MID-MORNING LUNCH IN RURAL SCHOOLS 17 



have proved to be so low since body width as well as height had been taken into 

 consideration. It is interesting also to note that when these quantitative ratings 

 of nutritional status were correlated with each other, or with the qualitative 

 rating no really significant agreement between any two was found (Table 3). 

 The highest were those of the deviation from the Baldwin-Wood standard with 

 the amount of subcutaneous tissue (r = +.70) and with the Lucas-Prvor standard 

 (r = +.66). 



Table 3. — Correlations Found Between the Ratings of Nutritional 

 Status of Children. (779 Examinations) 



Correlation between General Nutritional Condition arid 



Qualitativ^e nutritional condition + .93 ± .003 



Amount of subcutaneous tissue + . 64 + 014 



Deviations from the Baldwin-Wood scale +.72 + .012 



Deviations from the Lucas-Pryor standard + .49 ± .019 



Correlation between Qualitative Nutritional Condition and 



Amount of subcutaneous tissue + .53 ± .012 



Deviations from the Baldwin-Wood scale + .58 + .016 



Deviations from the Lucas-Pryor standard +.35 + .022 



Correlation between Amount of Subcutaneous Tissue and 



Deviations from the Baldwin-Wood scale +.70+ .012 



Deviations from the Lucas-Pryor standard + .45 + .019 



Correlation between Deviations from the Baldwin-Wood scale and 



Deviations from the Lucas-Pryor standard +.66+ .014 



Correlation between Evaluation of Nutritionist and 



Evaluation of physician (1559 e.xaminations) +.88 + .004 



Little correlation was found between the "quantitative" and "qualitative" 

 ratings. Perhaps it is illogical to assume that there should be any correlation 

 and that the nutritional condition of an individual can be judged accurately 

 either by measuring the amount of fat padding or by noting the functioning of 

 his body by a medical examination. Yet investigators have tried to do that 

 very thing. They have looked at the child from either of two very diflferent 

 angles and then wondered why the impressions received were not identical. 



In this connection the agreement between the ratings made of the nutritional 

 condition of the child at the end of each examination by the nutritionist and the 

 physician is of interest. These estimates were made independently, the nutri- 

 tionist recording hers before the physician gave her final evaluation. A fair 

 agreement was indicated for the whole group of 1559 examinations (r = +.88). 

 In many instances the estimates were identical, and in a majority the differences 

 were not great. Marked variations occurred for the most part either when the 

 child was in good general condition but thin, when the doctor's rating was higher; 

 or when the child had a severe lung infection though his general appearance was 

 good, in which case the nutritionist's rating was higher. 



In such cases, which is the more important from the standpoint of nutrition, 

 thinness or proper functioning of the organs of the body? Are we by chance 

 attempting to treat a situation as if it were a unit when in reality it is dual in 

 nature? 



As has been said, just how much weight should be given to the qualitative 

 and how much to the quantitative aspect of nutrition is a nice question to decide. 

 Would it have been wiser not to have attempted to decide it? 



