the smaller caliper was used to measure the shorter ones. Other instruments such as Lafayette chest depth was also used. For hand anthropometric measurements, the dominant hand of each child was imprinted in a straight polished rectangular wood plate in a spread position and then the dimensions such as hand breadth (HAB), palm breadth (PB), middle finger height (MFH), and index finger height (IFH) were measured using a smaller caliper. The measurements (in both standing and sitting positions) were taken in relaxed postures. For more consistency, the heights were measured without shoes to remove the effect of different shoes heights. Measuring small aged children, achieving quiet children postures, and the approval/consent of parents were the main challenges of the project. The data analysis was performed using OriginLab statistical software. The anthropometric measurements were collected with regard to the dimensions shown in Figure 1. In case of siting dimensions, the measurements were taken when the knee angle is in 90° as well as the angle of the ankle. The measurements abbreviation and meanings are listed and illustrated in the Table 2. These dimensions are chosen because most of them are utilized in different applications such as the design of tables, chairs, desks, shelves, beds, stools, cupboards, closets, clothes, and gloves for children. Such different measurements represent the majority of Jordanian children and will be recommended to be used in any design of tools and furniture oriented to children.

Figure 1.

Children’s body dimensions.

Table 2.

The Anthropometric Dimensions and Their Meanings

Abbreviation	Meaning	Illustration
S	Stature	The linear distance from top of the head to the floor when standing
SH	Sitting height	The linear distance from the top of the head to the seat when sitting
BHH	Back of the head height	The distance between the back of the head (the middle of the back head) to the seat when sitting.
EHS	Ear height sitting	The linear distance between the middle of the ear to the seat when sitting
EYHS	Eye height sitting	The linear distance between the middle of the eye to the seat when sitting.
HPNV	Height of prominent neck vertebra	The distance between the back of the head (first cervical vertebrae) to the seat when sitting.
SHS	Shoulder height sitting	The linear distance between the maximum point of the shoulders to the seat when sitting.
CD	Chest depth	The depth of the chest when standing.
LAD	Lower abdominal depth	The depth of the lower abdominal
WHS	Waist height sitting	The linear distance between the waist and the seat when sitting
HB	Hip breadth sitting	The breadth of hip when sitting
UEHF	Underside of elbow height to floor, sitting	The distance between the bottom of the elbow to the floor when sitting
UEHS	Underside of elbow height to seat, sitting	The distance between the bottom of the elbow to the seat when sitting.
EW	Back of elbow to wrist crease	The linear distance between the elbow to the beginning of the write when standing
SB	Shoulder breadth	The breadth of the shoulder when sitting
BEFT	Back of elbow to fingertip	The linear distance between the back of the elbow to the beginning of the middle finger.
SFT	Shoulder finger tips depth	The linear distance between the shoulder to the finger tips when standing
PB	Palm breadth	Linear distance from the edge of the hand from the small finger to the other side through index
HAB	Hand breadth	The linear distance from the edge of the hand to the other side through the thumb
WB	Wrist breadth	The breadth of the wrist
IFH	Index finger height	The length of the hand through the index finger
MFH	Middle finger height	Maximum length of the hand through the middle finger.
SHF	Seat height	The linear distance between the siting to floor
PH	Popliteal height, sitting	The linear distance between the back of the knee to the floor
TKH	Top of knee height, sitting	The linear distance between the top of the knee to the floor when sitting
LPD	Lumbar popliteal depth	The linear distance between the lumbar to the back of the knee

Data Analysis and Results

BMI Analysis

The body mass index (BMI) – defined as a person’s weight in kilograms (kg) divided by their stature or height (in meters) squared (unit kg/m²) – can be used to extract relevant health parameters. Figures 2a and 2b show the BMI indices for Jordanian children. For males and females, the measured BMI values ranged between 18.21 ± 1.61 and 18.03 ± 1.73 kg/m², respectively. Among males and females, the maximum value of BMI, 23 kg/m², indicates healthy children with no evidence of obesity. The BMIs for males and females for the Groups E and F are 19 and 18.5 kg/m², respectively (see Figure 2c). These values are much larger than the values (≈16 kg/m²) reported by Hasan et al. (2001) for children aged 7 to 9 years. This may be attributed to lifestyle and training differences between children in military compared to government schools. For other groups, the BMI values are very close for both genders. In comparison to U.S. children, the BMIs for Jordanian children trend higher; for example, in Category D, the BMI values were 17.72 and 17.71 kg/m² for Jordanian males and females, respectively, although average BMI values of 15.7 and 15.3 kg/m² were recorded for U.S. children in the same age group (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000). This difference may relate to differences in frequency and type of physical movements, lack of frequent practicing a sport, and perhaps other cultural disparities.

Figure 2.

(a) Normal distribution of the body mass index (BMI) values for males in all group categories. (b) Normal distribution of the BMI values for females in all group categories. (c) Average BMIs of males and females for each group category.

Anthropometric Measurements and Body Dimensions

The percentiles of the 27 measurements for different age-groups are listed in Tables 3 to 8. These measurements show different values with regard to age and gender. These data display measures for different body dimensions, such as sitting height, shoulder height, waist height, and others. Facial measurements, including ear height and eye height, are also included. Furthermore, hand measures such as HAB, wrist breadth (WB), PB, MFH, and IFH are tabulated.

Table 3.

Anthropometric Measurements and Percentiles for Group A (6–12 months)

	Males					Females
	5th	25th	50th	75th	95th	5th	25th	50th	75th	95th
Weight (kg)	8	8.8	9.4	9.9	10.7	7.0	8.0	8.7	9.4	10.4
Stature (cm)	68.1	70.6	72.3	74.1	76.6	64.0	67.9	70.6	73.4	77.3
Sitting height (mm)	360.0	373.8	383.4	393.0	406.8	352.0	367.6	378.5	389.4	405.1
Back of head height (mm)	299.5	312.4	321.3	330.3	343.1	293.5	307.4	317.0	326.7	340.6
Ear height, sitting (mm)	199.4	255.2	294.1	332.9	388.7	195.4	250.7	289.2	327.8	383.1
Eye height, sitting (mm)	240.6	263.5	279.5	295.4	318.3	245.5	260.8	271.5	282.1	297.4
Height of prominent neck vertebra (mm)	203.9	215.4	223.3	231.3	242.7	202.1	211.8	218.5	225.2	234.8
Shoulder height, sitting (mm)	173.9	185.7	193.9	202.0	213.8	173.6	183.8	190.9	198.0	208.1
Chest depth (mm)	62.5	70.7	76.4	82.1	90.2	57.1	66.8	73.5	80.3	90.0
Lower abdominal depth (mm)	66.9	81.1	90.9	100.8	115.0	61.6	76.6	87.0	97.5	112.5
Waist height, sitting (mm)	115.5	127.9	136.5	145.1	157.4	108.6	121.1	129.8	138.5	151.0
Hip breadth, sitting (mm)	205.3	216.7	224.7	232.7	244.2	188.9	206.0	217.9	229.8	247.0
Underside of elbow height to seat, sitting (mm)	116.7	120.6	123.4	126.1	130.1	115.0	118.7	121.3	124.0	127.7
Back of elbow to wrist crease (mm)	122.0	129.6	135.0	140.4	148.0	116.6	124.3	129.7	135.0	142.7
Shoulder breadth (mm)	270.5	277.6	282.6	287.6	294.7	263.7	271.0	276.1	281.2	288.5
Index finger height (mm)	72.4	76.9	80.0	83.1	87.5	70.2	73.5	75.8	78.0	81.3
Middle finger height (mm)	75.8	82.2	86.7	91.1	97.5	72.2	77.4	81.0	84.6	89.7
Hand breadth (mm)	51.2	54.5	56.8	59.0	62.3	48.8	51.4	53.1	54.9	57.4
Palm breadth (mm)	36.3	38.2	39.5	40.8	42.7	35.7	37.5	38.7	40.0	41.8
Wrist breadth (mm)	31.3	34.9	37.4	39.9	43.5	30.4	33.9	36.4	38.9	42.4
Shoulder finger tips depth (mm)	350.0	355.4	359.2	362.9	368.3	345.3	351.4	355.7	359.9	366.0

Table 4

Anthropometric Measurements and Percentiles for Group B (13–24 months)

	Males					Females
	5th	25th	50th	75th	95th	5th	25th	50th	75th	95th
Weight (kg)	9.6	10.7	11.4	12.1	13.1	8.9	10.2	11.2	12.1	13.4
Stature (cm)	70.8	76.4	80.4	84.3	90.0	72.9	77.1	80.0	83.0	87.2
Sitting height (mm)	360.2	399.2	426.3	453.4	492.3	369.2	405.1	430.1	455.1	491.0
Back of head height (mm)	310.5	344.4	367.9	391.5	425.4	325.0	346.8	362.1	377.3	399.1
Ear height, sitting (mm)	244.7	286.7	316.0	345.3	387.4	255.5	289.8	313.8	337.7	372.0
Eye height, sitting (mm)	254.0	297.4	327.7	357.9	401.4	262.0	300.5	327.2	354.0	392.4
Height of prominent neck vertebra (mm)	183.8	238.2	276.1	314.0	368.4	190.0	240.5	275.7	310.8	361.3
Shoulder height, sitting (mm)	157.5	209.6	245.9	282.1	334.2	153.5	210.0	249.3	288.6	345.1
Chest depth (mm)	75.9	88.5	97.2	105.9	118.5	78.7	89.7	97.3	104.9	115.9
Lower abdominal depth (mm)	104.2	126.3	141.6	156.9	179.0	99.3	123.8	140.9	158.0	182.5
Waist height, sitting (mm)	124.3	154.6	175.7	196.8	227.1	119.3	149.8	171.0	192.1	222.6
Hip breadth, sitting (mm)	190.7	220.1	240.6	261.0	290.4	163.7	201.8	228.4	254.9	293.0
Underside of elbow height to seat, sitting (mm)	102.5	117.5	127.9	138.3	153.3	89.7	109.8	123.7	137.6	157.7
Back of elbow to wrist crease (mm)	134.0	141.6	146.9	152.2	159.8	133.2	140.4	145.5	150.6	157.8
Shoulder breadth (mm)	257.1	290.7	314.2	337.6	371.2	274.2	300.9	319.5	338.0	364.7
Index finger height (mm)	81.9	87.0	90.7	94.3	99.4	81.1	86.3	89.9	93.5	98.7
Middle finger height (mm)	90.2	95.2	98.8	102.3	107.3	89.8	94.9	98.4	101.8	106.9
Hand breadth (mm)	52.9	59.0	63.3	67.5	73.6	49.5	56.8	61.9	67.0	74.3
Palm breadth (mm)	38.8	46.4	51.8	57.1	64.7	40.2	47.2	52.1	57.0	64.0
Wrist breadth (mm)	35.6	41.9	46.2	50.5	56.8	37.6	43.7	47.9	52.1	58.2
Shoulder finger tips depth (mm)	345.3	387.2	416.4	445.5	487.4	345.7	391.0	422.6	454.1	499.4

Table 5.

Anthropometric Measurements and Percentiles for Group C (25–36 months)

	Males					Females
	5th	25th	50th	75th	95th	5th	25th	50th	75th	95th
Weight (kg)	11.3	12.8	13.9	14.9	16.4	11.3	12.5	13.4	14.3	15.5
Stature (cm)	87.0	89.4	91.0	92.7	95.0	76.8	83.6	88.4	93.2	100.0
Sitting height (mm)	593.5	609.7	621.0	632.2	648.4	521.6	561.8	589.7	617.7	657.9
Back of head height (mm)	440.3	458.8	471.8	484.7	503.2	408.5	435.3	454.0	472.7	499.5
Ear height, sitting (mm)	375.0	445.9	495.2	544.4	615.3	396.1	428.4	450.8	473.3	505.6
Eye height, sitting (mm)	433.4	464.8	486.6	508.4	539.8	390.8	427.8	453.6	479.3	516.3
Height of prominent neck vertebra (mm)	414.2	431.2	443.0	454.7	471.7	384.8	409.9	427.5	445.0	470.2
Shoulder height, sitting (mm)	320.6	333.8	343.0	352.1	365.3	324.1	335.0	342.6	350.2	361.1
Chest depth (mm)	116.4	123.6	128.6	133.6	140.8	112.1	117.9	121.9	126.0	131.8
Lower abdominal depth (mm)	186.7	196.0	202.5	208.9	218.2	172.6	187.9	198.6	209.3	224.7
Waist height, sitting (mm)	144.5	147.3	149.3	151.2	154.0	130.6	139.3	145.3	151.3	160.0
Hip breadth, sitting (mm)	194.8	215.6	230.1	244.6	265.4	151.3	186.1	210.3	234.4	269.2
Underside of elbow height to floor, sitting (mm)	413.2	419.0	423.1	427.1	432.9	415.1	418.5	420.8	423.1	426.5
Underside of elbow height to seat, sitting (mm)	123.3	133.0	139.7	146.4	156.1	106.0	118.2	126.7	135.2	147.3
Back of elbow to wrist crease (mm)	150.0	153.8	156.6	159.3	163.1	146.2	151.3	154.8	158.3	163.3
Back of elbow to fingertip (mm)	309.0	312.3	314.6	316.9	320.2	307.6	309.8	311.3	312.8	315.0
Shoulder breadth (mm)	331.5	354.9	371.3	387.6	411.0	269.2	311.1	340.3	369.4	411.3
Index finger height (mm)	98.8	103.5	106.7	109.9	114.6	89.4	97.2	102.6	108.1	115.9
Middle finger height (mm)	108.2	113.6	117.4	121.1	126.5	99.9	107.8	113.4	118.9	126.8
Top of knee height, sitting (mm)	334.0	336.6	338.5	340.4	343.0	330.0	333.5	336.0	338.5	342.0
Popliteal height, sitting (mm)	301.5	309.4	314.9	320.4	328.3	300.8	307.1	311.5	315.9	322.1
Seat height (mm)	301.2	306.3	309.8	313.2	318.3	294.0	300.0	304.2	308.3	314.4
Lumber popliteal depth (mm)	305.3	313.3	318.9	324.5	332.5	308.9	312.6	315.2	317.7	321.4
Hand breadth (mm)	60.5	64.8	67.8	70.8	75.1	57.1	62.3	65.9	69.5	74.7
Palm breadth (mm)	59.8	61.6	62.8	64.0	65.8	53.0	58.2	61.7	65.3	70.5
Wrist breadth (mm)	48.4	52.0	54.5	57.0	60.6	41.8	46.7	50.1	53.5	58.4
Shoulder finger tips depth (mm)	443.0	450.3	455.5	460.6	467.9	445.3	451.6	455.9	460.2	466.4

Table 6.

Anthropometric Measurements and Percentiles for Group D (3–5 years)

	Males					Females
	5th	25th	50th	75th	95th	5th	25th	50th	75th	95th
Weight (kg)	16.9	19.3	21.0	22.7	25.1	14.9	18.4	20.9	23.4	26.9
Stature (cm)	100.2	105.2	108.8	112.3	117.4	96.3	103.4	108.3	113.2	120.3
Sitting height (mm)	554.9	588.3	611.7	635.0	668.4	577.2	603.6	621.9	640.2	666.6
Back of head height (mm)	501.1	518.7	531.0	543.2	560.8	479.2	506.6	525.7	544.7	572.1
Ear height, sitting (mm)	450.0	480.4	501.6	522.8	553.2	441.3	473.8	496.4	519.0	551.5
Eye height, sitting (mm)	467.8	508.9	537.5	566.1	607.2	430.4	484.0	521.4	558.7	612.3
Height of prominent neck vertebra (mm)	428.7	453.3	470.4	487.5	512.1	433.9	453.3	466.8	480.3	499.7
Shoulder height, sitting (mm)	333.0	358.5	376.2	393.9	419.4	316.8	349.0	371.4	393.8	426.0
Chest depth (mm)	127.5	135.9	141.8	147.6	156.0	123.5	134.3	141.9	149.4	160.2
Lower abdominal depth (mm)	206.9	212.4	216.3	220.2	225.7	169.4	194.7	212.4	230.0	255.3
Waist height, sitting (mm)	165.2	183.2	195.8	208.4	226.4	148.8	175.8	194.7	213.5	240.5
Hip breadth, sitting (mm)	241.7	260.8	274.1	287.4	306.5	233.1	258.9	276.9	294.9	320.7
Underside of elbow height to floor, sitting (mm)	397.2	431.1	454.8	478.4	512.3	406.4	430.8	447.7	464.7	489.0
Underside of elbow height to seat, sitting (mm)	106.1	141.1	165.5	189.9	224.9	124.7	148.5	165.1	181.7	205.5
Back of elbow to wrist crease (mm)	138.9	166.8	186.3	205.8	233.7	151.3	168.3	180.2	192.0	209.0
Back of elbow to fingertip (mm)	327.2	353.7	372.1	390.5	417.0	314.1	344.4	365.4	386.4	416.7
Shoulder breadth (mm)	321.2	343.6	359.1	374.6	397.0	310.6	349.0	375.8	402.5	440.9
Index finger height (mm)	113.7	120.3	125.0	129.6	136.2	104.5	115.1	122.6	130.0	140.6
Middle finger height (mm)	121.4	128.7	133.9	139.0	146.3	115.5	126.1	133.6	141.0	151.6
Top of knee height, sitting (mm)	335.7	355.3	369.0	382.6	402.2	302.8	335.2	357.8	380.3	412.7
Popliteal height, sitting (mm)	306.2	321.1	331.5	341.9	356.8	288.6	307.8	321.1	334.4	353.6
Seat height (mm)	296.0	307.2	315.1	322.9	334.1	273.5	293.1	306.8	320.4	340.0
Lumber popliteal depth (mm)	335.3	345.3	352.2	359.1	369.1	304.1	329.0	346.4	363.7	388.6
Hand breadth (mm)	65.7	72.4	77.2	81.9	88.6	63.7	71.6	77.0	82.4	90.3
Palm breadth (mm)	59.2	66.7	72.0	77.2	84.7	54.9	65.8	73.4	81.0	92.0
Wrist breadth (mm)	58.3	62.0	64.7	67.3	71.0	47.9	55.7	61.1	66.4	74.2
Shoulder finger tips depth (mm)	466.3	482.9	494.5	506.0	522.6	457.2	478.8	493.8	508.8	530.4

Table 7.

Anthropometric Measurements and Percentiles for Group E (5–7 years)

	Males					Females
	5th	25th	50th	75th	95th	5th	25th	50th	75th	95th
Weight (kg)	26.1	28.2	29.6	31.0	33.0	24.3	26.5	28.1	29.6	31.9
Stature (cm)	116.2	121.3	124.9	128.5	133.7	112.5	118.0	121.8	125.6	131.1
Sitting height (mm)	619.8	629.3	635.8	642.4	651.8	576.1	608.7	631.5	654.2	686.8
Back of head height (mm)	562.0	570.8	576.8	582.9	591.6	536.3	556.6	570.7	584.8	605.0
Ear height, sitting (mm)	490.8	509.9	523.1	536.4	555.4	475.6	498.3	514.0	529.8	552.4
Eye height, sitting (mm)	507.5	526.5	539.8	553.0	572.1	488.6	511.3	527.1	542.9	565.6
Height of prominent neck vertebra (mm)	484.0	500.6	512.1	523.5	540.1	418.4	450.2	472.4	494.6	526.5
Shoulder height, sitting (mm)	369.2	416.2	448.9	481.6	528.6	322.9	367.0	397.7	428.5	472.6
Chest depth (mm)	142.4	151.7	158.2	164.6	173.9	109.1	136.3	155.1	174.0	201.1
Lower abdominal depth (mm)	241.1	260.1	273.3	286.6	305.6	235.1	256.2	270.9	285.7	306.8
Waist height, sitting (mm)	213.0	219.8	224.5	229.2	236.0	196.3	207.7	215.7	223.6	235.1
Hip breadth, sitting (mm)	267.7	278.1	285.3	292.5	302.8	240.5	260.7	274.8	288.8	309.0
Underside of elbow height to floor, sitting (mm)	520.7	524.1	526.5	528.8	532.2	482.6	513.7	535.3	556.9	588.0
Underside of elbow height to seat, sitting (mm)	166.2	178.7	187.4	196.1	208.6	145.1	161.9	173.6	185.3	202.1
Back of elbow to wrist crease (mm)	199.0	204.7	208.6	212.6	218.2	169.5	189.6	203.6	217.6	237.7
Back of elbow to fingertip (mm)	360.8	371.3	378.7	386.0	396.5	327.3	354.3	373.1	391.8	418.8
Shoulder breadth (mm)	388.7	410.0	424.8	439.6	460.8	303.9	353.7	388.4	423.1	472.9
Index finger height (mm)	119.5	126.5	131.4	136.3	143.3	113.1	121.9	128.0	134.1	142.9
Middle finger height (mm)	133.2	138.6	142.4	146.2	151.6	117.5	130.5	139.4	148.4	161.3
Top of knee height, sitting (mm)	360.5	373.8	383.1	392.4	405.7	344.8	367.7	383.7	399.6	422.5
Popliteal height, sitting (mm)	317.4	336.5	349.9	363.2	382.3	321.9	344.2	359.7	375.2	397.4
Seat height (mm)	295.3	322.7	341.8	360.9	388.4	312.0	331.3	344.7	358.1	377.3
Lumber popliteal depth (mm)	320.2	342.1	357.2	372.4	394.2	281.5	312.8	334.5	356.3	387.6
Hand breadth (mm)	69.7	74.9	78.5	82.1	87.2	67.3	71.9	75.0	78.2	82.7
Palm breadth (mm)	65.3	73.0	78.3	83.7	91.4	52.5	60.9	66.7	72.5	80.9
Wrist breadth (mm)	47.4	55.1	60.5	65.9	73.6	42.4	48.8	53.3	57.7	64.1
Shoulder finger tips depth (mm)	524.5	533.4	539.7	545.9	554.8	463.0	495.5	518.2	540.8	573.4

Table 8.

Anthropometric Measurements and Percentiles for Group F (7–9 years)

	Males					Females
	5th	25th	50th	75th	95th	5th	25th	50th	75th	95th
Weight (kg)	25.4	29.0	31.5	34.0	37.6	27.7	31.1	33.5	35.8	39.2
Stature (cm)	119.1	125.7	130.4	135.1	141.8	126.8	131.3	134.4	137.5	142.0
Sitting height (mm)	638.9	680.1	708.9	737.6	778.9	624.4	668.2	698.7	729.2	773.0
Back of head height (mm)	596.4	619.4	635.4	651.4	674.3	572.0	603.1	624.8	646.4	677.5
Ear height, sitting (mm)	511.0	546.9	571.8	596.7	632.6	533.1	560.3	579.2	598.2	625.3
Eye height, sitting (mm)	539.2	570.3	591.9	613.6	644.7	537.5	569.1	591.1	613.0	644.6
Height of prominent neck vertebra (mm)	476.7	499.3	515.0	530.7	553.2	460.5	492.1	514.0	536.0	567.6
Shoulder height, sitting (mm)	413.4	445.0	467.0	489.0	520.6	392.6	424.8	447.2	469.7	501.9
Chest depth (mm)	145.1	164.2	177.5	190.8	210.0	128.2	152.1	168.8	185.5	209.5
Lower abdominal depth (mm)	206.7	239.2	261.9	284.5	317.1	228.3	261.3	284.3	307.3	340.3
Waist height, sitting (mm)	214.8	236.3	251.3	266.2	287.7	202.1	224.2	239.6	255.0	277.1
Hip breadth, sitting (mm)	284.6	293.2	299.2	305.2	313.9	264.1	288.6	305.6	322.7	347.1
Underside of elbow height to floor, sitting (mm)	520.9	563.5	593.2	622.8	665.4	531.3	574.7	605.0	635.2	678.7
Underside of elbow height to seat, sitting (mm)	148.5	171.2	187.0	202.8	225.5	154.9	176.9	192.2	207.5	229.5
Back of elbow to wrist crease (mm)	196.2	206.4	213.5	220.6	230.8	188.4	209.6	224.4	239.2	260.4
Back of elbow to fingertip (mm)	353.7	381.9	401.4	421.0	449.1	335.8	377.1	405.8	434.5	475.8
Shoulder breadth (mm)	303.2	361.8	402.7	443.5	502.1	314.7	361.2	393.6	426.0	472.5
Index finger height (mm)	117.5	128.9	136.9	144.9	156.3	126.8	136.8	143.7	150.7	160.7
Middle finger height (mm)	137.1	146.6	153.2	159.8	169.3	139.3	148.8	155.5	162.2	171.7
Top of knee height, sitting (mm)	401.8	417.1	427.7	438.3	453.6	380.9	412.3	434.2	456.1	487.5
Popliteal height, sitting (mm)	355.2	384.2	404.4	424.6	453.6	358.1	384.6	403.0	421.4	447.9
Seat height (mm)	337.6	373.9	399.2	424.5	460.8	321.9	362.2	390.2	418.2	458.5
Lumber popliteal depth (mm)	347.7	375.8	395.4	415.0	443.1	330.8	359.6	379.6	399.6	428.4
Hand breadth (mm)	71.3	79.7	85.6	91.4	99.8	69.2	75.5	79.9	84.3	90.6
Palm breadth (mm)	65.2	71.6	76.0	80.4	86.7	59.4	66.2	70.9	75.6	82.4
Wrist breadth (mm)	41.5	50.1	56.1	62.1	70.7	41.7	50.1	56.0	61.8	70.3
Shoulder finger tips depth (mm)	490.5	550.5	592.2	633.9	693.8	495.3	543.5	577.1	610.7	658.9

Recommended Furniture Design Dimensions for Jordanian Children

Ergonomics design is significant even for children, because among other disadvantages of ignoring ergonomics principles, bad furniture design can lead to serious problems. Moreover, any inconvenience during tool use can be reduced by proper design. The following sections highlight the most relevant dimensions due to their potential for daily impact on children’s bodies.

Seat Height

The dimension of the seat height (SeH) is related to the popliteal height, so that 30° is the maximum angle that the knee can flex with regard to the vertical axis, while 5° is the minimum (Molenbroek et al., 2003). Accordingly, Equation 2 was employed to calculate the SeH:

PH Cos 30 ° \leq SeH \leq PH Cos 5 ° .

(2)

For Jordanian children aged 2 to 3 years old, SeH values ranged from 27 to 32 cm, whereas for children aged 7 to 9 years, these calculations ranged from 35 to 41 cm (see Figure 3 for more illustrations). Additionally, minimal differences were found between Categories C and D (see Table 9). Using Equation 2, we ensured that SeH would be greater than popliteal height multiplied by Cos30°. This convention can reduce leg extension and hence allow more convenient postures. However, seating designs featuring adjustable chair height could be useful for Jordanian children aged 2 to 9 years, with minimum and maximum dimension of 27 cm and 41 cm, respectively.

Figure 3.

Chair design dimensions showing seat width (SW), seat depth (SD), seat height (SeH), and elbow rest height (ERH).

Table 9

Recommended Dimensions for Jordanian Children (All Dimensions in mm)

	Category C		Category D		Category E		Category F
	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
Seat height	273–314	270–310	287–330	278–320	303–349	312–358	350–403	349–401
Seat width	253–299	231–273	302–356	305–360	314–371	302–357	329–389	336–397
Seat depth	255–303	252–299	282–335	277–329	286–339	268–318	316–376	304–360
Elbow rest height	413	415	397	406	521	483	541	531
Desk surface height	426	424	458	451	530	538	596	608

Seat Width

Seat width (SW) should be directly linked to hip breadth (HB). Therefore, SWs for chairs should fit all users, especially users with broad hips, to ensure stability while seated and allow users to stand up and sit down easily. SW should be at least 10% of HB and at most 30% (Gouvali & Boudolos, 2006), where

1.1 HB \leq SW \leq 1.3 HB .

(3)

Based on Equation 3, seat depths (SDs) ranged from 23 to 30 cm for Category C and 32 to 40 cm for Category F (see Figure 3). Very close values for SW were obtained for D and E categories (between 30 and 37 cm). Calculated SW values for different age categories are introduced in Table 9.

Seat Depth

Proper SD design should relate to the lumbar popliteal depth (LPD) dimension. Specifically, the 5th percentile of LPD can be used to inform SD (Milanese & Grimmer, 2004). This convention can ensure that the backrest supports users’ lumbar spine. For this research, seat depth dimensions are recommended to be 80% and 95% of the students’ LPD, utilizing Equation 4 (Parcells et al., 1999):

0.8 LPD \leq SD \leq 0.95 LPD .

(4)

Using Equation 4 to calculate the dimension of SD will ensure that users will be supported under the upper thighs yet not feel as if they are falling off the front of the chair (indicated in Figure 3). SD measurements are presented in Table 9. The values of 26 cm and 38 cm were calculated for males in Category C and Category F, respectively. Small differences in seat depth between males and females were reported.

Elbow Rest Height

Appropriate design of the elbow rest can reduce spinal loading. Very high or very low armrests may cause additional pain in users’ hands. Ideally, elbow rest height should be linked to both the underside elbow height when sitting and the underside elbow to the floor when sitting. The height of the elbow rest must be at least 5th percentile of the underside elbow to floor (Dawal et al., 2015). This will ensure support for the elbow and allow a relaxed seated posture. The 5th percentile dimensions of the underside elbow height for all age categories are shown in Table 9. The proper heights of elbow rests for Categories C and D are between 40 and 42 cm for both males and females, while the heights increase to about 48 to 52 cm for Categories E and F as shown in Figure 3.

Desk Surface Height

Work surface height should be at least level with elbow height or a bit higher (e.g., 3 cm higher; Bendix, 1984). Recommended dimensions for desk surface height are summarized in Table 9. The proper height for Category C is 42 cm and 60 cm for Category F. For each category, the gender effect on recommended desk surface height is negligible.

Recommended Dimensions for an Adjustable Chair

Children’s anthropometric measurements vary considerably across age groups, genders, and even cultures. For at least this reason, some fixed furniture designs may cause uncomfortable postures. In this case, the development of adjustable furniture (e.g., chairs) is important. Based on previous calculations, an adjustable chair design can be proposed for Jordanian children. Recommended chair heights should adjust through the range of 27 to 41 cm as minimum and maximum dimensions, respectively. These proposed dimensions would serve users of both genders. Armrest height should reflect a range from 41 to 54 cm. Seat depth adjustment should range between 25 and 38 cm, and ideally, the backrest would adjust vertically as well as horizontally (Jung, 2005). Recommended SW would be 1.3 of HB (≈40 cm) to ensure proper fitting of all children.

Jordanian Children Hand Anthropometry

In manual operations, proper interaction between the human hand and any device depends on adequate design of such tools and instruments. Such properly designed equipment can potentially impact task productivity and help prevent MSDs. Hand dimensions such as HAB, PB, MFH, and IFH, WB, IFH/MFH are essentials for adequate tool design. Hand anthropometry data are given in Tables (3 –8). Figure 4 shows the average hand anthropometry for different categories of Jordanian children. In this regard, growth rates of hands for males and females are similar. The effect of gender for these categories was negligible (e.g., the male index finger heights for Categories A and B were 80 and 90.7 mm, respectively, while those values for females were 75.8 and 89.9 mm). Furthermore, growth rates for hand dimensions (HAB, PB, and WB) are nearly constant for children above 5 years of age, yet these reported dimensions are very important for the proper design of tools and toys intended for Jordanian children.

Figure 4.

Hand anthropometry for different age categories of Jordanian children (a) males (b) females.

Potential Design Applications for Children Anthropometric Data

This comprehensive data set can inform adequate design of many products for children over a wide age range. Especially for educational situations, seated postures (e.g., as constrained by chairs and computer workstations) might be considered the most important target for proper design. Full chair designs for different age groups have been proposed previously without benefit of children’s anthropometry. The authors encourage other researchers and product design companies to utilize these data to improve future designs. Other designs that could benefit from this data set include automobiles (e.g., child safety seats), airplanes (e.g., occupant restraint systems), public transportation (e.g., school buses), and child seats in restaurants.

Furthermore, hand-dimension data can guide adequate design of children’s hand tools, toys, gloves and child-resistant packaging designs. Additionally, shoulder breadth, HB, and chest depth can improve the design of protective equipment such as general air vests or equestrian horse-riding vests. The design of children’s bicycles, toy cars, and hospital beds may also benefit from these measurements. Another significant design application for the data set would be wearable walking aids for physically disabled children (e.g., children with cerebral palsy, CP). In this case, the stature, chest depth, HB, and hand anthropometry could be accommodated. Other parameters and design criteria related to body dimensions are currently under investigation.

Conclusions

This article reports anthropometric data for difference categories of Jordanian children. A wide range of age-interval categories was utilized to address children of different age-groups. These data can begin to forge a link between anthropometric data and various design characteristics used within Jordanian society. In general, the BMI values for children in different age groups indicated healthy participants. A set of 27 dimensions was measured for children aged from 6 months up to 9 years. How these data could guide important furniture dimensions, such as seat height, width, and depth; elbow height and desk surface height was explored. Other aspects of these data could also inform the design of children’s tools, clothing, and toys. This study might be considered the first step toward creating a national standards program in Jordan related to human factors and ergonomic principles. Hopefully then, this research will provide impetus for other investigators to collect anthropometric measurements of children and other age groups in order to improve quality of life and safety management. Perhaps investigators in other countries will be inspired to establish their own child anthropometric data and related design standards. Future work measuring infants and children aged less than 6 months would enhance this data set.

Footnotes

Morad Etier thanks engineer Salam Al-mohtaseb for her assistance in providing tools and facilitate the measurements.

Morad Etier received his PhD from the University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany, in 2015. He is currently an assistant professor in the Industrial Engineering Department in the Hashemite University. His main research topics include multiferroics, ferroelectric and ferromagnetic materials, magnetoelectrics, materials synthesis and characterization, nanomaterials fabrication, ergonomics and human factors, and industrial safety. He is the author or coauthor of more than 15 refereed scientific papers and book chapters. ORCID iD:

Atif Alkhazali received his PhD from the University of Binghamton in 2013. He is currently an assistant professor in the Industrial Engineering Department at The Hashemite University, Jordan. His research topics include material characterization, microelectronics reliability, energy applications, industrial engineering management, human factors, safety, and ergonomics.

Akram Alsukker received his PhD from the University of Technology Sydney in 2012. He is currently an assistant professor in the Industrial Engineering Department at The Hashemite University. His main research topics include optimization, feature/variable selection algorithms, human factors, and ergonomics.

Ekhlass Al-Momani received her BSc in industrial engineering from The Hashemite University in 2018. She is currently applying for a master’s degree in industrial engineering. Her main research topics include optimization, human factors, and ergonomics in designs.

Sumood Asha received her BSc in industrial engineering from The Hashemite University in 2018. She is currently applying for a master’s degree in industrial engineering. Her main research topics include optimization, human factors, and ergonomics in designs.

Aya Al-Sharif received her BSc in industrial engineering from The Hashemite University in 2018. She is currently applying for a master’s degree in industrial engineering. Her main research topics include optimization, human factors, and ergonomics in designs.

References

Adu

Frimpong-Mensah

Darkwa

(2015). Evaluation of a modelled office chair in an office environment at Kumasi polytechnic in Ghana. International Journal of Recent Science Researches, 6(4), 3719–3724. https://www.recentscientific.com/sites/default/files/2257.pdf

Agha

S. R.

Alnahhal

M. J.

(2012). Neural network and multiple linear regression to predict school dimensions for ergonomic school furniture design. Applied Ergonomics, 43, 979-984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.01.007

Alrashdan

Alsudairi

Alqaddoumi

(2014, June). Anthropometry of Saudi Arabian female college students. In Proceedings of the 2014 industrial and systems engineering research conference. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bef2/fec56dd8c4fd4c2294ccca175000d0a672fd.pdf

Bendak

Al-Saleh

Al-Khalidi

(2013). Ergonomic assessment of primary school furniture in United Arab Emirates. Occupational Ergonomics, 11(2), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.3233/OER-130209

Bendix

(1984). Seated trunk posture at various seat inclination, seat heights, and table heights. Human Factors, 26(6), 695–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088402600609

Bridger

R. S.

(1995). Introduction to ergonomics. McGraw-Hill.

Buckle

(2005). Ergonomics and musculoskeletal disorders: Overview. Occupational Medicine, 55, 164–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqi081

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000). Growth charts. http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts

Dawal

S. Z. M.

Ismail

Yusuf

Abdul-Rashid

S. H.

Shalahim

N. S. M.

Abdullah

N. S.

Kamil

N. S. M.

(2015). Determination of the significant anthropometry dimensions for user-friendly designs of domestic furniture and appliances—experience from a study in Malaysia. Journal of Measurement, 59, 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2014.09.030

10.

Gouvali

M. K.

Boudolos

(2006). Match between school furniture dimensions and children’s anthropometry. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 765–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2005.11.009

11.

Hasan

M. A.

Batieha

Jadou

Khawaldeh

A. K.

Ajlouni

(2001). Growth status of Jordanian schoolchildren in military funded schools. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 55, 380–386. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601167

12.

Ismaila

S. O.

Akanbi

O. G.

Oderinu

S. O.

Anyanwu

B. U.

Alamu

K. O.

(2015). Design of ergonomically compliant desks and chairs for primary pupils in Ibdan, Nigeria. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 10(1), 35–46. http://jestec.taylors.edu.my/Vol%2010%20issue%201%20January%202015/Volume%20(10)%20Issue%20(1)%2035-46.pdf

13.

Jung

H. S.

(2005). Prototype of an adjustable and an adjustable chair for schools. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35(10), 955–969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2005.04.007

14.

Milanese

Grimmer

(2004). School furniture and the user population: An anthropometric perspective. Ergonomics, 47(4), 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0014013032000157841

15.

Molenbroek

J. F. M.

Kroon-Ramaekers

Y. M. T.

Snijders

C. J.

(2003). Revision of the design of a standard for dimensions of school furniture. Ergonomics, 46(7), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/0014013031000085635

16.

Oyewole

S. A.

Haight

J. M.

Freivalds

. (2010). The ergonomic design of classroom furniture/computer work station for first graders in the elementary school. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 40, 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2010.02.002

17.

Pagano

B. T.

Parkinson

M. B.

Reed

M. P.

(2015). An updated estimate of the body dimensions of US children. Ergonomics, 58(6), 1045–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.1000392

18.

Parcells

Stommel

Hubbard

R. P.

(1999). Mismatch of classroom furniture and student body dimensions. Journal of Adolescent Health, 24(4), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1054-139x(98)00113-x

19.

Parkinson

M. B.

Reed

M. P.

(2010). Creating virtual user populations by analysis of anthropometric data. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 40, 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2009.07.003

20.

Sanders

M. S.

McCormick

E. J.

(1993). Human factors in engineering and design (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

21.

Snyder

R. G.

Schneider

L.W.

Owings

C. L.

Reynolds

H. M.

Golomb

D. H.

Schork

M. A.

(1977). Anthropometry of infants, children and youths to age 18 for product safety design (Technical Report No. UM-HSRI-77-17, Consumer Product Safety Commission). https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/684

22.

Snyder

R. G.

Spencer

M. L.

Owings

C. L.

Schneider

L. W.

(1975). Physical characteristics of children as related to death and injury for consumer product design and use (Technical Report No. UM-HSRI-BI-75-5, Consumer Product Safety Commission). https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/1556

23.

Steenbekkers

L. P. A.

(2009). Anthropometry of children 2 to 13 years of age in the Netherlands. In: Contemporary ergonomics 1984–2008: Selected papers and an overview of the Ergonomics Society Annual Conference (pp. 335–340). Taylor & Francis.

24.

Taifa

I. W.

Desai

D. A.

(2017). Anthropometric measurements for ergonomic design of students’ furniture in India. Engineering Science and Technology, An International Journal, 20, 232–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2016.08.004

25.

Zanuncio

S. V.

Mafra

S. C. T.

Antônio

C. E. B.

Filho

J. L.

Guimarães

E. M. V.

Silva

V. E. D.

Souza

A. P. D.

Minette

L. J.

(2012). Determining anthropometric variables as a tool in the preparation of furniture and designs of interior spaces: The case of children 6 to 11 years old of Vicosa, State of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Work, 41(Suppl. 1), 4626–4632. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0757-4626