Height and Social Adjustment: Are Extremes a Cause for Concern and Action?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Growth hormone treatment of hormone-sufficient short youths is predicated on the belief that short stature is associated with social problems with peers. This study assessed peer relations and social adjustment as a function of height in a community sample. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at 1 public school district in Western New York of students of both genders who attended grades 6 to 12 (N = 956). Target groups included participants of short stature (height or=1.6 standard deviation; >or=95th percentile; n = 58) and classmates of average height (between the 25th and 75th percentiles; n = 123) used for within-class comparisons. All remaining unclassified classmates (n = 704) also provided data. Self- and peer-rated assessment of social reputation and social acceptance was measured. RESULTS: Minimal effects of height on measures of social functioning were detected despite substantial statistical power. We detected no significant relationships between height and measures of friendship, popularity, or reputation with peers. Findings did not vary by gender of participant, by peer- or self-report, or by whether data from the entire sample were used or target groups were contrasted with comparison participants. Shorter students were perceived by peers to be younger than their age. This influence was restricted to lower grades and did not have an impact on measures of social acceptance or reputation with peers. CONCLUSIONS: Extremes of stature in the general population-either short or tall-have minimal detectable impact on peer perceptions of social behavior, friendship, or acceptance. Findings are not supportive of the need to intervene a priori because of the potential risk of negative stature-related social sequelae. Furthermore, if problems with peer relationships are identified among short or tall youths, then factors other than stature should be considered as etiologically important.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".