| Course | NS310 Nutritional Assessment |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Anthropometric measurement set |
| Length | About 940 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Nutrition Science |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NS310 Unit 4
Three Trials at Every Site: A Unit 4 Anthropometric Measurement Set With Protocols, Spreads and Derived Indices for One Adult Volunteer
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NS310: Nutritional Assessment
Unit 4 Anthropometric Measurement Set
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The volunteer and all measurements are composite; the NHANES procedures manual, WHO waist report and measurement error review cited are real.
Volunteer and Setting
The volunteer, R.M., is a 42-year-old man who consented to measurement and to the use of his data in this assignment. Measurements were taken at 8:00 a.m. in a home kitchen, after he had emptied his bladder and before breakfast, in light clothing and without shoes. A second person recorded each value so the measurer did not look at earlier readings.
Protocol
Each measurement followed the NHANES anthropometry procedures where possible (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2017).
1. Height: wall-mounted stadiometer read to 0.1 cm; heels, buttocks and shoulder blades against the wall, head in the Frankfort plane, reading taken after a deep breath.
2. Weight: calibrated digital scale read to 0.1 kg, checked with a 10 kg weight before use.
3. Waist circumference: nonstretch tape read to 0.1 cm, placed just above the top of the right iliac crest, horizontal, at the end of a normal breath out. This is the NHANES landmark, not the WHO midpoint between the lowest rib and the iliac crest, so the reading is not directly comparable to studies using the WHO site (World Health Organization [WHO], 2011).
4. Hip circumference: tape at the widest point of the buttocks, read to 0.1 cm.
5. Mid-upper arm circumference: right arm, at the marked midpoint between the acromion and the olecranon, arm relaxed at the side, read to 0.1 cm.
6. Triceps skinfold: Lange caliper read to the nearest 1 mm, a vertical fold at the same midpoint on the back of the arm, reading taken two seconds after the caliper was released.
Each site was measured three times in rotation, so that no reading was taken immediately after the one before at the same site.
Data
1. Height: 176.4, 176.6, 176.5 cm. Mean 176.5; range 0.2.
2. Weight: 82.3, 82.4, 82.3 kg. Mean 82.3; range 0.1.
3. Waist: 98.0, 98.6, 97.8 cm. Mean 98.1; range 0.8.
4. Hip: 104.2, 105.0, 104.6 cm. Mean 104.6; range 0.8.
5. Mid-upper arm circumference: 32.4, 32.6, 32.2 cm. Mean 32.4; range 0.4.
6. Triceps skinfold: 14, 16, 15 mm. Mean 15; range 2.
Derived Values
1. Body mass index: 82.3 divided by 1.765 squared equals 26.4 kg/m2.
2. Waist-to-hip ratio: 98.1 divided by 104.6 equals 0.94.
3. Waist-to-height ratio: 98.1 divided by 176.5 equals 0.56.
4. Mid-arm muscle circumference: 32.4 minus 3.14 times 1.5 equals 27.7 cm.
Precision is carried through honestly. Body mass index is given to one decimal place because height and weight support that; reporting 26.42 would claim a precision the scale and stadiometer do not have.
Interpretation
R.M.'s body mass index of 26.4 falls in the overweight range. His waist of 98.1 cm is below the 102 cm threshold commonly used for men in the United States, but his waist-to-hip ratio of 0.94 is above the 0.90 cutoff the WHO expert report associated with substantially increased metabolic risk for men (WHO, 2011). The two waist-based measures point in different directions, which is one reason to report both and not to choose the one that tells the tidier story.
Height repeated within 2 mm on a reading of 1,765 mm while the skinfold varied by 2 mm on a reading of about 15, a relative spread more than a hundred times larger, so the skinfold deserves far less weight in any conclusion.
Error and Precision
The spreads follow the pattern described in a review of anthropometric error: weight and height were most precise, circumferences less so, and skinfolds the least, with errors large enough to make interpretation difficult (Ulijaszek & Kerr, 1999). The review also notes that waist and hip measurements differ between observers, so a repeat set for R.M. should be taken by the same person. The 0.8 cm range at the waist probably reflects breathing; the protocol's end-of-exhalation timing is easy to describe and hard to hit three times.
Measurer's Notes
Three practical problems came up. First, finding the iliac crest on a man with some abdominal fat took palpation on both sides, and the first attempt placed the tape about 1 cm too high; it was moved before any reading was recorded. Second, the arm midpoint was marked with a washable pen after measuring from the acromion to the olecranon with the elbow bent at 90 degrees, and the same mark was used for both the circumference and the skinfold, so the two arm values describe the same site. Third, the skinfold needed a firm pinch that lifted skin and fat away from the muscle beneath; on the first trial R.M. tensed his arm, and the reading was discarded and retaken after he relaxed.
Using the Set Over Time
A single set describes one morning. If R.M. were remeasured in three months, a change would count as real only if it clearly exceeded the spread seen here. A drop in weight of 0.5 kg would be meaningful; a drop of 2 mm in the triceps skinfold would not, because that is the range of three readings taken within ten minutes.
Limits
These are one person's measurements by one student measurer, on one morning. The scale was checked but not certified, the caliper was a mid-range model rather than a research-grade Harpenden, and the waist landmark matches NHANES but not the WHO studies behind the ratio cutoff.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) anthropometry procedures manual. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/2017-2018/manuals/2017_Anthropometry_Procedures_Manual.pdf
Ulijaszek, S. J., & Kerr, D. A. (1999). Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status. British Journal of Nutrition, 82(3), 165-177. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114599001348
World Health Organization. (2011). Waist circumference and waist-hip ratio: Report of a WHO expert consultation, Geneva, 8-11 December 2008. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241501491
NS310 Unit 4 instructions, in plain terms
The anthropometry assignment asks students to measure a volunteer using standard protocols and to report the results with attention to accuracy. Prompts usually require a protocol, raw data, derived indices and interpretation. Name the published protocol you follow, especially for waist circumference, where landmarks differ. Record each measurement more than once and report every reading, not only the mean. State each instrument's resolution and how it was checked. Calculate derived values with formulas shown, and round to the precision your measurements support. Compare results with recognized cutoffs, naming the source. Discuss which measurements are most and least precise. Most sets run three to four pages.
How this NS310 Unit 4 example is built
The set opens with the volunteer's consent and the morning conditions. A numbered protocol covers six measurements, with the NHANES landmarks named. Three trials per site are listed with means and ranges. Four derived values follow, each with its formula, and BMI is reported to one decimal place. Interpretation compares BMI, waist and waist-to-hip ratio with common cutoffs and notes the disagreement between them. The highlighted sentence contrasts the relative error of height and skinfold. A measurement error review supports the ranking of precision. A measurer's notes section explains how the iliac crest and arm midpoint were found and why one skinfold reading was discarded. A short section explains what change would count as real at remeasurement.
Where the points sit in the NS310 Unit 4 rubric
Measurement sets are usually graded on correct protocol, complete reporting of repeated trials, accurate calculations and thoughtful discussion of error. Naming the landmark for each measurement is often weighed heavily. Points go to reporting every trial rather than only means. Correct formulas and appropriate rounding are expected. Comparing results with sourced cutoffs shows interpretation skill. Ranking measurements by precision, with evidence, is a frequent marker of quality. Citations and clear layout are also assessed. Sets that report a single reading per site, or give BMI to three decimal places, usually lose points for method. Discussing what difference would be meaningful on remeasurement is often credited.
NS310 Unit 4 help from the desk
Measurement sets often give one reading per site, so precision cannot be judged. Another weakness is a waist measured at the navel without naming any protocol. Some writers carry derived values to extra decimals the instruments cannot justify. Instruments are named without their resolution. Cutoffs are quoted without sources, or from a protocol that used a different landmark. Error is discussed in general terms rather than from the spreads actually observed. Practical problems during measurement are left out, though they explain much of the variation. If you have taken the measurements but are unsure how to present them, start with the protocol table and the full set of trials. A writer can turn those into a finished set.
Get an NS310 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Measurements for NS310 Unit 4 must be your own, taken with consent, so the sample builds everything around them instead. Share the instructions, the required sites, any reference tables and the rubric. The protocol table, the trial layout and the error discussion come back on composite bracketed values, free as a first custom sample, within 24-48 hours. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More NS310 papers and BS in Nutrition Science samples
- NS310 Unit 1: Albumin Post
- NS310 Unit 2: MUST vs MNA-SF Comparison
- NS310 Unit 3: Five-Pass Recall
- NS310 Unit 5: Biochemical Marker Review
- NS310 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- NS310 Unit 7: Clinical Observation Write-up
- NS310 Unit 8: Food Frequency Questionnaire
- NS310 Unit 9: Assessment Case Study
- NS310 Unit 10: Comprehensive Assessment Report
- NS305 Unit 4: Cooler Log Memo
- NS235 Unit 4: Mineral Interaction Analysis
- NS230 Unit 4: Gluconeogenesis Pathway Trace
- NS106 Unit 4: Ethics Analysis
NS310 Unit 4 questions, answered
What if I do not have a skinfold caliper?
Many sections make skinfolds optional for exactly that reason, or accept an inexpensive plastic caliper with its limits stated. Circumferences need only a non-stretch tape. Where a measurement cannot be taken properly, it is better to omit it and explain why than to report a reading from improvised equipment, which graders tend to question closely.
Should the waist be measured at the navel?
Use a published landmark and name it. The NIH protocol places the tape at the top of the iliac crest, while the WHO protocol uses the midpoint between the lowest rib and the iliac crest. The navel is convenient but shifts with body shape, so most courses prefer an anatomical site, and the cut-points applied should match the protocol used.
How should measurement error be reported?
At minimum, give every repeated reading and its range. Many courses introduce the technical error of measurement, calculated from repeated trials, and a relative version expressed as a percentage of the mean, which makes different sites comparable. The example uses the range and a relative figure to show why a skinfold deserves less confidence than a height.
Where can I find a free NS310 Unit 4 sample paper?
This page has a complete Unit 4 anthropometric measurement set with protocols, three trials per site, derived indices and a discussion of measurement error.
Which body measurements are most precise?
Weight and height are usually the most precise, circumferences less so, and skinfolds the least. A review of anthropometric error found skinfold error can be large enough to make interpretation difficult.