"The growth of a child has a greater importance for growth physiology than the average growth curve of 100,000 children," according to Davenport.1 Others glorify the longitudinal (individual) method to such an extent that it almost appears the mode of the moment to decry cross section (group) data. Obviously, each has its own place and value, and the present trend doubtless reflects the need for more and completer individual studies of growth. These are difficult to collect, particularly for the entire period of active growth. Thus, the first seriatim study, begun in 1759 and reported by Buffon in 1827,2 was considered sufficiently important by Scammon3 to be worth republishing in detail. In all the intervening years few individual studies have been published, and in these few characteristics were measured. To the list we can now add two new seriatim studies, which are noteworthy in the following respects:
GRAY H, FABER HK. INDIVIDUAL GROWTH RECORDS OF TWO HEALTHY GIRLS FROM BIRTH TO MATURITY. Am J Dis Child. 1940;59(2):255–280. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1940.01990130038003
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: