Aim-To compare an ultrasonic height measuring device (Gulliver) with m
echanical stadiometry and the classical ''book and tape measure'' meth
od. Methods-Blinded duplicate measurements of height were made on each
of 14 children by a pair of observers using a stadiometer (H) and Gul
liver (G). Height was measured on a further 18 children by parents and
an auxologist using Gulliver and the book and tape method (TM), and t
he results were compared with those obtained with a single stadiometry
measurement. Finally, measurement of a rigid metal box was made on 10
occasions by the three methods. Results-In the group of 14 children,
the mean difference (range) in height (H minus G) was +2.8 cm (+0.5 to
+4.55 cm), with H giving a systematically higher value in 276 of 280
individual measurements. In the group of 18 children, height by H was
greater than by G or TM in 47 of 52 individual measurements. The mean
(SD) height of the box by H (61.60 (0.07) cm) was greater than by G (6
0.96 (0.15) cm; p < 0.001) but not TM (61.4 (0.16) cm; p > 0.05). G an
d TM produced three times less reliable estimations of height than H,
but with a large difference in cost, and there was evidence of systema
tic underrecording of height by 0.5 cm with G. Conclusions-Stadiometry
is precise and reproducible, and can detect true changes in height ov
er one month periods in mid-childhood, and should remain the standard
way of observing growth. The book and tape method can produce clinical
ly acceptable quarterly estimations of height that can be performed in
the home.