Accurate hand anthropometry underpins ergonomics, product design, medical applications, and occupational safety. Direct caliper-based measurement (DM) is labor-intensive and operator-dependent, whereas two-dimensional flatbed scanning (SC) has been advanced as a faster alternative, with validity for small anatomical landmarks remaining uncertain.
Objective
The objective of this study was to quantify between-method agreement and time efficiency of two-dimensional flatbed scanning (SC) relative to direct caliper measurement (DM).
Methods
In this study, 56 hand dimensions (36 lengths, 20 breadths) were obtained from 40 Thai adults (20 males, 20 females) by DM and SC. Between-method agreement were evaluated using mean absolute error (MAE), technical error of measurement (TEM), relative TEM (%TEM), and the coefficient of reliability (R). Time efficiency was quantified from average technician time and participant handling time.
Results
Pre-specified acceptability criteria (MAE ≤ 1 mm; TEM ≤ 2 cm; %TEM ≤ 1.5%; R ≥ 0.80) were satisfied by 42 of 56 dimensions (75%). Lengths and general breadths showed high agreement with the reference and strong repeatability (%TEM < 1.5%; R > 0.95), whereas small features—particularly finger-joint breadths < 25 mm—exhibited larger errors (%TEM 2.25–4.90%) and lower reliability (R < 0.80). Technician time was reduced from 30.85 to 14.10 min with SC, and participant handling was minimized (∼2.10 min).
Conclusion
Overall, SC can be adopted as a rapid, low-burden method for most hand dimensions, while refined protocols (e.g., increased image resolution, controlled hand pressure and posture, or equipment calibration) are indicated for sub-25-mm landmarks to ensure precision and strengthen population-specific anthropometric databases.
DianatIMolenbroekJCastellucciHI. A review of the methodology and applications of anthropometry in ergonomics and product design. Ergonomics2018; 61: 1696–1720.
2.
MandahawiNImrhanSAl-ShobakiS, et al.Hand anthropometry survey for the Jordanian population. Int J Ind Ergon2008; 38: 966–976.
3.
ParkSJMinSNLeeH, et al.3D Hand anthropometry of Korean teenagers and comparison with manual method. Commun Comput Inf Sci2014; 435: 491–495.
4.
FilhoPCAda SilvaLCastellucciHI, et al.Comparison between anthropometric equipment and scanners in hand measurement. In: Arezes PM, Melo RB, Carneiro P, Castelo Branco J, Colim A, Costa N, et al., eds. Occupational and Environmental Safety and Health V [Internet]. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2024 [cited 2024 Jul 29]. p. 43–58. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38277-2_4.
5.
García-CáceresRGFelknorSCórdobaJE, et al.Hand anthropometry of the Colombian floriculture workers of the bogota plateau. Int J Ind Ergon2012; 42: 183–198.
6.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 7250-1:2017 – Basic human body measurements for technological design — Part 1: Body measurement definitions and landmarks [Internet]. Geneva: ISO; 2017 [cited 2023 Feb 23]. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/65246.html.
GordonCCBradtmillerB. Interobserver error in a large scale anthropometric survey. Am J Hum Biol1992; 4: 253–263.
9.
UlijaszekSJKerrDA. Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status. Br J Nutr1999; 82: 165–177.
10.
SicotteMLedouxMZunzuneguiMV, et al.ATARAO Group. Reliability of anthropometric measures in a longitudinal cohort of patients initiating ART in West Africa. BMC Med Res Methodol2010; 10: 02.
11.
VivianiCArezesPMBragançaS, et al.Accuracy, precision and reliability in anthropometric surveys for ergonomics purposes in adult working populations: a literature review. Int J Ind Ergon2018; 65: 1–16.
12.
HabibiESourySHasan ZadehA. Precise evaluation of anthropometric 2D software processing of hand in comparison with direct method. J Med Signals Sens2013; 3: 256–261.
13.
Rumbo-RodríguezLSánchez-SanSegundoMFerrer-CascalesR, et al.Comparison of body scanner and manual anthropometric measurements of body shape: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021; 18: 6213.
14.
SeifertECurryCGriffinL. 3D Anthropometric assessment of functional hand grasps for surgeons and medical professionals. In: In: proceedings of the 2019 design of medical devices conference (DMD2019); 2019 apr 15–18. Minneapolis, MN, USA. New York: ASME, 2019, pp.V001T08A002.
15.
YuAYickKLNgSP, et al.2D And 3D anatomical analyses of hand dimensions for custom-made gloves. Appl Ergon2013; 44: 381–392.
16.
de la FuenteJ. The use of a universal design methodology for developing child-resistant drug packaging [dissertation]. San Luis Obispo (CA): California Polytechnic State University, 2006.
17.
VergaraMAgostMJGracia-IbáñezV. Dorsal and palmar aspect dimensions of hand anthropometry for designing hand tools and protections. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind2018; 28: 17–28.
18.
WagnerC. The pianist’s hand: anthropometry and biomechanics. Ergonomics1988; 31: 97–131.
19.
HanHSParkCK. Automatic hand measurement system from 2D hand image for customized glove production. Fash Text Res J2016; 18: 468–476.
20.
Nur AtirahGKhairulmazidahM. Stature estimation using hand and handprint dimensions among Malaysian population. Int J Eng Technol (UAE)2018; 7: 52–57.
21.
OliveiraTOliveiraGOrnellasJ, et al.Technical error of measurement in anthropometry (English version). Rev Bras Med Esporte2005; 11: 81–85.
22.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 20685-1:2018 – Ergonomics—3-D scanning methodologies for internationally compatible anthropometric databases—Part 1: Evaluation protocol [Internet]. Geneva: ISO; 2018 [cited 2026 Mar 28]. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/63260.html.
23.
StomfaiSAhrensWBammannK, et al.Intra- and inter-observer reliability in anthropometric measurements in children. Int J Obes (Lond)2011; 35: S45–S51.
24.
ZubirSIkhwanMNRahmanA, et al.Technical error measurements, reliability, and validity of customized anthropometric grid. J Occup Saf Health2023; 20: 51–58.
25.
ArroyoMFreireMAnsoteguiL, et al.Intraobserver error associated with anthropometric measurements made by dietitians. Nutr Hosp2010; 25: 1053–1056.
26.
BragançaSArezesPCarvalhoM, et al.A comparison of manual anthropometric measurements with kinect-based scanned measurements in terms of precision and reliability. Work2018; 59: 325–339.
27.
SaengchaiyaNBunterngchitY. Hand anthropometry of Thai female industrial workers. J KMITNB2004; 14: 16–19.
28.
KaewdokTNorkaewSSirisawasdS, et al.Anthropometric measurement of Thai older farmers for agricultural tools and workplace design. Designs2022; 6: 81.
29.
Nataraja MoorthyTIvan NikkimorLDPravinaD, et al.Determination of stature from hand anthropometry among visayan population in the Philippines for person identification. J Krishna Inst Med Sci Univ2019; 8: 58–65.
30.
ImrhanSNNguyenMTNguyenNN. Hand anthropometry of Americans of Vietnamese origin. Int J Ind Ergon1993; 12: 281–287.
31.
MansourMAA. Hand anthropometric data for Saudi Arabian engineering students aged 20–26 years at king khalid university. Am J Eng Appl Sci2016; 9: 877–888.
32.
ImrhanSNSarderMDMandahawiN. Hand anthropometry in Bangladeshis living in America and comparisons with other populations. Ergonomics2009; 52: 987–998.
33.
ObiOF. Hand anthropometry survey of rural farm workers in south-eastern Nigeria. Ergonomics2016; 59: 603–611.
34.
JeeSCYunMH. Estimation of stature from diversified hand anthropometric dimensions from Korean population. J Forensic Leg Med2015; 35: 9–14.
35.
ChandnaPDeswalSChandraA. An anthropometric survey of industrial workers of the northern region of India. Int J Ind Syst Eng2010; 6: 110–128.
36.
MirmohammadiSJMehrparvarAHMostaghaciM, et al.Anthropometric hand dimensions in a population of Iranian male workers in 2012. Int J Occup Saf Ergon2016; 22: 125–130.
37.
SirajudeenMShahUPillaiP, et al.Correlation between grip strength and physical factors in men. Int J Health Rehabil Sci2012; 1: 58–63.
38.
de SouzaFGKunkelME. Estimation of stature from hand and handprint dimensions in the Brazilian population. Res Biomed Eng2022; 38: 571–579.
39.
FerreiraTRasbandW. ImageJ user guide [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): U.S. National Institutes of Health; 2012 [cited 2024 Oct 13]. Available from: https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/docs/guide/.
40.
RaoDNivethaLMurthySR, et al.Head and facial anthropometry of south Indian pediatric population. J Clin Ophthalmol Res2023; 11: 77–80.
41.
JamaiyahH. Reliability, technical error of measurements and validity of length and weight measurements for children under two years old in Malaysia. Med J Malaysia2010; 65: 65–70.
42.
StomfaiSAhrensWBammannK, et al.Intra- and inter-observer reliability in anthropometric measurements in children. Int J Obes (Lond)2011; 35: S45–S51.
43.
GeetaAJamaiyahHSafizaMN, et al.Reliability, technical error of measurements and validity of instruments for nutritional status assessment of adults in Malaysia. Singapore Med J2009; 50: 1013–1018.
44.
NortonKOldsT. Anthropometrica: a textbook of body measurement for sports and health courses. Sydney (Australia): UNSW Press, 1996, 438 p.
45.
HajaghazadehMTaghizadehMMohebbiI, et al.Hand anthropometric dimensions and strengths in workers: a comparison of three occupations. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries2022; 32: 373–388.
46.
IshakNIHemyNFranklinD. Estimation of sex from hand and handprint dimensions in a western Australian population. Forensic Sci Int2012; 221: 154.e1–154.e6.
47.
ShahriarMMParvezMSLutfiM. A survey of hand anthropometry of Bangladeshi agricultural farm workers. Int J Ind Ergon2020; 78: 102978.
48.
CourtneyAJDaviesBT. Equipment note: a minimum square measuring device for hand anthropometry. Ergonomics1979; 22: 1371–1373.
49.
EstevesACdos ReisDCCaldeiraRM, et al.Grip force, laterality, sex and hand anthropometry of children in scholar age. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum2005; 7: 69–75.
50.
GriffinLSokolowskiSSeifertE. Process considerations in 3D hand anthropometric data collection. In: In: proceedings of the 2018 design of medical devices conference (DMD2018); 2018 apr 9–12. Minneapolis, MN, USA. New York: ASME, 2018, pp.123.
51.
RobinetteKMDaanenHAM. Precision of the CAESAR scan-extracted measurements. Appl Ergon2006; 37: 259–265.
