Studying the Relationship Between Age, Sex, and Presence of Osteoarthritis in

Prehistoric Individuals

Introduction 2
Methods 3
Literature Review 7
Results 8
Discussion 9
Conclusion 9
References 10
Figures 12

Introduction
For this research project, I decided to look at the elbow osteoarthritis dataset
and trying to find any similarities or differences between age and sex, and
determining whether there is a correlation between either age and osteoarthritis,
or sex and osteoarthritis, and finally whether or not there is a difference between
left and right presence of osteoarthritis. My null and research hypothesis are as
followed:
H0= M/F develop OA at the same rates
H1= M/F develop OA at different rates
And
H0= Development of OA is independent of side (L/R)
H1= Development of OA is dependent on side (L/R)
I will use Chi-Sq test, Independent T test, Phi and Cramer’s V, and Levene’s test
when applicable, to first determine whether or not there are relationships between
my variables, and second to determine whether or not my data is significant enough
to establish relationship.
The problem we are trying to address is determining whether the presence of
osteoarthritis is completely random, or perhaps due to an environmental or
potentially biological feature.

Methods
Using SPSS, I am able to calculate all my tests using reliable calculation methods
and assuring that my methods are precise. For all of my tests, I used a 95%
confidence interval with a p-value of .05. I also used relationships based on 0 and
1, and when applicable I determined whether or not relationships had strong or weak
associations with each other.
Because I use a lot of graph and figures in my analysis of this data set, I have
decided to annotate my graphs using figures instead of inputting my graphs in my
text. All graphs and data analysis can be found at the end of this paper. I also
used outside peer reviewed articles to expand my knowledge of osteoarthritis and
DJD (degenerative joint disease) as a whole, and specifically in California
prehistoric populations. In the dataset, those individuals who were coined
‘indeterminate’ in regards to sex were eliminated from the analysis, and those who
had specified ages were put into the appropriate age category to create three broad
categories (20-29, 30-39, 40+).
First I ran a chi square, phi and Cramer’s V test for left and right sides of both
ulnohumeral and radiohumeral joints as seen in figure 2, 3. I separated the data by
sex and by age, and was able to look at the summaries of each. In the results with
left ulnohumeral joint, there is a significant difference in presence of
osteoarthritis between males and females and within age groups. In the 20-29 age
group, males had an arthritis presence of 23% and females had a presence of 10.5%;
in the 30-39 age group males had arthritis present 48.8% and females had 23.1%, and
finally in the 40+ age group there was an arthritis presence of 55% and females had
38%. In this one joint on the left side, we are able to see a slow increase of
arthritis in both males and females as the age jumps up. In comparison with the
right ulnohumeral joint, males in the 20-29 age group have a 22% arthritic presence
and females had 11% presence. 30-39 aged males had a presence of 44% and females
had 11.5%, finally in the 40+ age range males had 47% and females had 48%.
Just within this ulnohumeral category alone, I notice a difference between left and
right ulnohumeral sides between males and females. Males and females both had
higher incidences of OA present on the right side versus the left side, and the
increase of OA presence in females increases greatly between the 30-39 and 40+ age
range. The chi square analysis, figure 3 , of this same joining in the 20-29 age
range was .227 out of .05 which means the relationship is not significant, the 30-
39 age chi square significance was .04 which is less than .05 making this age range
significant, and the 40+ age significance was .193 making it over .05 and meaning
its insignificant. Using chi square the only significant relationship was within
the 30-39 age group, where the left and right side of all joints increased
significantly regardless of sex.
With this value aside, I thought it would be interesting to see if there
was a difference in prevalence of OA in left and right side without taking sex into
consideration to see if there is a relationship there since there was a difference,
and there were strange significances and values. Cramer’s V values in figure 4, 6
showed that all age range groups and left and right ulnohumeral joints held a weak
or very weak relationship except the 30-30 age group again.

As for the left radiohumeral joint, the crosstabs for the sex and age and
presence are as followed:
14% of males and no females had presence of osteoarthritis in the 20-29 age group,
this jumps up to 21% presence in males and 20% presence in females. Somewhere
within 10 years enough activity was occurring to cause a large increase of
arthritis present in females. In the 40+ age group males had OA a 20% presence and
females had 11.5% presence. Right radiohumeral joint data revealed that 20-29 aged
males had a 7% presence of arthritis, females had no presence at all; males in 30-
39 age group showed 31% had signs of OA while females jumped up to 12%, and finally
40+ aged males showed 15% OA presence and females had 15.7%.
Left and right radiohumeral joints had large increases between 20-29 and 30-39
years of age, and the highest prevalence of osteoarthritis was found in 30-39,
since the 40+ age group had a significantly lower percentage of arthritis present
within the total sample population.
The chi square analysis for left and right radiohumeral joint showed me
that none of the age groups were significant, and Cramer’s V showed that the 20-29
age group had a moderately strong relationship on the left side, and 30-39 on the
right side had a moderately strong relationship as well. The rest of the age groups
had a very weak relationship and held no similarities or even correlation between
age and development of OA shown in figure 6 . I concluded my results from the
values of each chi square score, an compared it with the score at a .05
significance.
My last tests were independent T test, and I was now trying to find if
there's one side that develops osteoarthritis more than the other side. My idea
was, that since the development of OA based on age had no real relationship, maybe
there was a side that developed “most often” or “most likely” in within sexes and
could perhaps be attributed to cultural reasons.
I ran my T tests with the variables being left and right radial/ulnohumeral joints
against male and female as a whole, I eliminated indeterminate sex and eliminated
those whose arthritis wasn't specifically listed. In the last graphs you can see my
variables and used Levene's test for equality when applicable.
My first part of this T test was left radiohumeral joint arthritis score against
sex, and my data was as followed: the t score was 1.729 which was higher than the
significance being 0.00, I did not use Levene's Test because equal variances are
assumed. The data from the right radiohumeral side was almost the same. T score was
significantly higher than the significance, 1.039 > .008 and therefore we did not
need to use Levene's Test either. In both left and right radiohumeral side, these
tests are not significant and therefore does not show any relationship between
development of arthritis and sex. In comparison, scores from left ulnohumeral joint
showed that the t value was lower than the significance at -3.675 < .384, because
it is lower we cannot assume equal variances and I proceeded to the lower half of
the data shown at the end of the figures sheet . Even while not assuming equal
variances, the t value is still lower and therefore prove there is a significant
relationship between this one joint and sex. The right ulnohumeral score had a t
value of -9.131 and a significance of 0, following the same suit I then looked at
the lower half that does not assume equal variance and found that it the value is
still lower than the significance. Both the left and right ulnohumeral sides show
significant relationships meaning there is more likelihood of developing it just on
the right side.

Literature Review
Osteoarthritis and other forms of arthritis have been found to be the most
prevalent ailment in prehistoric people (Bridges, 69) and therefore have been
studied extensively. While there are many causes of osteoarthritis, from trauma to
genes, studies show that prevalence of osteoarthritis development occur first in
distal femur and second in vertebra, but in longitudinal studies it shows a strong
presence in all long bones but specifically elbow region (70). While there are many
reasons why this could be, we found there is no discrepancy between males and
females, and that the presence of osteoarthritis was found in both sexes and in all
age groups. Because my analysis did not include regions, I cannot compare region
and therefore culture against presence of arthritis within sex and age. Broughton
et al. hypothesizes that hunting and foraging in California played an important
role in prehistoric culture, Bridges also hypothesized that cultural components
like hunting and the use of an atlatl in males and grinding seeds in females
contributed to arthritis in the elbow. Arnold et al. contributed by writing about
how humans did not contribute to major environmental until the late Holocene, when
technology and culture was forming and changing and inventions were happening. It
is around this time that the atlatl is invented which could be a contributing
factor in the presence of arthritis, and since big game hunting more often than not
resulted in small game versus large game, good foraging and agricultural practices
were needed. Further backing Bridges’s hypothesis that arthritis is a result of
seed grinding or similar behavior. Holliman further writes in her research, that
division of labor is clearly seen in skeletons between males and females as areas
of arthritis are different between the two, and those differences could be
accounted for by roles and culture. Since a cause of osteoarthritis could be trauma
as well as wear and tear, there is a chance that males develop arthritis because of
trauma from hunting and females developed arthritis based on agricultural or
foraging reasons. An article written by E. Bartelink describes the rising
prevalence and incidence of arthritis in a certain time period within prehistoric
era due to intensification of resource gathering, mainly because intensification
required more strenuous activity and more movement that in return caused the
development of arthritis. While most of the articles I read supported the idea of
increasing prevalence of osteoarthritis based on intensification of resources and
development of more precise agricultural and hunting skills, they also support that
arthritis presence gradually shifted downward anatomically, starting at the upper
long bones and developing higher prevalence and incidence in the lower long bones.
This is seen longitudinally through the time periods in articles like Cheverko’s
bioarch analysis of osteoarthritis.

Results
Based on the data ran through SPSS and my analysis, I found that there is
no significant relationship between the presence of osteoarthritis and age, while
there is a relationship in the joint that has more arthritis present than others.
Left and right ulnohumeral joints had a significant relationship when analyzed
against sex. My original hypotheses were that H0= M/F develop OA at the same rates,
H1= M/F develop OA at different rates; and H0= Development of OA is independent of
side (L/R), H1= Development of OA is dependent on side (L/R). Based on this data, I
can reject the research hypothesis that males and females develop OA at different
rates and accept that they develop OA at the same rate since there was no
relationship found. I can also reject the null hypothesis that the development of
OA is independent on side and accept that there is some relationship between side
and joint.
Discussion
In the literature review I wrote about articles scholars have written on
topics like the atlatl arm, and the differences in body “wear and tear” based on
roles each gender had. Males developed wear and tear based on repetitive hunting
techniques like throwing spears, and females developed wear and tear in places that
used joints and skills like grinding seeds and other foraging techniques. While
arthritis has been found to have been the most prevalent disease in prehistoric
populations, the prevalence of this disease has nothing to do with sex or age, I
hypothesize that some age groups have a higher incidence due to social differences
that require more degenerative activities such as active hunting or perhaps riskier
activities like showing off.
Conclusion
While there are differences in the presence of arthritis as a whole, the
differences between sex and age are very small, causing my conclusion that there is
a small underlying reason for why one side develops more than the other, and one
area of the elbow joint develops arthritis. While all the articles listed below
gave examples for reasons that could be causing these differences, the data
suggests a trend favoring movement and actions, or potentially traumas and
stresses, that occur within specific groups in this population.
References
Arnold, Jeanne, et al. “The Archaeology of California.” Journal of Archaeological
Research, vol. 12, no. 1, 2004, pp. 1–73.
Bridges, Patricia S. “Prehistoric Arthritis in the Americas.” Annual Review of
Anthropology, vol. 21, 1992, pp. 67–91.
Broughton, Jack, et al. “Evolutionary Ecology, Resource Depression, and Niche
Construction Theory: Applications to Central California Hunter-Gatherers and
Mimbres-Mogollon Agriculturalists.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory,
vol. 17, no. 4, 2010, pp. 371–421.
Cheverko CM, Bartelink EJ. Resource intensification and osteoarthritis patterns:
changes in activity in the prehistoric Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta region. Am J
Phys Anthropol. 2017;164:331–342.
Cheverko, Colleen M. A Bioarchaeological Analysis of Osteoarthritis in Prehistoric
Central California. 2013.
Cheverko, Colleen M, and Mark Hubbe. “Comparisons of Statistical Techniques to
Assess Age-Related Skeletal Markers in Bioarchaeology.” American Journal of
Physical Anthropology, vol. 163, no. 2, 2017, pp. 407–416.
Holliman, Sandra E. “Age and Sex Related Incidence of Degenerative Joint Disease in
Skeletal Remains from Santa Cruz Island, California.” Department of Anthropology.
Jurmain, Robert. “Paleoepidemiology of a Central California Prehistoric Population
from CA‐ALA‐329: II. Degenerative Disease.” American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, vol. 83, no. 1, 1990, pp. 83–94.
Weiss, Elizabeth. “Osteoarthritis and Body Mass.” Journal of Archaeological
Science, vol. 33, no. 5, 2006, pp. 690–695.
Figures

Figure 1
Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid
Missing
Total
 N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent

Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score * SEX * Age

197
68.6%
90
31.4%
287
100.0%

Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score * SEX * Age Crosstabulation

Figure 2

Age
SEX
Total

male
female

20-29
Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score
OA Absence
Count
32
17
49
Expected Count
33.7
15.3
49.0

% within Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

65.3%
34.7%
100.0%

% within SEX
76.2%
89.5%
80.3%

OA Presence
Count
10
2
12

Expected Count
8.3
3.7
12.0

% within Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

83.3%
16.7%
100.0%
% within SEX
23.8%
10.5%
19.7%

Total
Count
42
19
61

Expected Count
42.0
19.0
61.0

% within Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

68.9%
31.1%
100.0%

% within SEX
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

30-39
Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score
OA Absence
Count
 18
20
38
Expected Count
21.8
16.2
38.0

% within Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

47.4%
52.6%
100.0%

% within SEX
51.4%
76.9%
62.3%

OA Presence
Count
17
6
23

Expected Count
13.2
9.8
23.0

26.1%
100.0%
% within Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score
73.9%

% within SEX
48.6%
23.1%
37.7%

Total
Count
35
26
61

Expected Count
35.0
26.0
61.0

% within Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

57.4%
42.6%
100.0%

% within SEX
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

40+
Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score
OA Absence
Count
9
34
43
Expected Count
11.5
31.5
43.0

% within Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

20.9%
79.1%
100.0%

% within SEX
45.0%
61.8%
57.3%

OA Presence
Count
11
21
32

Expected Count
8.5
23.5
32.0
% within Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score
34.4%
65.6%
100.0%

% within SEX
55.0%
38.2%
42.7%

Total
Count
20
55
75

Expected Count
20.0
55.0
75.0

% within Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

26.7%
73.3%
100.0%

% within SEX
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score
OA Absence
Count
59
71
130
Expected Count
64.0
66.0
130.0

% within Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

45.4%
54.6%
100.0%

% within SEX
60.8%
71.0%
66.0%

OA Presence
Count
38
29
67

Expected Count
33.0
34.0
67.0
 % within Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score
56.7%
43.3%
100.0%

% within SEX
39.2%
29.0%
34.0%

Total
Count
97
100
197

Expected Count
97.0
100.0
197.0

% within Left Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

49.2%
50.8%
100.0%
% within SEX
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

Chi-Square Tests
Figure 3
Age
Value
df
Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided)
20-29
Pearson Chi-Square
1.461c
1
.227

Continuity Correctionb
.741
1
.389

Likelihood Ratio
1.598
1
.206

Fisher's Exact Test

.309
.197

Linear-by-Linear Association
1.437
1
.231

N of Valid Cases
61
30-39
Pearson Chi-Square
4.128d
1
.042

Continuity Correctionb
3.114
1
.078

Likelihood Ratio
4.255
1
.039

Fisher's Exact Test

.062
.038

Linear-by-Linear Association
4.060
1
.044

N of Valid Cases
61

40+
Pearson Chi-Square
1.696e
1
.193

Continuity Correctionb
1.078
1
.299

Likelihood Ratio
1.683
1
.195

Fisher's Exact Test

.291
.150

Linear-by-Linear Association
1.673
1
.196

N of Valid Cases
75

Total
Pearson Chi-Square
2.271a
1
.132

Continuity Correctionb
1.841
1
 .175

Likelihood Ratio
2.276
1
.131

Fisher's Exact Test

.136
.087

Linear-by-Linear Association
2.260
1
.133

N of Valid Cases
197

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 32.99.

b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

 c. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 3.74.

Symmetric Measures
Figure 4

Age
Value
Approximate Significance

20-29
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
-.155
.227
Cramer's V
.155
.227

N of Valid Cases
61
30-39
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
-.260
.042
Cramer's V
.260
.042

N of Valid Cases
61

40+
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
-.150
.193
Cramer's V
.150
.193

N of Valid Cases
75

Total
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
-.107
.132
Cramer's V
.107
.132

N of Valid Cases
197
Case Processing Summary
Figure 5

Cases

Valid
Missing
Total

N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent

Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score * SEX * Age

198
69.0%
89
31.0%
287
100.0%
Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score * SEX * Age Crosstabulation
Figure 6

Age
SEX
Total
male
female

Count
35

20-29
Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score
OA Absence
16
51

Expected Count
36.4
14.6
51.0

% within Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

68.6%
31.4%
100.0%
% within SEX
77.8%
88.9%
81.0%

OA Presence
Count
10
2
12

Expected Count
8.6
3.4
12.0

% within Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

83.3%
16.7%
100.0%

% within SEX
22.2%
11.1%
19.0%

Total
Count
45
18
63

Expected Count
45.0
18.0
63.0

% within Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

71.4%
28.6%
100.0%

% within SEX
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

30-39
Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score
OA Absence
Count
20
23
43
Expected Count
25.0
18.0
43.0

% within Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

46.5%
53.5%
100.0%

% within SEX
55.6%
88.5%
69.4%

OA Presence
Count
16
3
19

Expected Count
11.0
8.0
19.0

% within Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

84.2%
15.8%
100.0%

% within SEX
44.4%
11.5%
30.6%

Total
Count
36
26
62

Expected Count
36.0
26.0
62.0
% within Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score
58.1%
41.9%
100.0%

% within SEX
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

40+
Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score
OA Absence
Count
10
28
38
Expected Count
9.9
28.1
38.0

% within Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

26.3%
73.7%
100.0%

% within SEX
52.6%
51.9%
52.1%
 OA Presence
Count
9
26
35

Expected Count

9.1
25.9
35.0

% within Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

25.7%
74.3%
100.0%

% within SEX
47.4%
48.1%
47.9%
Total
Count
19
54
73

Expected Count
19.0
54.0
73.0

% within Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

26.0%
74.0%
100.0%

% within SEX
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

Total
Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score
OA Absence
Count
65
67
132
Expected Count
66.7
65.3
132.0

% within Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

49.2%
50.8%
100.0%

% within SEX
65.0%
68.4%
66.7%

OA Presence
Count
35
31
66

Expected Count
33.3
32.7
66.0

% within Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

53.0%
47.0%
100.0%

% within SEX
35.0%
31.6%
33.3%

Total
Count
100
 98
198

Expected Count
100.0
98.0
198.0

% within Right Ulnohumeral Total Joint Score

50.5%
49.5%
100.0%

% within SEX
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

Chi-Square Tests
Figure 7

Age
Value
df
Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided)
20-29
 Pearson Chi-Square
1.029c
1
.310

Continuity Correctionb
.435
1
.510

Likelihood Ratio
1.119
1
.290

Fisher's Exact Test

.482
.262

Linear-by-Linear Association
1.013
1
.314

N of Valid Cases
63

30-39
Pearson Chi-Square
7.691d
1
.006

6.221
Continuity Correctionb
1
.013

Likelihood Ratio
8.355
1
.004

Fisher's Exact Test

.006
.005

Linear-by-Linear Association
7.567
1
.006

N of Valid Cases
62

40+
Pearson Chi-Square
.003e
1
.953
Continuity Correctionb
.000
1
1.000

Likelihood Ratio
.003
1
.953
Fisher's Exact Test
1.000
.583

Linear-by-Linear Association
.003
1
.954

N of Valid Cases
73

Total
Pearson Chi-Square
.253a
1
.615
Continuity Correctionb
.124
1
.725

Likelihood Ratio
.253
1
.615

Fisher's Exact Test

.653
.363

Linear-by-Linear Association
.251
1
.616

N of Valid Cases
198
 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 32.67.

b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

c. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 3.43.

d. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 7.97.

e. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 9.11.

Symmetric Measures
Figure 8
 Age
Value
Approximate Significance

20-29
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
-.128
.310
Cramer's V
.128
.310

N of Valid Cases
63

30-39
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
-.352
.006
Cramer's V
.352
.006

N of Valid Cases
62

40+
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
.007
.953
Cramer's V
.007
.953
 N of Valid Cases
73

Total
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
-.036
.615
Cramer's V
.036
.615

N of Valid Cases
198

Case Processing Summary

Figure 9

Cases
 Valid
Missing
Total

N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent

Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score * SEX * Age

191
66.6%
96
33.4%
287
100.0%

Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score * SEX * Age Crosstabulation

Figure 10

Age
SEX
Total

male
female
20-29
Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score
OA Absence
Count
37
19
56
Expected Count
38.8
17.2
56.0

% within Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

66.1%
33.9%
100.0%

% within SEX
86.0%
100.0%
90.3%

OA Presence
Count
6
0
6

Expected Count
4.2
1.8
6.0

% within Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

% within SEX
14.0%
0.0%
9.7%

Total
Count
43
19
62

Expected Count
43.0
19.0
62.0

% within Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

69.4%
30.6%
100.0%

% within SEX
100.0%
100.0%
 100.0%

26

19
45

30-39
Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score
OA Absence
Count

Expected Count
26.1
18.9
45.0

% within Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

57.8%
42.2%
100.0%
% within SEX
78.8%
79.2%
78.9%

OA Presence
Count
7
5
12

Expected Count
6.9
5.1
12.0

% within Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

58.3%
41.7%
100.0%

% within SEX
21.2%
20.8%
21.1%

Total
Count
33
24
57
Expected Count
33.0
24.0
57.0

% within Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

57.9%
42.1%
100.0%

% within SEX
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

40+
Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score
OA Absence
Count
16
46
62
Expected Count
17.2
44.8
62.0

% within Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

25.8%
74.2%
100.0%
% within SEX
80.0%
88.5%
86.1%

OA Presence
Count
4
6
10

Expected Count
2.8
7.2
10.0

% within Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

40.0%
60.0%
100.0%

% within SEX
20.0%
11.5%
13.9%

Total
Count
20
52
72
Expected Count
20.0
52.0
72.0

% within Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

27.8%
72.2%
100.0%

% within SEX
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

Total
Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score
OA Absence
Count
79
84
163
Expected Count
81.9
81.1
163.0

% within Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

48.5%
51.5%
100.0%

% within SEX
 82.3%
88.4%
85.3%

OA Presence
Count
17
11
28

Expected Count
14.1
13.9
28.0

% within Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

60.7%
39.3%
100.0%

% within SEX
17.7%
11.6%
14.7%

Total
Count
96
95
191
Expected Count
96.0
95.0
191.0

% within Left Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

50.3%
49.7%
100.0%

% within SEX
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Figure 11

Age
Value
df
Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided)
20-29
Pearson Chi-Square
2.935c
1
.087

Continuity Correctionb
1.556
1
.212

Likelihood Ratio
4.670
1
.031

Fisher's Exact Test

.165
.099

Linear-by-Linear Association
2.888
1
.089
N of Valid Cases
62

30-39
Pearson Chi-Square
.001d
1
.972

Continuity Correctionb
.000
1
1.000

Likelihood Ratio
.001
1
.972

Fisher's Exact Test

1.000
.619

Linear-by-Linear Association
.001
1
.973

N of Valid Cases
57
40+
Pearson Chi-Square
.865e
1
.352

Continuity Correctionb
.302
1
.583

Likelihood Ratio
.814
1
.367

Fisher's Exact Test

.449
.282

Linear-by-Linear Association
.853
1
.356

N of Valid Cases
72

Total
Pearson Chi-Square
1.434a
1
.231
 Continuity Correctionb
.986
1
.321

Likelihood Ratio
1.444
1
.230
Fisher's Exact Test
.307
.160

Linear-by-Linear Association
1.426
1
.232
N of Valid Cases
191

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 13.93.

b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

c. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 1.84.

d. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 5.05.
 e. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 2.78.

Symmetric Measures
Figure 12

Age
Value
Approximate Significance

20-29
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
-.218
.087
Cramer's V
.218
.087

N of Valid Cases
62

30-39
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
-.005
.972
Cramer's V
.005
 .972

N of Valid Cases
57

40+
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
-.110
.352
Cramer's V
.110
.352

N of Valid Cases
72

Total
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
-.087
.231
Cramer's V
.087
.231

N of Valid Cases
191

Case Processing Summary

Figure 13
 Cases

Valid
Missing
Total

N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent

Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score * SEX * Age

191
66.6%
96
33.4%
287
100.0%

Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score * SEX * Age Crosstabulation

Figure 14
Age
SEX
Total

male
female

20-29
Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score
OA Absence
Count
40
18
58
Expected Count
40.9
17.1
58.0

% within Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

69.0%
31.0%
100.0%
% within SEX
93.0%
100.0%
95.1%

OA Presence
Count
3
0
3

Expected Count
2.1
.9
3.0

% within Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

% within SEX
7.0%
0.0%
4.9%

Total
Count
43
18
61
Expected Count
43.0
18.0
61.0

% within Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

70.5%
29.5%
100.0%

% within SEX
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

30-39
Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score
OA Absence
Count
24
22
46
Expected Count
26.8
19.2
46.0

% within Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

52.2%
47.8%
100.0%

% within SEX
68.6%
88.0%
76.7%

OA Presence
Count
11
3
14

Expected Count
8.2
5.8
14.0

% within Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

78.6%
21.4%
100.0%

% within SEX
31.4%
12.0%
23.3%

Total
Count
35
25
60

Expected Count
35.0
25.0
 60.0

% within Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

58.3%
41.7%
100.0%

% within SEX
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

40+
Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score
OA Absence
Count
16
43
59

Expected Count
16.0
43.0
59.0

% within Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

27.1%
72.9%
100.0%

% within SEX
84.2%
84.3%
84.3%

OA Presence
Count
3
8
11

Expected Count
3.0
8.0
11.0

% within Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

27.3%
72.7%
100.0%

% within SEX
15.8%
15.7%
15.7%

Total
Count
19
51
70

Expected Count
19.0
51.0
70.0

% within Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

27.1%
72.9%
100.0%

% within SEX
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

Total
Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score
OA Absence
Count
80
83
163
Expected Count
82.8
80.2
163.0

% within Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

49.1%
50.9%
100.0%

% within SEX
82.5%
88.3%
85.3%
OA Presence
Count
17
11
28

Expected Count
14.2
13.8
28.0

% within Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score

60.7%
39.3%
100.0%

% within SEX
17.5%
11.7%
14.7%

Total
Count
97
94
191

Expected Count
97.0
94.0
191.0
 % within Right Radiohumeral Total Joint Score
50.8%
49.2%
100.0%

% within SEX
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

Chi-Square Tests
Figure 15

Age
Value
df
Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided)
20-29
Pearson Chi-Square
1.321c
1
.250

Continuity Correctionb
.250
1
.617
Likelihood Ratio
2.162
1
.141

Fisher's Exact Test

.548
.343

Linear-by-Linear Association
1.299
1
.254

N of Valid Cases
61

30-39
Pearson Chi-Square
3.077d
1
.079
Continuity Correctionb
2.087
1
.149

Likelihood Ratio
3.272
1
.070

Fisher's Exact Test

.122
.072

Linear-by-Linear Association
3.026
1
.082

N of Valid Cases
60

40+
Pearson Chi-Square
.000e
1
.992
Continuity Correctionb
.000
1
1.000

Likelihood Ratio
.000
1
.992

Fisher's Exact Test

1.000
.625

Linear-by-Linear Association
.000
1
.992

N of Valid Cases
70

Total
Pearson Chi-Square
1.294a
1
.255
Continuity Correctionb
.870
1
 .351

Likelihood Ratio
1.304
1
.254

Fisher's Exact Test

.308
.176

Linear-by-Linear Association
1.287
1
.257

N of Valid Cases
191

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 13.78.

b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

c. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .89.
 d. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 5.83.

e. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 2.99.

Symmetric Measures
Figure 16

Age
Value
Approximate Significance

20-29
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
-.147
.250
Cramer's V
.147
.250

N of Valid Cases
61
30-39
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
-.226
.079
Cramer's V
.226
.079

N of Valid Cases
60

40+
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
-.001
.992
Cramer's V
.001
.992

N of Valid Cases
70

Total
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
-.082
.255
Cramer's V
.082
.255

N of Valid Cases
191