Sex Estimation in Forensic Anthropology

11/20/21, 9:55 AM UMGC Library OneSearch
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/delivery?sid=82218df7-9e37-468e-9a30-f8b96633fca0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a… 1/15
EBSCO Publishing Citation Format: APA 7th Edition (American Psychological Assoc.):
NOTE: Review the instructions at http://support.ebsco.com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/help/?int=eds&lang=&feature_id=APA
and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and
dates. Always consult your library resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines.
References
Spradley, M. K., & Jantz, R. L. (2011). Sex Estimation in Forensic Anthropology: Skull Versus Postcranial
Elements. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56(2), 289–296. https://doiorg.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01635.x
<!–Additional Information:
Persistent link to this record (Permalink): http://ezproxy.umgc.edu/login?
url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=i3h&AN=58568388&site=eds-live&scope=site
End of citation–>
Sex Estimation in Forensic Anthropology: Skull Versus Postcranial Elements.
Abstract: When the pelvis is unavailable, the skull is widely considered the second best indicator of
sex. The goals of this research are to provide an objective hierarchy of sexing effectiveness of cranial
and postcranial elements and to test the widespread notion that the skull is superior to postcranial
bones. We constructed both univariate and multivariate discriminant models using data from the
Forensic Anthropology Data Bank. Discriminating effectiveness was assessed by cross‐validated
classification, and in the case of multivariate models, Mahalanobis D2. The results clearly indicate
that most postcranial elements outperform the skull in estimating sex. It is possible to correctly sex
88–90% of individuals with joint size, up to 94% with multivariate models of the postcranial bones.
The best models for the cranium do not exceed 90%. We conclude that postcranial elements are to
be preferred to the cranium for estimating sex when the pelvis is unavailable.
Keywords: forensic science; forensic anthropology; sex estimation; osteometrics; human osteology;
skeletal measurements
When performing a forensic anthropological analysis, sex estimation is one of the first and most
important steps. A visual analysis of the pelvis is typically the preferred indicator of sex with a high
degree of reliability ([[ 1]]). However, not all forensic cases provide the luxury of a complete skeleton.
If an individual is left exposed in an outdoor context, taphonomic processes may impede the recovery
of all elements. Some cases may consist only of a cranium, others of just a few postcranial bones.
Which indicator to use when only the skull and long bones are present is of some debate. Bass ([ 3]),
Byers ([ 4]), and Pickering and Bachman ([ 5]) indicate that the skull is the second best indicator of
sex assessment, the pelvis being the most reliable. The perception of the skull as the second best
estimator of sex persists despite evidence to the contrary ([[ 6]]).
As described in introductory textbooks ([[10]]), a visual observation of the pelvis is performed before,
or in conjunction with, a visual observation of the cranium. Further advice for assessing the sex of
skeletal elements includes seriation techniques applied to an entire skeletal sample ([12]). While
seriation works well in bioarchaeological analysis, it is not directly applicable to forensic cases, which
usually focus on one to a few individuals. However, in the case of mass grave excavation or mass
disasters, forensic anthropologists may find seriation an effective technique.
11/20/21, 9:55 AM UMGC Library OneSearch
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/delivery?sid=82218df7-9e37-468e-9a30-f8b96633fca0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a… 2/15
France ([ 7]), while noting that the skull is still often presented as the second best indicator of sex,
reviews evidence showing that postcranial estimates are generally superior. However, most
publications in the forensic anthropological literature of postcranial sex estimation focus on the Terry
or Todd collections ([[ 6], [13]]), which are comprised of late 19th and early 20th century birth years.
Documentation of cranial and postcranial secular change indicates that the Terry and Todd
collections do not accurately represent current forensic anthropological cases ([[16]]). Further, Jantz
and Moore‐Jansen ([18]) found that sex and ancestry estimation techniques based on anatomical
collections are not reliable when applied to recent forensic cases. The purpose of this study is
twofold: to test the assertion that the skull is the second best estimator of sex using a recent forensic
sample from the U.S. and to establish a hierarchy of sexing reliability, by element, using univariate
and multivariate techniques.
Background
Bass ([ 3]), Byers ([ 4]), and Pickering and Bachman ([ 5]) present the idea that the skull is the
second best estimator of sex, without any supporting citations, in texts that could be utilized in
introductory forensic anthropology courses. In the latest edition of Human Osteology, Bass states
that “The skull probably is the second best area of the skeleton to use for determining sex” ([ 3], p.
81). However, the following statement also appears in the same text, “The humerus is the second
best bone for sex estimation” ([ 3], p. 151). Byers similarly states “The skull is the second most useful
structure for determining sex” ([ 4], p. 184), although when discussing postcranial sex estimation,
Byers states that “In addition, most of these studies show that sex determination from multiple
postcranial bones yields a higher probability accuracy than sex determination from the skull” ([ 4], p.
194). Pickering and Bachman ([ 5]) state that after the pelvis “The skull is the next most reliable
skeletal indicator of sex” (p. 84). They further state that “Unfortunately, the pelvis and skull are not
present in every forensic case. If these bones are not available the determination of sex is going to
be tentative, not definite” ([ 5], p. 86).
It can be confusing that Bass ([ 3]), Byers ([ 4]), and Pickering and Bachman ([ 5]) all state that the
skull is the second best estimator of sex and then later state that postcranial elements perform well in
sex assessment. Pickering and Bachman’s ([ 5]) quote indicates that the skull is the second best
estimator of sex and that both the skull and the pelvis provide definite sex assessments. If one is
using morphological traits with no estimable error rates, classification rates, or any associated
statistics, then sex should be considered an assessment. If one is using metric traits of the pelvis,
skull, or any single bone or any combination of bones, then it can be considered an estimate,
because it provides an estimate in the form of an error rate or expected classification rate. Thus, an
assessment differs from estimation and neither should be considered definite. Additionally, metric sex
estimation offers error rates rather than subjective visual assessment, in striving for evidentiary
standards in forensic anthropology ([[19]]).
The claim that the skull is the second best estimator of sex perpetuates a tradition that has been
passed from generation to generation without substantiation. This can be traced back to Hrdlicka,
Krogman, and Stewart ([[21]]). Hrdlicka claimed 90% accuracy from a complete skull ([22]), although
he provides no evidence of how he achieved this estimate. Krogman ([23]) achieved 92% accuracy in
visually assessing sex from the skull and only 75% accuracy in visually assessing the postcranial
skeleton using the Todd collection. Krogman did acknowledge a male bias in the sample and felt his
estimate of sex should be lowered because of the bias ([23]). When Stewart estimated the sex of
American Black skulls, blindly selected from the Terry collection, he only achieved 77% accuracy
([23]).
11/20/21, 9:55 AM UMGC Library OneSearch
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/delivery?sid=82218df7-9e37-468e-9a30-f8b96633fca0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a… 3/15
Using features commonly evaluated visually as ordinally scored traits via logistic regression and
probit models, Konigsberg and Hens ([21]) could only achieve correct classification rates of 83%.
Most recently, Walker ([24]), using the same ordinal traits as Kongisberg and Hens ([21]), although
using a quadratic discriminant function, achieved 90% accuracy. Thus, statistical models based on
visually scored ordinal morphological traits have failed to achieve classification rates as high as
Krogman’s 92% ([[21], [24]]). Rogers and Saunders achieved classification rates of 89.1% using
visual morphological traits ([[25]]) on a historic skeletal sample and 92% accuracy using a recent
documented collection ([27]) although did not use statistical models to generate classification rates.
Further, publications on postcranial sex estimation using metric data provide evidence that
postcranial estimates of sex produce estimates equal to or higher than 90% ([[ 6], [13], [28]]).
Postcranial sex estimation typically relies on metric criteria, which offers less subjectivity than visual
assessment of cranial morphological traits.
The goal of the present research is to provide a hierarchy of sexing reliability by element using
univariate and multivariate techniques. This will allow for the explicit testing of the assertion that the
skull is the second best sex criterion. The objectives of the present research are to utilize data
derived from recent human skeletons with birth years after 1929 to account for secular changes and
to utilize standard measurements.
Materials
To test the effectiveness of the skull as the second best estimator of sex and to provide up to date
classification rates for sex estimation from the postcranial skeleton for forensic anthropologists,
primarily in the U.S., data from the Forensic Anthropology Data Bank (FDBl; [[18]]) are used in all
subsequent analyses. The FDB is unique because it contains data from individuals that are derived
from the population for which it is used; thus, it can be considered population specific for the U.S.
The FDB contains data on positively identified, circumstantially identified, and unidentified
individuals. Only positively identified American Black and White individuals are used in the present
analyses. The FDB also contains data on Hispanic, East Asian, and Native American individuals.
However, the sample sizes were too small for the East Asian and Native American groups to obtain
meaningful results and not enough positively identified male and female individuals considered
Hispanic were present in the FDB. Further, only adult individuals (18 years or older) born on or after
1930 are used in the present research. This birth year was chosen based on studies of secular
change in the U.S. population ([[16]]) and to encompass an age range of individuals that represent
recent forensic anthropology cases.
Because each case submitted to the FDB may or may not have a complete data set owing to trauma
or taphonomic changes, such as scavenging, sample sizes are reported separately for the skull and
postcranial skeleton (Table 1). While other studies have successfully demonstrated sex estimation
from postcranial elements using nontraditional metrics ([[ 6], [29]]), this study uses standard
measurements including 24 cranial, 10 mandibular, and 44 postcranial measurements ([36]).
Postcranial measurements from the left side are used, substituting the right side only when
measurements from the left side are missing.
1 —Sample sizes for American Blacks and Whites.
Group Skull (Cranium and Mandible) nPostcranial n
American Black Females71 51
American Black Males 107 92
American White Females203 185
American White Males 323 311
11/20/21, 9:55 AM UMGC Library OneSearch
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/delivery?sid=82218df7-9e37-468e-9a30-f8b96633fca0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a… 4/15
Methods
Both univariate and multivariate methods of sex estimation are utilized for the cranium, mandible,
and postcranial elements. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run using PROC GLM in SAS 9.1.3
([37]) to test the effects of sex, ancestry, and an interaction between sex and ancestry for American
Blacks and Whites for all skeletal elements (cranium, mandible, and each postcranial bone). The
ANOVA will indicate whether classification functions should be generated separately for American
Black and White individuals.
To find the best subset of variables for a discriminant function analysis (DFA), a STEPDISC
procedure in SAS 9.1.3 was performed on the cranium, mandible, and each postcranial element. The
STEPDISC procedure selects variables using a stepwise discriminant function with the Wilks’ lambda
criterion using an alpha of 0.05 to select the best measurements for discrimination of sex. These
subsets of variables were then run in a DFA using the PROC DISCRIM function in SAS to arrive at
D distances, cross‐validated classification rates, and Fisher’s linear discriminant function scores. For
all postcranial measurements, means, standard deviations, and sectioning points along with
classification rates were calculated for both American Blacks and Whites.
The sectioning points were obtained by taking the male and female mean and dividing by two. The
classification rates for each measurement were obtained by using the sectioning point for estimating
sex within the entire sample and dividing the number correct for each sex by the total number of
individuals by sex, then averaging the two sex‐specific classification rates to generate overall
classification rates ([38]). Values above the sectioning point are considered male, values below are
considered female, and values equal to the sectioning point are considered indeterminate.
Results
Interpretation of the ANOVA results indicates that significant differences exist in both sex and
ancestry between American Blacks and Whites in the cranium, mandible, and postcranial skeleton
(Table 2). The radius is the only postcranial element to show a significant interaction of sex and
ancestry at the p < 0.05 level. For the cranium, mandible, and all postcranial elements, significant
differences in sex were found at the p < 0.0001 level. Further, significant differences in ancestry
between American Blacks and Whites were found for the cranium, mandible and all postcranial
elements with the exception of the calcaneus. Despite the nonsignificance of the calcaneus for
ancestry, all subsequent analyses were run separately for American Blacks and Whites.
2 —ANOVA results for the effect of sex, ancestry, and an interaction between sex and ancestry for
American Blacks and Whites.
Bone AncestrySex Ancestry * Sex
F‐Value p > F F‐Valuep > F F‐Valuep > F
Cranium 17.11 <0.000116.24 <0.00010.91 0.5881
Mandible 4.60 0.0002 5.51 <0.00011.58 0.1469
Clavicle 7.27 <0.0001163.91 <0.00011.01 0.3903
Scapula 6.04 0.0026 279.60 <0.00010.21 0.8099
Humerus 16.28 <0.0001123.60 <0.00010.65 0.6619
Radius 23.18 <0.0001144.55 <0.00012.69 0.0456
Ulna 12.12 <0.000188.25 <0.00010.78 0.5675
Os Coxa 16.69 <0.000162.22 <0.00012.23 0.0654
Sacrum 10.03 <0.000114.73 <0.00010.28 0.8431
Femur 8.62 <0.000152.52 <0.00010.40 0.9363
Tibia 12.39 <0.000156.88 <0.00010.36 0.9021
Fibula 14.31 <0.000179.86 <0.00011.32 0.2391
2
11/20/21, 9:55 AM UMGC Library OneSearch
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/delivery?sid=82218df7-9e37-468e-9a30-f8b96633fca0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a… 5/15
Bone AncestrySex Ancestry * Sex
F‐Value p > F F‐Valuep > F F‐Valuep > F
Calcaneus1.20 0.3023 85.53 <0.00010.04 0.9637
The stepwise selected variables for all elements and classification rates for the DFAs are presented
in Tables 3 and 4 with the classification functions. The element that provides the highest classification
via DFA is the humerus for American Black individuals with an overall classification rate of 93.84%
and the radius for American White individuals with an overall classification rate of 94.34%. For both
American Blacks and Whites, the cranium provides an overall cross‐validated classification rate of
90–91%, while multiple postcranial elements provide higher cross‐validated classification rates
between 92% and 94% (Tables 5 and 6).
3 —Stepwise selected variables for American Black and classification functions. †
Bone Classification Function with Stepwise Selected Variables
Clavicle (0.2877*maximum length) + (0.9636*sagittal diameter at midshaft) + (1.1065*vertical
diameter at midshaft) + (−66.6844)
Scapula (0.25647*height) + (0.2157*breadth) + (−60.55)
Humerus (0.42616*epicondylar breadth) + (0.92*head diameter) + (0.49507*maximum diameter at
midshaft) + (−74.5878)
Radius (0.12149*maximum length) + (0.65603*sagittal diameter at midshaft) +
(0.60906*transverse diameter at midshaft) + (−47.8611)
Ulna (0.07912*maximum length) + (0.8104*dorso‐volar diameter at midshaft) + (0.74434 +
transverse diameter at midshaft) + (−44.2026)
Sacrum (0.09686*transverse diameter of segment 1) + (−4.69561)
Os Coxa (0.21749*height of os coxa) + (−0.11432*iliac breadth) + (−0.16143*pubis length) +
(0.37051*ischium length) + (−45.1877)
Femur (0.41661*epicondylar breadth) + (0.59516*maximum diameter of head) + (−58.836)
Tibia (0.42495*maximum proximal epiphyseal breadth) + (0.34828*maximum distal epiphyseal
breadth) + (−48.2631)
Fibula (0.073*maximum length) + (0.09111*maximum diameter at midshaft) + (−29.4408)
Calcaneus(0.29971*maximum length) + (0.547*middle breadth) + (−46.8862)
Cranium (0.71406*bizygomatic breadth) + (0.43318*mastoid height) + (−0.59308*biauricular
breadth) + (0.34451*upper facial height) + (−0.14842 + minimum frontal breadth) +
(0.53049*foramen magnum breadth) + (−0.60805*orbital height) + (0.32505 *nasal
height) +(−54.2458)
Mandible (0.13874*bigonial width) + (0.19311*bicondylar breadth) + (−34.6986)
1 Sectioning point is 0, females are negative and males are positive.
4 —Stepwise selected variables for American White and classification functions. †
Bone Measurements
Clavicle (0.23645*maximum length) + (0.88675*sagittal diameter at midshaft) + (0.60941*vertical
diameter at midshaft) + (−51.7722)
Scapula (0.19365*height) + (0.25609*breadth) + (−55.6564)
Humerus (0.04008*maximum length) + (0.4011*epicondylar breadth) + (0.26862 + maximum
vertical head diameter) + (0.62205 + maximum diameter at midshaft) + (−59.6723)
Radius (0.11151*maximum length) + (1.17296*sagittal diameter at midshaft) + (0.7476*transverse
diameter at midshaft) + (−51.8801)
†
11/20/21, 9:55 AM UMGC Library OneSearch
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/delivery?sid=82218df7-9e37-468e-9a30-f8b96633fca0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a… 6/15
Bone Measurements
Ulna (0.1189*maximum length) + (0.98611*dorso‐volar diameter at midshaft) +
(0.89642*transverse diameter at midshaft) + (−0.09097*minimum circumference) +
(−54.2634)
Sacrum (0.23919 + anterior breadth) + (−0.03177 + transverse diameter of segment 1) +
(−8.09535)
Os Coxa (0.15836*height) + (−0.08458*breadth) + (−0.12135*pubis length) + (0.1338*ischium
length) + (−21.4996)
Femur (0.3644*epicondylar breadth) + (0.52629*maximum diameter of head) +
(0.02826*bicondylar length) + (−65.70614)
Tibia (0.02828*length) + (0.6134*maximum proximal epiphyseal breadth) + (0.424*maximum
diameter at nutrient foramen) + (−0.13118*circumference at nutrient foramen) + (−58.633)
Fibula (0.07437*maximum length) + (0.14191*maximum diameter at midshaft) + (−29.5745)
Calcaneus(0.18618*maximum length) + (0.11285*middle breadth) + (−32.3714)
Cranium (0.50255*bizygomatic breadth) + (−0.07786*basion nasion length) + (0.24989*mastoid
height) + (0.19553*nasal height) + (0.24263*basion‐bregma height) + (−0.15875*minimum
frontal breadth) + (−0.13224*biauricular breadth) + (0.21776*glabella occipital length) +
(−0.09443*frontal chord) + (−0.08327 + parietal chord) + (−0.13411*occipital chord) +
(−81.1812)
Mandible (0.15798*maximum ramus height) + (0.21951*bigonial width) + (0.06335*mandibular
length) + (−35.0107)
2 Sectioning point is 0, females are negative and males are positive.
5 —Cross‐validated classification rates for American Black.
Element Female nMale nD Female %Male %Overall %
Humerus 34 62 11.2194.12 93.55 93.84
Clavicle 33 56 9.34 93.94 92.86 93.40
Scapula 36 63 8.64 91.67 92.06 91.87
Femur 33 65 8.00 90.91 92.31 91.61
Cranium 43 53 8.14 90.70 90.57 90.64
Ulna 28 51 6.08 92.86 88.24 90.55
Os Coxa 30 44 7.67 90.00 90.91 90.46
Tibia 28 58 6.27 89.29 87.93 88.61
Calcaneous18 49 5.05 88.89 87.76 88.33
Radius 31 56 5.94 83.87 87.50 85.69
Fibula 26 58 2.71 88.46 82.76 85.61
Mandible 48 58 2.47 75.00 81.03 78.02
Sacrum* 22 51 0.62 77.27 66.67 71.97
3 *Class means significantly different at the 0.0029 level, all others p < 0.0001.
6 —Cross‐validated classification rates for American White.*
Element Female nMale nD Female %Male %Overall %
Radius 112 232 7.7296.43 92.24 94.34
Clavicle 107 200 7.8297.20 90.00 93.60
Femur 121 239 8.3995.87 91.21 93.54
Humerus 125 242 8.8795.20 90.91 93.06
Scapula 125 230 7.4195.20 90.87 93.04
Ulna 97 196 8.5591.75 93.88 92.82
Tibia 93 185 7.5891.40 91.89 91.65
Cranium 139 236 7.2488.49 91.53 90.01
†
2
2
11/20/21, 9:55 AM UMGC Library OneSearch
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/delivery?sid=82218df7-9e37-468e-9a30-f8b96633fca0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a… 7/15
Element Female nMale nD Female %Male %Overall %
Os Coxa 86 149 4.5790.70 87.92 89.31
Calcaneous83 182 3.6981.93 83.52 82.73
Fibula 95 200 2.9381.05 81.50 81.28
Mandible 71 74 2.8685.92 75.68 80.80
Sacrum 84 163 1.2673.81 69.94 71.88
4 *All class means significantly different, p < 0.0001.
All univariate sex estimation results are presented in Tables 7 and 8 and sorted by classification rate.
The top three univariate estimators of sex for American Blacks are femur epicondylar breadth (89%
classification rate), tibia proximal epiphyseal breadth (88% classification rate), and scapula height
(87% classification rate). The top three univariate estimators of sex for American Whites are tibia
proximal epiphyseal breadth (90% classification rate), scapula height (89% classification rate), and
femur head diameter (88% classification rate).
7 —American Black univariate sectioning points and classification rates.
Measurement* FemaleMale Sectioning
Point
Classification
Rate
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Fem. Epicondylar Br. (62) 33 72.88 3.86 65 83.35 3.97 78 0.89
Tib. Prox. Epiphyseal. Br.
(70)
29 69.14 3.68 60 78.73 5.07 74 0.88
Scapula Height (38) 36 138.618.46 64 160.7 8.6 1500.87
Fem. Max. Head Diam. (63) 39 41.33 2.18 69 47.22 2.47 44 0.86
Humerus Epicondylar Br.
(41)
34 55.38 2.66 65 64.14 3.87 60 0.86
Humerus Head Diameter
(42)
37 41.03 2.46 68 46.99 2.3 44 0.86
Scapula Breadth (39) 36 95.92 6.52 64 109.556.71 1030.86
Radius Max. Length (45) 37 239.1912.45 69 267.5813.682530.85
Clavicle Max. Length (35) 38 142.217.77 62 156.817.41 1500.84
Calcaneus Max. Length (77) 20 76.45 4.62 50 85.38 4.74 81 0.83
Fem. AP Subtroch Diam.
(64)
37 25.86 2.56 66 28.73 2.28 27 0.83
Ischium Length (59) 30 77.33 4.91 47 89.15 6.23 83 0.83
Ulna Max. Length (48) 33 256.4215.01 63 285.5613.892710.83
Ulna Phys. Length (51) 25 226.4813.38 53 254.5113.942400.83
Fibula Maximum Length (75) 32 367.0922.11 65 400.5522.053840.82
Fem. Bicondylar Length (61) 36 444.9425.63 65 484.3225.9 4650.81
Humerus Max. Length (40) 39 309.4615.95 76 340.9117.1 3250.81
Os Coxa Height (56) 36 191.6911.78 61 211.5910.1 2020.81
Tib. Diameter Nut. For. (72) 30 32.23 2.81 59 37.31 2.85 35 0.8
Calcaneus Mid. Breadth (78) 18 38.89 2.4 50 44.06 2.84 41 0.79
Fem. Circum. Midshaft (68) 30 82.7 5.23 59 91.78 10.4387 0.79
Femur Max. Length (60) 42 448.4527.6 78 488.9 25.984690.79
Tibia Circum. Nut. For. (74) 22 88.05 5.92 53 101.388.1 95 0.79
Tibia Length (69) 31 375 23.91 66 410.1823.393930.79
Bizygomatic Breadth (3) 68 122.435.13 93 130.764.80 1270.78
Bicondylar Breadth (29) 49 110.085.91 59 117.224.94 32 0.77
2
11/20/21, 9:55 AM UMGC Library OneSearch
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/delivery?sid=82218df7-9e37-468e-9a30-f8b96633fca0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a… 8/15
Measurement* FemaleMale Sectioning
Point
Classification
Rate
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Cranial Maximum Length (1) 69 177.495.99 104 187.177.21 1820.76
Hum. Min. Diam. MS (44) 37 16.03 1.92 66 19.48 1.72 18 0.76
Tib. Dist. Epiphyseal Br. (71) 29 45.14 3.09 58 51.47 4.59 48 0.75
Hum. Max. Diam. MS (43) 37 20.54 1.82 66 23.94 1.73 22 0.74
Clavicle Sag. Diameter (36) 33 11.33 1.16 62 14.08 2.23 13 0.73
Fem. Trans. Diam. (67) 35 24.06 2.1 64 27.64 2 26 0.73
Radius Sag. Diam. MS (46) 32 11.38 1.72 56 13.16 1.14 12 0.72
Radius Trans. Diam. MS (47) 32 13.56 1.74 56 16.02 1.7 15 0.72
Bigonial Diameter (28) 50 88.14 6.19 63 95.70 6.47 42 0.72
Height at Mental Foramen
(26)
42 29.50 2.63 54 32.35 3.77 21 0.71
Basion‐Bregma Height (4) 68 131.755.97 103 137.135.80 1340.71
Upper Facial Height (10) 64 66.45 4.22 94 72.55 3.93 70 0.71
Maximum Ramus Height (32)29 55.86 6.44 40 61.43 6.78 25 0.71
Cranial Base Length (5) 69 98.86 4.85 101 104.024.20 1010.69
Fem. Trans. Subtroch (65) 36 28.92 2.51 66 32.24 2.57 31 0.69
Chin Height (25) 50 32.54 3.67 61 37.21 3.47 37 0.68
Biorbital Breadth (17) 60 95.20 3.87 91 99.99 4.57 98 0.68
Nasal Height (13) 63 48.21 2.60 95 52.29 3.23 50 0.67
Fem. AP Diam. Midshaft (66) 36 28.33 2.31 64 31.81 2.49 30 0.67
Sacrum Trans Diam. S1 (55) 22 45.27 4.94 51 51.69 9.15 48 0.67
Frontal Chord (19) 62 107.945.63 92 112.905.73 1100.67
Tib. Transverse Nut. For. (73)31 23.35 2.4 59 26.81 2.73 25 0.66
Maximum Alveolar Breadth
(7)
61 62.56 4.51 88 66.57 4.57 65 0.65
Biauricular Breadth (9) 58 115.844.83 90 121.234.32 1190.65
Iliac Breadth (57) 35 144.6 9.69 59 152.989.07 1490.64
Ulna Dorso‐Volar Diam. (49) 32 13.16 2.49 56 15.68 2.37 14 0.64
Ulna Min. Circum. (52) 26 32.85 3.91 50 36.76 5.1 35 0.64
Parietal Chord (20) 59 112.195.41 93 116.557.14 1140.64
Ulna Trans. Diam. (50) 32 13.28 2.26 56 16.82 2.66 15 0.63
Mastoid Length (24) 60 28.45 3.29 93 32.11 3.38 30 0.62
Mandible Length (33) 30 78.43 5.65 39 82.77 5.00 35 0.62
Upper Facial Breadth (12) 48 101.775.06 84 107.064.55 1040.62
Max. Cranial Breadth (2) 70 132.705.17 101 136.275.17 1340.61
Fibula Max. Diam. MS (76) 26 13.88 1.63 61 16.85 6.86 15 0.61
Basion‐Prosthion Length (6) 65 98.63 6.38 90 103.945.48 1010.61
Clavicle Vert. Diameter (37) 33 9.39 1.37 62 11.31 2.21 10 0.59
Foramen Magnum Breadth
(23)
61 34.49 2.35 91 36.24 2.57 35 0.56
Minimum Frontal Breadth
(11)
63 93.06 4.99 92 95.96 4.67 95 0.55
Maximum Alveolar Length (8)56 56.02 3.77 83 57.93 3.96 57 0.55
Orbital Breadth (15) 64 38.41 2.11 95 40.26 2.48 39 0.53
Sacrum Ant. Breadth (54) 28 102.3610.13 53 100.5811.451010.52
11/20/21, 9:55 AM UMGC Library OneSearch
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/delivery?sid=82218df7-9e37-468e-9a30-f8b96633fca0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a… 9/15
Measurement* FemaleMale Sectioning
Point
Classification
Rate
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Foramen Magnum Length
(22)
51 28.53 1.80 73 29.93 2.34 29 0.52
Minimum Ramus Breadth
(30)
52 32.44 3.25 63 34.14 3.93 41 0.51
Occipital Chord (21) 60 96.65 6.25 88 98.80 7.35 98 0.50
Interorbital Breadth (18) 59 22.49 3.10 91 23.67 3.13 23 0.49
Nasal Breadth (14) 69 25.12 1.69 103 26.15 2.31 26 0.49
Sacrum Ant. Height (53) 28 101.6410.36 52 104.1511.761030.49
Orbital Height (16) 65 34.38 2.00 95 35.13 2.40 35 0.47
Maximum Ramus Breadth
(31)
28 42.11 3.75 27 42.63 3.73 26 0.47
Pubis Length (58) 30 76.93 7.73 46 76 8.72 76 0.47
Mandible Angle (34) 29 123.597.59 37 124.577.65 35 0.46
Body Thickness at M. For.
(27)
44 11.64 2.02 56 12.23 2.11 22 0.42
5 *Numbers correspond to measurement definitions found in Moore‐Jansen et al. ([36]).
8 —American White univariate sectioning points and classification rates.
Measurement* FemaleMale Sectioning
Point
Classification
Rate
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Tib. Prox. Epiphyseal. Br.
(70)
113 69.19 3.37 226 79.31 4.1 74 0.90
Scapula Height (38) 127 141.879.48 231 163.338.95 1530.89
Fem. Epicondylar Br. (62) 129 74.53 3.8 248 85.27 4.38 80 0.88
Fem. Max. Head Diam. (63) 142 42.05 2.09 261 48.4 2.6 45 0.88
Humerus Epicondylar Br.
(41)
136 54.9 3.8 258 64.38 3.64 60 0.87
Radius Max. Length (45) 130 228.2211.21 251 253.4112.952410.86
Os Coxa Height (56) 124 201.0613.71 235 222.9410.8 2120.85
Scapula Breadth (39) 127 95.48 5.07 237 108.156.33 1020.84
Ulna Max. Length (48) 127 244.9411.66 250 271.0713.492580.84
Humerus Head Diameter
(42)
139 42.47 2.44 256 48.81 3.22 46 0.83
Clavicle Max. Length (35) 123 139.797.04 224 156.969.33 1480.82
Humerus Max. Length (40) 144 305.7514.43 263 333.9917.033200.82
Hum. Min. Diam. MS (44) 139 15.32 1.35 256 18.9 1.79 17 0.82
Ulna Phys. Length (51) 105 217.6911.71 217 240.1712.682290.82
Fem. Bicondylar Length (61) 134 431.9620.87 250 470.7523.634510.82
Tibia Circum. Nut. For. (74) 106 85.36 6.31 199 97.65 7.16 92 0.81
Fibula Maximum Length (75) 117 351.2919.65 235 386.4922.113690.81
Femur Max. Length (60) 151 436.1520.63 268 474.2123.234550.80
Tibia Length (69) 131 358.0219.27 246 392.8922.673750.79
Fem. Circum. Midshaft (68) 112 81.36 6.07 217 91.88 8.24 87 0.78
Tib. Dist. Epiphyseal Br. (71) 116 46.01 3.69 227 51.8 3.57 49 0.78
Tib. Diameter Nut. For. (72) 130 31.52 2.68 242 36.32 2.8 34 0.76
Calcaneus Max. Length (77) 90 77.94 6.13 195 86.46 5.23 82 0.76
11/20/21, 9:55 AM UMGC Library OneSearch
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/delivery?sid=82218df7-9e37-468e-9a30-f8b96633fca0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a… 10/15
Measurement* FemaleMale Sectioning
Point
Classification
Rate
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Calcaneus Mid. Breadth (78) 84 39.1 3.13 184 44.16 2.94 42 0.76
Fem. Trans. Diam. (67) 142 23.96 2.02 254 27.8 2.39 26 0.75
Bizygomatic Breadth (3) 180 121.014.11 292 129.805.25 1250.75
Ischium Length (59) 102 81.02 5.64 162 89.74 8.08 85 0.74
Bigonial Diameter (28) 125 89.74 4.75 162 98.27 6.46 94 0.74
Cranial Base Length (5) 184 99.51 4.71 302 106.124.60 1030.73
Radius Sag. Diam. MS (46) 117 10.47 1.19 236 12.93 1.22 12 0.73
Ulna Trans. Diam. (50) 116 13.78 2.15 230 16.83 2.22 15 0.73
Cranial Maximum Length (1) 192 178.527.37 308 188.047.49 1830.73
Basion‐Bregma Height (4) 188 134.574.94 300 141.395.49 1380.72
Hum. Max. Diam. MS (43) 141 19.82 1.75 256 23.34 2.08 22 0.72
Radius Trans. Diam. MS (47) 117 13.77 1.65 236 16.49 1.74 15 0.72
Fem. AP Diam. Midshaft (66) 139 27.28 2.30 254 30.69 2.54 29 0.72
Upper Facial Breadth (12) 135 100.043.47 245 105.044.45 1030.71
Fem. Trans. Subtroch (65) 140 28.46 2.42 265 32.09 2.73 30 0.71
Bicondylar Breadth (29) 111 110.065.39 154 117.276.13 1140.71
Biauricular Breadth (9) 172 117.194.55 286.00 123.075.22 1200.70
Ulna Min. Circum. (52) 100 33.59 4.73 202.00 37.39 3.86 35 0.7
Fem. AP Subtroch Diam.
(64)
139 25.22 2.37 264.00 28.72 2.73 27 0.69
Tib. Transverse Nut. For. (73)128 21.84 2.07 239.00 25.23 2.58 24 0.69
Maximum Alveolar Breadth
(7)
151 57.85 4.14 247.00 61.44 4.33 60 0.69
Nasal Height (13) 170 49.52 3.03 285.00 53.00 2.98 51 0.68
Mastoid Length (24) 176 27.45 3.51 287.00 31.65 3.58 30 0.68
Biorbital Breadth (17) 163 92.89 3.83 287.00 97.38 4.03 95 0.68
Clavicle Sag. Diameter (36) 117 10.66 1.49 211.00 13.06 1.78 12 0.67
Upper Facial Height (10) 164 66.59 4.33 261.00 71.36 4.30 69 0.67
Sacrum Trans Diam. S1 (55) 86 45.49 4.29 170.00 51.02 6.88 48 0.66
Maximum Ramus Height (32)82 57.44 4.92 86.00 63.27 6.58 60 0.65
Frontal Chord (19) 178 109.924.84 292.00 114.735.58 1120.65
Chin Height (25) 117 29.14 3.05 167.00 32.26 3.74 31 0.65
Max. Cranial Breadth (2) 192 136.055.00 307.00 140.016.48 1380.64
Maximum Ramus Breadth
(31)
49 38.71 3.85 74.00 43.51 5.90 41 0.63
Clavicle Vert. Diameter (37) 117 9.09 1.76 211.00 11.19 1.80 10 0.63
Basion‐Prosthion Length (6) 166 92.17 5.81 258.00 97.31 6.22 95 0.63
Mandible Length (33) 84 73.44 5.99 91.00 77.21 6.44 75 0.62
Height at Mental Foramen
(26)
98 27.48 3.03 145.00 29.97 3.83 29 0.62
Orbital Breadth (15) 173 38.98 2.24 288.00 41.11 2.44 40 0.62
Minimum Frontal Breadth
(11)
178 93.69 4.88 299.00 96.65 4.97 95 0.60
Occipital Chord (21) 175 98.01 5.53 294.00 100.475.39 99 0.60
Minimum Ramus Breadth
(30)
121 28.61 2.88 167.00 30.99 3.24 30 0.59
11/20/21, 9:55 AM UMGC Library OneSearch
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/delivery?sid=82218df7-9e37-468e-9a30-f8b96633fca0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a… 11/15
Measurement* FemaleMale Sectioning
Point
Classification
Rate
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Maximum Alveolar Length (8)147 50.76 3.26 237.00 53.97 4.22 52 0.59
Foramen Magnum Breadth
(23)
151 30.06 2.38 270.00 31.98 2.29 31 0.59
Parietal Chord (20) 178 113.606.30 294.00 118.047.14 1160.59
Sacrum Ant. Height (53) 100 110.11 12.08 179.00 112.7513.92111 0.57
Iliac Breadth (57) 124 155.638.47 237.00 160.419.84 1580.56
Fibula Max. Diam. MS (76) 101 14.41 1.82 205.00 15.95 2.59 15 0.54
Nasal Breadth (14) 177 22.59 1.90 296.00 23.77 2.02 23 0.53
Foramen Magnum Length
(22)
177 35.50 2.44 295.00 37.09 2.36 36 0.53
Interorbital Breadth (18) 173 20.00 2.63 279.00 21.04 2.76 21 0.52
Body Thickness at M. For.
(27)
100 10.48 2.04 143.00 11.51 2.24 11 0.51
Ulna Dorso‐Volar Diam. (49) 116 11.64 2.16 230.00 14.79 2.11 13 0.44
Orbital Height (16) 175 33.31 2.17 289.00 33.77 2.15 34 0.44
Sacrum Ant. Breadth (54) 105 108.5714.01 187.00 107.069.20 1080.41
Mandible Angle (34) 76 126.937.20 84.00 126.617.35 1270.40
Pubis Length (58) 96 84.39 8.71 160 81.14 9.1 83 0.37
6 *Numbers correspond to measurement definitions found in Moore‐Jansen et al. ([36]).
Discussion
It might be argued that visual assessment of the skull, evaluating general robusticity or specific
features, such as brow ridge size or mastoid size not quantified by traditional measurements, can
yield correct classification superior to metric analysis. There is little evidence to support this position.
The present research finds that differences in both sex and ancestry exist in the cranium, mandible,
and postcranial elements, except for the calcaneus, for both American Blacks and Whites. Further,
using metric data, multivariate analyses of long bones provide the best estimates of sex. For
American Blacks, the humerus, clavicle, scapula, and femur performed better than a multivariate
analysis of the cranium (Table 5). The radius, clavicle, femur, humerus, scapula, ulna, and tibia all
performed better than a multivariate analysis of the cranium for American Whites (Table 6).
The FDB provides a robust data set of recent forensic cases. The American Black sample is
considerably smaller than the American White sample and raises the question of whether the low
error rate for the humerus is a sampling artifact. However, the D value for the humerus in the
American Black sample is high, 11.21. The D value is less subject to sampling and suggests
significant sexual dimorphism in the American Black humerus. Further, the top three multivariate
postcranial elements for sex estimation in American Blacks have higher D values than the top three
postcranial elements in American Whites. These D values suggest greater sexual dimorphism in the
American Black sample. Interpretation of the univariate results with a classification rate of at least
85% indicates that the joint surfaces of the femur, tibia, and humerus, and maximum length of the
radius and the scapula are the most sexually dimorphic areas in both American Black and White
individuals.
Konigsberg and Hens ([21]) and Walker ([24]) explored sexual dimorphism in the skull through
application of statistical models to standard ordinally scored traits. Their results are heuristic and
provide statistical validity for sex estimation using the skull. However, their classification rates do not
achieve accuracy as high as multivariate metric analysis of the postcrania. Highlighting the
2
2
2
2
11/20/21, 9:55 AM UMGC Library OneSearch
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/delivery?sid=82218df7-9e37-468e-9a30-f8b96633fca0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a… 12/15
importance of familiarity with sexual dimorphism within a particular population group, Walker ([24])
also discusses the subjectivity in recording cranial nonmetric traits and notes, “Usually, knowledge of
the range of variation in a population is slowly accumulated through years of personal experience” (p.
40). Metric studies also offer less subjectivity to those with little experience. Adams and Byrd ([39])
tested the inter‐observer error of 13 standard and nine nonstandard measurements and found that
pubis length and the subtrochanteric measurements of the femur to be the most problematic. They
suggest that these problematic measurements are because of an ambiguous landmark, in the case
of pubis length, and an ambiguous definition, in the case of the subtrochanteric dimensions.
However, Adams and Byrd’s ([39]) study indicates that metric data are reliable even when collected
by researchers with varying levels of experience.
Sex estimation from the postcranial skeleton has been recognized in publications since the early 20th
century ([40]). Pearson’s 1915 article “On the Problem of Sexing Osteometric Material” ([40]) has
been regarded by Steel as being “one of the most important contributions made to the sexing of long
bones by measurement” ([41], p. 213). It was in Pearson’s 1915 article that he suggested that the
postcranial skeleton can be used for sex estimation ([40]). Postcranial metrics continue to provide
better estimates of sex than nonmetric or metric traits of the skull. In fact, a single measurement of
maximum proximal epiphyseal breadth of the tibia, in the case of American Whites, provides the
same classification rate as a multivariate analysis of the cranium. Further, multivariate analyses of
the clavicle, scapula, humerus, radius, ulna, femur, and tibia (Tables 5 and 6) provide better
classification rates than a multivariate analysis of the skull.
Conclusions
The results presented in this paper highlight that sex estimation using the postcranial skeleton, via
multivariate analyses, provides estimates superior to a multivariate analysis of the cranium by means
of continuous metric data or ordinal, nonmetric data ([[21], [24]]). Further, in the case of the American
White population group, a single measurement from the proximal tibia provides the same
classification rate as a multivariate analysis of the cranium. It is important to remember that
population‐specific estimates of sex from the cranium and postcranial skeleton must be used. The
data presented in this paper utilize a recent forensic sample and provide population‐specific sex
estimates from the postcranial skeleton for American Blacks and Whites in the U.S. Because
sectioning points and associated classification rates are provided for all standard postcranial
measurements, these estimators can be used on fragmentary remains.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all of the FDB contributors for submitting their data, Drs. Michelle Hamilton and
Grady Early for reading earlier drafts of this paper, and the two anonymous reviewers for their
comments. The first author acknowledges Dr. Stanley Rhine for conversation regarding sex
assessment versus estimation.
References
1 Phenice T. A newly developed visual method of sexing the os pubis. Am J Phys Anthropol 1969 ;
30 (2): 297 – 301.
2 Volk C, Ubelaker DH. A test of the Phenice method for the estimation of sex. J Forensic Sci 2002 ;
47 (1): 19 – 24.
3 Bass WM. Human osteology: a laboratory and field manual, 5th edn. Columbia, MO: Missouri
Archaeological Society, 2005.
11/20/21, 9:55 AM UMGC Library OneSearch
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/delivery?sid=82218df7-9e37-468e-9a30-f8b96633fca0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a… 13/15
4 Byers SN. Introduction to forensic anthropology: a textbook. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
Publishers, 2002.
5 Pickering RB, Bachman DC. The use of forensic anthropology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1997.
6 Berrizbeitia EL. Sex determination with the head of the radius. J Forensic Sci 1989 ; 34 (5): 1206 –
13.
7 France DL. Observation and metric analysis of sex in the skeleton. In: Reichs KJ, editor. Forensic
osteology: advances in the identification of human remains. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1998
; 163 – 86.
8 Robling AG, Ubelaker DH. Sex estimation from the metatarsals. J Forensic Sci 1997 ; 42 (6): 1062
– 9.
9 Klepinger LL. Fundamentals of forensic anthropology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006.
Bass WM. Human osteology: a laboratory and field manual. Columbia, MO: Missouri Archaeological
Society, 1995.
Steele DG, Bramblett CA. The anatomy and biology of the human skeleton. College Station, TX:
Texas A&M University Press, 1988.
White TD. Human osteology. London: Academic Press, 1991.
Albanese J, Eklics G, Tuck A. A metric method for sex determination using the proximal femur and
fragmentary hipbone*. J Forensic Sci 2008 ; 53 (6): 1283 – 8.
Brown RP, Ubelaker DH, Schanfield MS. Evaluation of Purkait’s triangle method for determining
sexual dimorphism. J Forensic Sci 2007 ; 52 (3): 553 – 6.
Holliday TW, Falsetti AB. A new method for discriminating African‐American from European‐
American skeletons using postcranial osteometrics reflective of body shape. J Forensic Sci 1999 ; 44
(5): 926 – 30.
Jantz RL. Cranial change in Americans: 1850–1975. J Forensic Sci 2001 ; 46 (4): 784 – 7.
Jantz LM, Jantz RL. Secular change in long bone length and proportion in the United States, 1800–
1970. Am J Phys Anthropol 1999 ; 110 : 57 – 67.
Jantz RL, Moore‐Jansen PH. A data base for forensic anthropology: structure content and analysis.
Knoxville, TN: Department of Anthropology, The University of Tennessee, 1988. Report No.: 47.
Christensen AM. The impact of Daubert : implications for testimony and research in Forensic
Anthropology (and the use of frontal sinuses in personal identification). J Forensic Sci 2004 ; 49 (3):
1 – 4.
Christensen AM, Crowder CM. Evidentiary standards for forensic anthropology*. J Forensic Sci 2009
; 54 (6): 1211 – 6.
Konigsberg LW, Hens SM. Use of ordinal categorical variables in skeletal assessment of sex from the
cranium. Am J Phys Anthropol 1998 ; 107 : 97 – 112.
11/20/21, 9:55 AM UMGC Library OneSearch
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/delivery?sid=82218df7-9e37-468e-9a30-f8b96633fca0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a… 14/15
Hrdlicka A. Practical anthropometry. Philadelphia, PA: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology,
1939.
Krogman WM, Iscan MY. The human skeleton in forensic medicine. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas, 1986.
Walker PL. Sexing skulls using discriminant function analysis of visually assessed traits. Am J Phys
Anthropol 2008 ; 136 : 39 – 50.
Rogers TL. Determining the sex of human remains through cranial morphology. J Forensic Sci 2005 ;
50 (3): 493 – 500.
Rogers TL, Saunders SR. Accuracy of sex determination using morphological traits of the human
pelvis. J Theor Biol 1994 ; 39 (4): 1047 – 56.
Williams BA, Rogers TL. Evaluating the accuracy and precision of cranial morphological traits for sex
determination. J Forensic Sci 2006 ; 51 (4): 729 – 35.
Albanese J, Cardoso HF, Saunders SR. Universal methodology for developing univariate sample‐
specific sex determination methods: an example using the epicondylar breadth of the humerus. J
Archaeol Sci 2005 ; 32 : 143 – 52.
Case DT, Ross AH. Sex determination from hand and foot bone lengths*. J Forensic Sci 2007 ; 52
(2): 264 – 70.
Franklin D, Oxnard CE, O’Higgins P, Dadour I. Sexual dimorphism in the subadult mandible:
quantification using geometric morphometrics*. J Forensic Sci 2007 ; 52 (1): 6 – 10.
Frutos LR. Brief communication: sex determination accuracy of the minimum supero‐inferior femoral
neck diameter in a contemporary rural Guatemalan population. Am J Phys Anthropol 2003 ; 122 (2):
123 – 26.
Gualdi‐Russo E. Sex determination from the talus and calcaneus measurements. Forensic Sci Int
2007 ; 171 (2–3): 151 – 6.
Barrio PA, Trancho GJ, Sánchez JA. Metacarpal sexual determination in a Spanish population. J
Forensic Sci 2006 ; 51 (5): 990 – 5.
Gapert R, Black S, Last J. Sex determination from the occipital condyle: discriminant function
analysis in an eighteenth and nineteenth century British sample. Am J Phys Anthropol 2009 ; 138 (4):
384 – 94.
Wescott DJ. Sex variation in the second cervical vertebra. J Forensic Sci 2000 ; 45 (2): 462 – 6.
Moore‐Jansen PH, Ousley SD, Jantz RL. Data collection procedures for forensic skeletal material.
Knoxville, TN: Department of Anthropology, The University of Tennessee, 1994 ; Report No.: 48.
SAS Institute Inc. SAS 9.1.3, 8th edn. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 20022004.
Barnes J, Wescott DJ. Sex determination of Mississippian skeletal remains from human
measurements. Missouri Archaeol 2008 ; 68 : 133 – 7.
11/20/21, 9:55 AM UMGC Library OneSearch
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/delivery?sid=82218df7-9e37-468e-9a30-f8b96633fca0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a… 15/15
Adams BJ, Byrd JE. Interobserver variation of selected postcranial skeletal measurements*. J
Forensic Sci 2002 ; 47 (6): 1 – 10.
Pearson K. On the problem of sexing osteometric material. Biometrika 1915 ; 10 (4): 479 – 87.
Steel FLD. The sexing of long bones, with reference to the St Bride’s series of identified skeletons. J
R Anthropol Inst GB Irel 1962 ; 92 (2): 212 – 22.
~~~~~~~~
By M. Katherine Spradley and Richard L. Jantz
Reported by Author; Author
Copyright of Journal of Forensic Sciences is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?

Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.

Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?

• Plagiarism free papers
• Timely delivery
• Any deadline
• Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
• Subject-relevant academic writer
• Adherence to paper instructions
• Ability to tackle bulk assignments
• Reasonable prices
• 24/7 Customer Support
• Get superb grades consistently

Online Academic Help With Different Subjects

Literature

Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.

Finance

Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.

Computer science

Computer science is a tough subject. Fortunately, our computer science experts are up to the match. No need to stress and have sleepless nights. Our academic writers will tackle all your computer science assignments and deliver them on time. Let us handle all your python, java, ruby, JavaScript, php , C+ assignments!

Psychology

While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.

Engineering

Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.

Nursing

In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.

Sociology

Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.

Business

We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!

Statistics

We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.

Law

Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.

What discipline/subjects do you deal in?

We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.

Are your writers competent enough to handle my paper?

Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.

What if I don’t like the paper?

There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.

Reasons being:

• When assigning your order, we match the paper’s discipline with the writer’s field/specialization. Since all our writers are graduates, we match the paper’s subject with the field the writer studied. For instance, if it’s a nursing paper, only a nursing graduate and writer will handle it. Furthermore, all our writers have academic writing experience and top-notch research skills.
• We have a quality assurance that reviews the paper before it gets to you. As such, we ensure that you get a paper that meets the required standard and will most definitely make the grade.

In the event that you don’t like your paper:

• The writer will revise the paper up to your pleasing. You have unlimited revisions. You simply need to highlight what specifically you don’t like about the paper, and the writer will make the amendments. The paper will be revised until you are satisfied. Revisions are free of charge
• We will have a different writer write the paper from scratch.
• Last resort, if the above does not work, we will refund your money.

Will the professor find out I didn’t write the paper myself?

Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.

What if the paper is plagiarized?

We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.

When will I get my paper?

You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.

Will anyone find out that I used your services?

We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.

How our Assignment Help Service Works

1. Place an order

You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.

2. Pay for the order

Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.

3. Track the progress

You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.

4. Download the paper

The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.

GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!