Sculpture alcove, Kangaroo Point House, Kangaroo Point, Brisbane

Alcove to deck, as seen from garden.

Sculpture alcove, Kangaroo Point House, Kangaroo Point, Brisbane

Alcove to deck, with timber handrail in foreground.

Sculpture alcove, Kangaroo Point House, Kangaroo Point, Brisbane

Alcove to deck, as seen from garden.

Aboriginal Art Collection: Highlights from Australia's Public Museums and Galleries

Contents: Introduction SUSAN COCHRANE National Gallery of Australia, Canberra WALLY CARUANA National Museum of Australia, Canberra DAVID KAUS Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, Darwin MARGIE WEST Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney HETTI PERKINS AND KEN WATSON Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney BERNICE MURPHY Queensland Art Gallery, Brisbane MARCO NEALE Queensland Museum, Brisbane RICHARD ROBINS National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne JUDITH RYAN Museum Victoria, Melbourne GAYE SCULTHORPE Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart KIM AKERMAN AND DAVID HANSEN Art Gallery of Western Australia, Perth MICHAEL O'FERRALL AND BRENDA L. CROFT Western Australian Museum, Perth ROSS CHADWICK AND MANCE LOFGREN Art Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide JANE HYLTON South Australian Museum, Adelaide PHILIP A. CLARKE List of Plates Bibliography Editor's Acknowledgments Contributors Index

An assessment of maturity from anthropometric measurements

Purpose: The range of variability between individuals of the same chronological age (CA) in somatic and biological maturity is large and especially accentuated around the adolescent growth spurt. Maturity assessment is an important consideration when dealing with adolescents, from both a research perspective and youth sports stratification. A noninvasive, practical method predicting years from peak height velocity (a maturity offset value) by using anthropometric variables is developed in one sample and cross-validated in two different samples. Methods: Gender specific multiple regression equations were calculated on a sample of 152 Canadian children aged 8-16 yr (79 boys; 73 girls) who were followed through adolescence from 1991 to 1997, The equations included three somatic dimensions (height, sitting height, and leg length), CA, and their interactions. The equations were cross-validated on a Combined sample of Canadian (71 boys, 40 girls measured from 1964 through 1973) and Flemish children (50 boys, 48 girls measured from 1985 through 1999). Results: The coefficient of determination (R2) for the boys' model was 0.92 and for the girls' model 0.91 the SEEs were 0.49 and 0.50, respectively, Mean difference between actual and predicted maturity offset for the verification samples was 0.24 (SD 0.65) yr in boys and 0,001 (SD 0.68) yr in girls. Conclusion: Although the cross-validation meets statistical standards or acceptance, caution 1, warranted with regard to implementation. It is recommended that maturity offset be considered as a categorical rather than a continuous assessment. Nevertheless, the equations presented are a reliable, noninvasive and a practical solution for the measure of biological maturity for matching adolescent athletes.