International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 32 (2003) 3949

Effect of age on functional anthropometry of older Mexican

American adults: a cross-sectional study
Arunkumar Pennathura,*, Winifred Dowlingb
a
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968-0521, USA
b
Aging Services Administration, Department of Community and Human Development, City of El Paso, El Paso, TX 79901, USA

Received 8 October 2002; received in revised form 4 December 2002; accepted 11 February 2003

Abstract

Overall goal of the research reported in this paper was to determine if, and to what extent, age affects functional
anthropometry of older Mexican American adults. Primary objectives were: (1) to determine if age affects limiting
functional outer ngertip and grip reaches, for women and men separately; and (2) to determine, through a cross-
sectional comparison, if functional anthropometric measures of older Mexican American females and males are
different from a younger group of Mexican American females and males. Determining through factor analysis, a
smaller number of explanatory factors from 15 different observed functional anthropometric measures observed was a
secondary objective. Older Mexican American women and men, aged 6085, recruited from Senior Centers in El Paso,
and young Mexican American adults, aged 2029, recruited for the study from the student body at the University of
Texas at El Paso, were participants in the study. Stature, several vertical ngertip and grip reaches, and several
horizontal ngertip and grip reaches, among other dimensions, were measured. Linear regression models were t for
older women and men separately, with age as the independent variable and functional anthropometric dimensions as
dependent variables. Two-sample t-tests were conducted to analyze cross-sectional differences between the older and
young Mexican American females, and older and young Mexican American males. Regression analysis results show a
signicant linear relationship between age and sitting height for females (po0:05), and stature (po0:05) and sitting
height (po0:05) for males. Cross-sectional two-sample t-tests show statistically that older Mexican American female
stature, vertical ngertip reach, vertical reach angle, sitting height, horizontal ngertip reaches at 0
and 90
, horizontal
lateral ngertip reach, horizontal reach angle, horizontal grip reaches (lateral, and at 0
and 90
), mean grip diameter,
and nger angle, are signicantly different from Mexican American young females. Stature, vertical ngertip and grip
reaches, vertical reach angle, sitting height and horizontal reach angle are signicantly different between older and
young Mexican American males. None of the horizontal reaches were signicantly different for males. Overall,
functional reach differences in Mexican American women were found to be more pronounced than functional reach
differences in Mexican American men.
Relevance to industry
Functional anthropometry affects functional performance of older persons, both in work settings, and in activities of
daily living. Engineering designers, particularly, product designers and engineers in the housing industry, need to

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-915-747-7988; fax: +1-915-747-5019.

E-mail address: apennathur@utep.edu (A. Pennathur).

0169-8141/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0169-8141(03)00028-3
40 A. Pennathur, W. Dowling / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 32 (2003) 3949
consider functional anthropometry of older persons when designing daily living environments and products of daily use
for older users.
r 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Older Mexican Americans; Functional anthropometry; Reach dimensions
1. Introduction
Older Mexican American women and men
report higher degrees of functional limitations in
activities of daily living compared to other older
adult populations, including older Whites, African
Americans, and other Hispanic older adult groups
(Markides et al., 1989, 1997, 2001; De Arellano,
1994; Pennathur et al., 2003). While there is clear
evidence of limitations in performing daily living
functions among older Mexican American women
and men from self-reports, there is little documen-
tation on older Mexican American anthropometric
functional reaches. There is anthropometry data
(mostly static anthropometric dimensions), on
several older population groups in the world.
Smith et al. (2000) contains data on older adult
anthropometry from all over the world. However,
anthropometric reach proles of older Mexican
Americans are non-existent. Based on a survey of
functional anthropometry, this paper reports
ndings from a cross-sectional study of reach
abilities of older Mexican Americans and com-
pares older adult reach abilities with a younger
cohort of Mexican American adults.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study participants
Older Mexican Americans aged 6085 were
recruited from Senior Centers in the City of El
Paso. The number of older women in the study
varied from 42 for some dimensions to 106 for
other dimensions. The number of older men in the
study varied from 16 for some dimensions to 40
for other dimensions. All older persons, who
participated in this study lived independently in
their own homes, were of sound health, and did
not report any major medical problems. Older
participants did not use walkers, wheelchairs or
canes for improved mobility. A younger group of
Mexican Americans aged 2029 was recruited
from the student body at the University of Texas
at El Paso. The number of young females in the
study varied from 4 for some dimensions to 19 for
others, while the number of young males varied
from 18 for some dimensions to 33 for others. All
participants signed informed consent forms ap-
proved by the Institutional Review Board at the
University of Texas at El Paso. All participants in
the study were provided token complimentary gifts
from the University of Texas at El Paso for
participation.
2.2. Experimental methods
2.2.1. Equipment used
Anthropometric dimensions were measured
with a Swiss-made GPM anthropometer #101
and the Lafayette Instrument Companys
#J00200 goniometers. For measurement of older
persons, all measuring instruments were trans-
ported to the senior centers for data collection.
The younger group was measured in the research
laboratory at the University of Texas at El Paso.
Sitting height and all horizontal reach measure-
ments were made with subjects in a seated
position. Subjects were seated in a chair with a
at seat pan positioned 40 cm from the oor level
and backrest positioned 17 cm vertically from seat
pan. The backrest was 40 cm in height. No
adjustments were made to chair dimensions during
the study. A radial scale with different radial
degree markings in increments of 10
was used as a
reference scale for horizontal reach measurements.
A plumb bob attached to the end of a small chain
as described by Asfour et al. (1978) was used align
the arm to the radial scale.
 A. Pennathur, W. Dowling / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 32 (2003) 3949 41

2.2.2. Protocol for measurements
Anthropometric measurements obtained from
this study (illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2) are based on
protocols as outlined primarily in Wright et al.
(1997), and also in Pheasant (1996), Roebuck,
(1995) and Smith et al. (2000). All participants
were provided adequate rest (self-determined as
and when needed) between measurements to
minimize effect of static fatigue.
Stature was measured from a level oor to the
crown on the head. Participants were instructed to
stand with their backs and shoulders against a wall
and the palms of their hands facing the sides.
Standing with feet slightly apart, and feet rmly
planted on the ground, participants were asked to
inhale while stature was measured using an
anthropometer.
While standing in the same position used for
stature, the distance from oor to tip of the third
nger of the extended arm was measured as the
Vertical Fingertip Reach. Vertical Grip Reach was
measured as the same distance as for vertical
ngertip reach, except that the participant was
now instructed to grip a pointer. While measuring

K P
C H

D G
L O
M

J N

B F

I
A

Fig. 1. Horizontal functional anthropometric dimensions compared between young and older Mexican American adults. Explanation
of symbols: (A) Sitting height for older adults. (B)Horizontal ngertip reach at 0
for older adults. (C) Horizontal ngertip reach at 90

for older adults. (D) Horizontal lateral ngertip reach for older adults. (E) Horizontal lateral reach angle for older adults. (F)
Horizontal grip reach at 0
for older adults. (G) Horizontal lateral grip reach for older adults. (H) Horizontal grip reach at 90
for
older adults. (I) Sitting height for young adults. (J) Horizontal ngertip reach at 0
for young adults. (K) Horizontal ngertip reach at
90
for young adults. (L) Horizontal lateral ngertip reach for young adults. (M) Horizontal lateral reach angle for young adults. (N)
Horizontal grip reach at 0
for young adults. (O) Horizontal lateral grip reach for young adults. (P) Horizontal grip reach at 90
for
young adults. (Q) Sitting pan height.
42 A. Pennathur, W. Dowling / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 32 (2003) 3949

F J
E
A
B I

H
D

Fig. 2. Vertical functional anthropometric dimensions compared between young and older Mexican American adults. Explanation of
symbols: (A) Stature of older adults. (B) Vertical ngertip reach of older adults. (C) Vertical reach angle of older adults. (D) Step
height of older adults. (E) Stature of young adults. (F) Vertical ngertip reach of young adults. (G) Vertical reach angle of young
adults. (H) Step height of young adults. (I) Vertical grip reach of older adults. (J) Vertical grip reach of young adults.

vertical grip reach, the angle between the raised
arm and the longitudinal axis of the body was
measured as the Vertical Reach Angle. For all
vertical reach measurements, participants were
instructed to use their dominant arm, and ex
their shoulders in the sagittal plane. Participants
also fully extended their elbows and ngers and
kept their wrists in a pronated, neutral position.
Sitting Height was measured as the distance
from the sitting surface to the crown of the head
(Roebuck, 1995). Participants sat erect in the chair
with backs and shoulders against the backrest of
the chair, and looked straight ahead when sitting
height was measured.
Horizontal Fingertip Reach at 90
, was mea-
sured in a sitting position as the distance between
the center of the radial scale and the tip of the
third nger. Horizontal Fingertip Reach at 0
was
measured similar to horizontal ngertip reach at
90
, except that participants were instructed to
move the arm to zero degrees. Horizontal Lateral
Fingertip Reach was measured in the same manner
as horizontal ngertip reach at 90
, but partici-
pants were required to move the arm as far as
possible in adduction across the front of the body.
Horizontal Lateral Reach Angle was measured as
the angle between the position of the arm at
horizontal lateral ngertip reach and 0
.
Horizontal Grip Reach at 90
and 0
, and
horizontal lateral grip reach, were measured
similar to horizontal ngertip reaches at 90
and
0
, and horizontal lateral ngertip reach respec-
tively, except that participants were instructed to
grip a pointer (Wright et al., 1997). The circum-
ference made when the end of the thumb touches
the end of the middle nger was measured as the
maximum grip diameter (Pheasant, 1996). The
angle made by the index nger when it gradually
bends for a period of 3 s was measured as the
nger angle (Wright et al., 1997). The distance
 A. Pennathur, W. Dowling / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 32 (2003) 3949 43

from a level oor to the bottom of the raised
preferred foot was measured as the maximum step
height when ascending.
2.2.3. Data analyses
All functional anthropometry dimensions mea-
sured in this study were separated by males and
females. Descriptive statistics, including means
and standard deviations were calculated for every
dimension for older and young males and females
separately.
To determine the cross-sectional effect of age on
functional anthropometric dimensions for older
persons measured in this study, linear regression
models were t to male and female data separately.
Age was the independent variable; the dependent
variables in the analysis were stature, sitting
height, step height, vertical ngertip reach, vertical
reach angle, horizontal grip reach at 0
and 90
,
and horizontal ngertip reaches at 0
and 90
. To
enable cross-sectional comparison of older per-
sons dimensions with the young, a two-sample
t-test (with an assumption of unequal variances,
due to different sample sizes) was conducted, in
addition to generation of 95% condence intervals
for differences in mean dimensions between the
older persons and the young. A factor analysis
using the principal components method (using an
initial communality estimate of 1), for females and
males separately was performed to extract im-
portant functional anthropometric measures from
among 15 anthropometric variables collected in
this study. Minitab Release 13 for Windows was
used to generate all descriptive statistics and
perform the regression analyses and all compar-
isons and the factor analysis.
3. Results
Table 1 presents descriptive anthropometric
statistics of older and young Mexican American
women who participated in this study. Older and
young male anthropometric characteristics are
presented in Table 2. Results from the regression
analysis for older females is presented in Table 3.
Table 4 presents results from regression analysis
for older males. Results from the two-sample t-test
comparing older and young women, and older and
young men are reported in Tables 5 and 6
respectively. Tables 7 and 8 present results of
factor analyses for older females and older males
respectively for 15 different anthropometric vari-
ables collected. Tables 9 and 10 present the

Table 1
Summary anthropometry statistics for older and younger Mexican American women

Anthropometric dimension Older women Young women

Mean Standard Mean Standard

deviation deviation

Stature (cm) 152.57 (n 106) 9.89 161.36 (n 19) 4.52

Vertical ngertip reach (cm) 180.69 (n 106) 15.16 199.52 (n 19) 6.01
Vertical grip reach (cm) 167.41 (n 42) 20.39 170.8 (n 4) 49.1
Vertical reach angle (deg) 142.79 (n 106) 21.54 176.87 (n 19) 7.5
Sitting height (cm) 75.66 (n 42) 3.88 127.85 (n 4) 1.83
Horizontal ngertip reach at 90
(cm) 64.04 (n 106) 3.53 67.87 (n 19) 3.20
Horizontal ngertip reach at 0
(cm) 65.74 (n 106) 7.82 68.97 (n 19) 3.23
Horizontal lateral ngertip reach (cm) 64.96 (n 106) 4.99 68.60 (n 19) 3.56
Horizontal lateral reach angle (deg) 27.93 (n 106) 16.27 40.20 (n 19) 11.0
Horizontal grip reach at 90
(cm) 53.05 (n 42) 4.01 58.74 (n 4) 1.26
Horizontal grip reach at 0
(cm) 54.03 (n 42) 4.09 58.81 (n 4) 1.43
Horizontal lateral grip reach (cm) 54.39 (n 42) 3.72 58.56 (n 4) 1.13
Maximum grip diameter (cm) 3.972 (n 42) 5.96 42.75 (n 4) 1.71
Finger angle (deg) 77.21 (n 42) 12.67 98.8 (n 4) 10.5
Maximum step height ascending (cm) 28.15 (n 42) 8.12 33.67 (n 4) 5.15
44 A. Pennathur, W. Dowling / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 32 (2003) 3949

Table 2
Summary anthropometry statistics for older and younger Mexican American men

Anthropometric dimension Older men Young men

Mean Standard Mean Standard

deviation deviation

Stature (cm) 166.43 (n 40) 7.90 175.67 (n 33) 7.64

Vertical ngertip reach (cm) 193.1(n 40) 24.1 214.2 (n 33) 11.2
Vertical grip reach (cm) 180.9 (n 16) 24.2 201.32 (n 18) 7.85
Vertical reach angle (deg) 136.3 (n 40) 26.3 168.9 (n 33) 30.8
Sitting height (cm) 80.09 (n 16) 3.33 130.56 (n 18) 2.49
Horizontal ngertip reach at 90
(cm) 69.91 (n 40) 4.58 70.87 (n 33) 5.59
Horizontal ngertip reach at 0
(cm) 70.94 (n 40) 4.45 70.88 (n 33) 5.31
Horizontal lateral ngertip reach (cm) 70.36 (n 40) 4.41 71.00 (n 33) 5.22
Horizontal lateral reach angle (deg) 23.30 (n 40) 9.11 34.00 (n 33) 9.89
Horizontal grip reach at 90
(cm) 57.28 (n 16) 4.35 60.71 (n 18) 5.83
Horizontal grip reach at 0
(cm) 58.57 (n 16) 3.85 60.76 (n 18) 5.79
Horizontal lateral grip reach (cm) 58.87 (n 16) 4.13 60.72 (n 18) 5.75
Maximum grip diameter (cm) 41.56 (n 16) 5.08 42.11 (n 18) 5.83
Finger angle (deg) 80.3 (n 16) 12.5 100.9 (n 18) 16.6
Maximum step height ascending (cm) 36.24 (n 16) 8.54 35.8 (n 18) 11.2

Table 3
Results from regression analysis (age as independent variable) Table 4
for older Mexican American women. Results from regression analysis (age as independent variable)
for older Mexican American men
Dependent variable p-Value Model for
signicant Dependent variable p-Value Model for
variables (age) signicant
variables (age)
Stature (n 106) 0.052a 1680.206
Sitting height (n 42) 0.0280b 90.8890.210 Stature (n 40) 0.015a 1940.371
Maximum step height 0.7948 Sitting height (n 16) 0.0248a 99.1270.246
(ascending) (n 42) Maximum step height 0.0679b 77.1300.529
Vertical ngertip reach 0.423 (ascending) (n 16)
(n 106) Vertical ngertip reach 0.663
Vertical reach angle 0.486 (n 40)
(n 106) Vertical reach angle (n 40) 0.067b 2070.946
Horizontal grip reach at 0
0.8765 Horizontal grip reach at 0
0.2021
(n 42) (n 16)
Horizontal grip reach at 90
0.7542 Horizontal grip reach at 90
0.2618
(n 42) (n 16)
Horizontal ngertip reach at 0.671 Horizontal ngertip reach at 0.286
0
(n 106) 0
(n 40)
Horizontal ngertip reach at 0.394 Horizontal ngertip reach at 0.451
90
(n 106) 90
(n 40)
Horizontal lateral ngertip 0.439 Horizontal lateral ngertip 0.625
reach (n 106) reach (n 40)
Horizontal reach angle 0.554 Horizontal reach angle 0.027a 52.70.392
(n 106) (n 40)
a a
Signicant at the 10% level. Signicant at the 5% level.
b b
Signicant at the 5% level. Signicant at the 10% level.
 A. Pennathur, W. Dowling / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 32 (2003) 3949 45

Table 5
Cross-sectional comparison of functional anthropometry of older and young women

Anthropometric dimension Estimate of difference 95% condence interval for p-Value

in means difference in means

Stature 8.79 (11.62, 5.95) 0.000n

Vertical ngertip reach 18.83 (22.86, 14.81) 0.000n
Vertical grip reach 3.3 (82.0, 75.4) 0.901
Vertical reach angle 34.08 (39.47, 28.69) 0.000n
Sitting height 52.19 (54.87, 49.51) 0.000n
Horizontal ngertip reach at 90
3.830 (5.497, 2.163) 0.000n
Horizontal ngertip reach at 0
3.23 (5.35, 1.11) 0.003*
Horizontal lateral ngertip reach 3.643 (5.580, 1.705) 0.001n
Horizontal lateral reach angle 12.28 (18.35, 6.22) 0.000n
Horizontal grip reach at 90
5.689 (7.654, 3.723) 0.000n
Horizontal grip reach at 0
4.783 (6.939, 2.627) 0.001n
Horizontal lateral grip reach 4.165 (5.938, 2.392) 0.000n
Maximum grip diameter 3.03 (5.77, 0.30) 0.032n
Finger angle 21.54 (39.42, 3.65) 0.031n
Maximum step height (ascending) 5.52 (13.47, 2.43) 0.126
n
Signicance at the 5% signicance level.

Table 6
Cross-sectional comparison of functional anthropometry of older and young men

Anthropometric dimension Estimate of difference 95% condence interval for p-Value

in means difference in means

Stature 9.24 (12.88, 5.60) 0.000n

Vertical ngertip reach 21.14 (29.71, 12.57) 0.000n
Vertical grip reach 20.41 (33.77, 7.05) 0.005n
Vertical reach angle 32.65 (46.20, 19.09) 0.000n
Sitting height 50.46 (52.56, 48.37) 0.000n
Horizontal ngertip reach at 90
0.96 (3.38, 1.47) 0.433
Horizontal ngertip reach at 0
0.07 (2.25, 2.39) 0.953
Horizontal lateral ngertip reach 0.64 (2.94, 1.65) 0.576
Horizontal lateral reach angle 10.71 (15.19, 6.22) 0.000n
Horizontal grip reach at 90
3.42 (7.00, 0.15) 0.060
Horizontal grip reach at 0
2.18 (5.60, 1.23) 0.201
Horizontal lateral grip reach 1.86 (5.34, 1.62) 0.285
Maximum grip diameter 0.55 (4.37, 3.27) 0.771
Finger angle 20.58 (30.82, 10.33) 0.000n
Maximum step height (ascending) 0.45 (6.46, 7.37) 0.895
n
Signicance at the 5% signicance level.

equations which estimate the common factors
after performance of a varimax rotation for older
Mexican American females and males, respec-
tively.
Regression analysis results indicate that for
older women, age had a signicant effect on
stature (po0:10) and sitting height (po0:05). For
older men, age had a signicant effect on stature
(po0:05), sitting height (po0:05), maximum step
height (ascending) (po0:1), and vertical and
horizontal reach angles (po0:1).
Results from cross-sectional comparisons of
older and younger adults indicate that, for women
(Table 5), stature, vertical ngertip reach, vertical
46 A. Pennathur, W. Dowling / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 32 (2003) 3949

Table 7 Table 8
Factor analysis results for older females (for 42 complete cases Factor analysis results for older males (for 16 complete cases)

Factor Eigenvalue Percent of Cumulative Factor Eigenvalue Percent of Cumulative

variance percentage variance percentage
of variance of variance

Stature 6.70678 44.712 44.712 Stature 7.77697 51.846 51.846

Vertical ngertip 2.65997 17.733 62.445 Vertical ngertip 3.01935 20.129 71.975
reach reach
Vertical grip reach 1.53273 10.218 72.663 Vertical grip reach 1.36987 9.132 81.108
Vertical reach angle 1.03446 6.896 79.560 Vertical reach angle 0.919638 6.131 87.239
Sitting height 0.705155 4.701 84.261 Sitting height 0.735635 4.904 92.143
Horizontal ngertip 0.550227 3.668 87.929 Horizontal ngertip 0.424471 2.830 94.973
reach (90
) reach (90
)
Horizontal ngertip 0.52092 3.473 91.402 Horizontal ngertip 0.371818 2.479 97.452
reach (0
) reach (0
)
Horizontal lateral 0.422376 2.816 94.217 Horizontal lateral 0.13665 0.911 98.363
ngertip reach ngertip reach
Horizontal reach 0.32817 2.188 96.405 Horizontal reach 0.116108 0.774 99.137
angle angle
Horizontal grip 0.193276 1.289 97.694 Horizontal grip 0.0572674 0.382 99.519
reach (90
) reach (90
)
Horizontal grip 0.167712 1.118 98.812 Horizontal grip 0.0405932 0.271 99.789
reach (0
) reach (0
)
Horizontal lateral 0.0828623 0.552 99.364 Horizontal lateral 0.0192461 0.128 99.917
grip reach grip reach
Maximum grip 0.0586136 0.391 99.755 Maximum grip 0.00757069 0.050 99.968
diameter diameter
Finger angle 0.0203785 0.136 99.891 Finger angle 0.00415196 0.028 99.996
Maximum step 0.0163789 0.109 100.000 Maximum step 0.000660319 0.004 100.000
height (ascending) height (ascending)

reach angle, sitting height, horizontal ngertip
reaches at 0
and 90
, horizontal lateral ngertip
reach, horizontal lateral reach angle, horizontal
grip reaches at 0
and 90
, horizontal lateral grip
reach, maximum grip diameter, and nger angle,
of older Mexican American women are signi-
cantly different (po0:05) from young Mexican
American women. Vertical grip reach and max-
imum step height (ascending) are the only mea-
sures not signicantly different. Results for older
Mexican American men (Table 6) indicate that
stature, vertical ngertip reach, vertical grip reach,
vertical reach angle, sitting height, horizontal
lateral reach angle, and nger angle are signi-
cantly different (po0:05) from young Mexican
American men. Horizontal ngertip reaches at 0

and 90
, horizontal lateral ngertip reach, hor-
izontal grip reaches at 0
and 90
, horizontal lateral
grip reach, maximum grip diameter, and maximum
step height (ascending) were all not signicantly
different between older and young adults.
Factor analyses of 15 different anthropometric
variables for older Mexican American females
extracted 4 factors of the 15 accounting for almost
80% of the variability in the original data. For
older Mexican American males, 3 extracted factors
of the 15 account for almost 81% of the variability
in the original data. This indicates that a few
explanatory anthropometric factors (represented
by the weighted equations presented in Tables 9
and 10) sufciently explain changes in functional
anthropometric variables considered in this study.
4. Discussion
The objective of this cross-sectional study was to
determine if age affected functional reach abilities
 A. Pennathur, W. Dowling / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 32 (2003) 3949 47

Table 9
Estimated coefcients for factor loading matrix for the 4 extracted factors after Varimax rotation for older females

Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Stature 0.815224 0.0154666 0.078879 0.0297349

Vertical ngertip reach 0.22628 0.927983 0.0972219 0.0721374
Vertical grip reach 0.16061 0.888662 0.024948 0.00584728
Vertical reach angle 0.234899 0.889967 0.0407608 0.11301
Sitting height 0.806584 0.0693527 0.174761 0.0722901
Horizontal ngertip reach (90
) 0.921324 0.124352 0.032756 0.0146644
Horizontal ngertip reach (0
) 0.916164 0.0692387 0.133888 0.0522189
Horizontal lateral ngertip reach 0.882966 0.0974683 0.250031 0.0809303
Horizontal reach angle 0.0539708 0.167266 0.792897 0.253281
Horizontal grip reach (90
) 0.789292 0.00119475 0.458704 0.0151266
Horizontal grip reach (0
) 0.771213 0.0291124 0.53467 0.109628
Horizontal lateral grip reach 0.821117 0.0133408 0.445572 0.170305
Maximum grip diameter 0.581594 0.21245 0.0993725 0.428873
Finger angle 0.249134 0.196894 0.677575 0.117883
Maximum step height (ascending) 0.0227186 0.207233 0.0937046 0.906277

Table 10
Estimated equations for common factors after Varimax rotation for older males

Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Stature 0.881003 0.342178 0.181313

Vertical ngertip reach 0.237362 0.929802 0.0941756
Vertical grip reach 0.237445 0.91917 0.103881
Vertical reach angle 0.0287613 0.929726 0.21018
Sitting height 0.700905 0.425883 0.243584
Horizontal ngertip reach (90
) 0.899204 0.0104974 0.371438
Horizontal ngertip reach (0
) 0.932431 0.17678 0.106897
Horizontal lateral ngertip reach 0.936723 0.126318 0.024903
Horizontal reach angle 0.237916 0.473211 0.730804
Horizontal grip reach (90
) 0.934236 0.0180027 0.223694
Horizontal grip reach (0
) 0.950445 0.0355258 0.244406
Horizontal lateral grip reach 0.977532 0.0130948 0.14556
Maximum grip diameter 0.426653 0.320454 0.283513
Finger angle 0.287306 0.377005 0.549072
Maximum step height (ascending) 0.590398 0.15451 0.247777

of older Mexican Americans females and males.
Two approaches were used in studying this
objectivea regression analysis of age versus
functional reaches for older Mexican Americans,
and a cross-sectional two-sample comparison
of functional anthropometry of older Mexican
Americans with a group of young Mexican
American adults.
Regression results show that age affects stature
and sitting height for both older female and male
Mexican American adults. Cross-sectional com-
parisons between older females and the younger
female cohort show that in addition to stature and
sitting height, most horizontal and vertical nger-
tip reaches are signicantly different for females.
While cross-sectional differences between younger
and older Mexican American females are pro-
nounced, regression analyses indicate that, in older
women, age affects stature and sitting height the
most; other horizontal and vertical ngertip
48 A. Pennathur, W. Dowling / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 32 (2003) 3949
reaches that show signicant differences in the
cross-sectional analyses are not signicantly af-
fected by age. When viewed in unison, this is initial
indication that after a certain age, functional
anthropometry, for older Mexican American
females, is not inuenced by their age. A similar
pattern is evident for men, although age seems to
signicantly affect more functional dimensions
than in older womenfor older men, not only
are stature and sitting height signicantly affected
by age, but, also maximum step height, and
vertical and horizontal reach angles. This is a
signicant nding with respect to the older
Mexican American adult population, and should
be included in models of disablement process in
older Mexican American adults. A possible
explanation for this pattern could be the cultural
and social factors that mediate pathways to
disability in older Mexican American adults. A
majority of older Mexican American women
surveyed in this study still perform active house-
hold duties that require signicant reaching for
task initiation, completion and performanceit is,
therefore, reasonable to expect that functional
reaches among older Mexican American women
may not show a decrease with age. Our study
suggests that older Mexican American men may be
at a greater risk of developing disability in the
older years perhaps due their sedentary lifestyles
after they retire from work, compared to older
Mexican American women. Comparison of func-
tional anthropometry of older Mexican American
adults with functional anthropometry of other
older adult groups can help explain differences in
disability levels between older adult groups, and
help understand and model pathways to disability
among older adults.
The present study is cross-sectional and can only
detect inter-individual and cohort differences due
to aging at a specic point in time. This study does
not measure intra-individual decline in study
variables over a period of time. In addition,
cross-sectional comparisons in this study with the
younger female and male cohorts is limited by the
sample sizes for young females and males. Also,
the present study was based on a convenience
sample of older adults who visit senior recreation
centers. Hence, older Mexican American adults
who do not have an opportunity to visit senior
recreation centers either due to disability or due to
a lack of availability of transportation, were not
included in the studytheir functional anthro-
pometry decline and the consequent effect on task
performance in activities of daily living can be
an important aspect in the disablement model
development process.
5. Conclusions
Accommodating age related changes in func-
tional reach abilities is vital for increasing func-
tional independence of older adults. It is important
for engineering designers, especially, product
designers, and designers in the housing and
construction industries to consider functional
capabilities and limitations of older adults when
designing products of daily use, and daily living
environments. Self-reported performance indica-
tors for activities of daily living show that older
Mexican Americans report greater levels of dif-
culty in performing activities of daily living,
especially in tasks that involve reaching for task
initiation, performance and completion, than any
other older adult group in the United States. This
difculty may be mediated not only by various
physical impairments, and psychological and
social factors, but, also with environmental factors
including workspace design variables, and with
inherent declines in functional performance abil-
ities. A better understanding of the mechanisms
underlying this decline, and quantication of this
decline with age, will result in better products and
design for the older adult.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank all participants in this study.
The authors are grateful to Elvia Martinez, and
Gustavo Fierro, for assistance with data collection
activities. The authors thank Dr. Julia Bader in the
Statistical Consulting Laboratory at the Univer-
sity of Texas at El Paso for assistance with
statistical analyses. The authors also thank Rohini
Magham for assistance with data compilation.
 A. Pennathur, W. Dowling / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 32 (2003) 3949
References
Asfour, S., Ayoub, M.M., Mital, A., Bethea, N., 1978. Reach
proles for males and females under restrained and unrest-
rained conditions. In: Human Factors Society (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 22nd Annual
Meeting. Michigan, Detroit, pp. 671673.
De Arellano, R.A.B., 1994. The elderly. In: Molina, C.W.,
Aguirre-Molina, M. (Eds.), Latino Health in the US: A
Growing Challenge. American Public Health Association,
Washington, DC, pp. 189208.
Markides, K.S., Coreil, J., Rogers, L.P., 1989. Aging and health
among southwestern Hispanics. In: Markides, K.S. (Ed.),
Aging and Health: Perspectives on Gender, Race, Ethnicity,
and Class. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 177210.
Markides, K.S., Rudkin, L., Angel, R.J., Espino, D.V., 1997.
Health status of Hispanic elderly. In: Martin, L.J., Soldo, B.
(Eds.), Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Health of Older
Americans. National Academy Press, Washington, DC,
pp. 285300.
49
Markides, K.S., Black, S.A., Ostir, G.V., Angel, R.J., Guralnik,
J.M., Lichtenstein, M., 2001. Lower body function and
mortality in Mexican American elderly people. Journal of
Gerontology Medical Sciences. 56A, M243M247.
Pennathur, A., Sivasubramaniam, S., Contreras, L.R., 2003.
Functional limitations in Mexican American elderly. Inter-
national Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31, 4150.
Pheasant, S., 1996. Bodyspace, 2nd Edition. Taylor & Francis,
London, UK.
Roebuck, J., 1995. Anthropometric Methods: Designing to Fit
the Human Body. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,
Santa Monica, CA.
Smith, S., Norris, B., Peebles, L. (Eds.), 2000. Older Adult
Data: The Handbook of Measurements and Capabilities
of the Older Adult. Institute for Occupational Ergo-
nomics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United
Kingdom.
Wright, U., Govindaraju, M., Mital, A., 1997. Reach proles of
men and women 65 to 89 years of age. Experimental Aging
Research. 23, 369395.