What is it about?
Ergonomics and health practitioners wish to compare a population’s body shapes (e.g., hourglass, oval, or rectangle) to track health issues and design better-fitting garments. The Female Figure Identification Technique (FFIT) is, currently) the most widely used body classification system. To compare populations’ body shapes, practitioners need a body classification system that is stable and repeatable. Yet the FFIT has never been verified, so practitioners must take its veracity on faith. This paper smashes the industry’s faith in the FFIT’s authority. We take multiple alternative measurement definitions (e.g., two different hip measurements) of 1,679 women that are within the FFIT’s wide-ranging definitions, common within the ergonomics community, but produce significantly different circumferences. We show that a single woman can be classified in three different body shapes for three alternative interpretations of FFIT’s measurement placement. By proving that FFIT can produce contradictory categorisation between practitioners, we establish that practitioners must give specific guidance on how to take measurements so their work can be compared to others (e.g., between populations), or replicated (e.g., their work compared to later studies). We pave the way for a new, more stable method of categorising bodies that cannot suffer from FFITs ambiguity.
Featured Image
Photo by AllGo - An App For Plus Size People on Unsplash
Why is it important?
Researchers, scientists, and members of the public assume the body categorisations they read about and use are correct and comparable to the work of others. Yet these assumptions never come with accompanying measurement definitions to provide veracity. This is disastrous. A practitioner who compares their body-shape research to earlier work or a women 'shopping for her body shape might base their actions on differences of body shape when they are actually differences of measurement-taking. They can come to false conclusions with breathtaking ease. Everyone who uses FFIT body shape must now reconsider if their previous thoughts and conclusions are correct. Previous work comparing populations' body shapes must be critically re-examined.
Perspectives
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Assessing the Female Figure Identification Technique’s Reliability as a Body Shape Classification System, Ergonomics, March 2021, Taylor & Francis,
DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2021.1902572.
You can read the full text:
Resources
Why you might not be the body shape you think – new research
Hourglass, bottom hourglass, top hourglass, spoon, rectangle, diamond, oval, triangle, and inverted triangle… there are nine official female body shape classifications. However, new research shows that just moving the tape measure by 1cm could shift 40% of women into a different shape class, giving conflicting results.
Medical Xpress article
Medical Xpress article
Infosurhoy Article
However, new research shows that just moving the tape measure by 1cm could shift 40% of women into a different shape class, giving conflicting results.
Alpha Galileo Article
However, new research shows that just moving the tape measure by 1cm could shift 40% of women into a different shape class, giving conflicting results.
Podrías estar equivocada respecto a la forma real de tu cuerpo
Una nueva investigación desvela que el 40% de las mujeres puede estar equivocada respecto al tipo de cuerpo que cree tener
Graphical Abstract
Graphic Abstract for Paper: Parker, C.J., Hayes, S.G., Brownbridge, K. and Gill, S. (2021), “Assessing the female figure identification technique’s reliability as a body shape classification system”, Ergonomics, pp. 1–17.
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page