DO COLLEGE STUDENTS CORRECTLY IDENTIFY THEIR OWN CLASSICAL HUMAN PHENOTYPIC TRAITS? - A CROSS-SECTIONAL OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

The present study was undertaken to assess the accuracy of self-reported and directly observed classical human phenotypic traits among undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) Zoology students. Six traits were selected for investigation: earlobe attachment, tongue rolling, widow’s peak, hitchhiker’s thumb, clasping of hands, and tongue folding. The study compared students’ self-reported responses with direct observations to evaluate reporting accuracy and the degree of agreement between the two methods. The data were analysed descriptively using percentages and performance categories, while Cohen’s kappa was used to assess agreement beyond chance. Chi-square-based analysis was also included to examine differences between responses, subject to verification of the statistical calculations and significance labels. The results revealed variation in reporting accuracy across the five academic classes and six traits. Clasping of hands showed high reporting accuracy in I B.Sc (96.6%) and III B.Sc (89.5%), while earlobe attachment also showed relatively high accuracy in I B.Sc (86.2%) and III B.Sc (84.2%). Widow’s peak showed 100% accuracy in II M.Sc. In contrast, tongue folding showed low reporting accuracy in I B.Sc (27.6%) and III B.Sc (36.8%). Cohen’s kappa analysis indicated substantial agreement for clasping of hands among III B.Sc students (κ = 0.791) and earlobe attachment among III B.Sc students (κ = 0.617). However, tongue folding showed only slight agreement among I B.Sc (κ = 0.047) and III B.Sc students (κ = 0.081). The findings demonstrate that agreement between self-reporting and direct observation varies according to the trait and academic class, with no single class showing consistently high agreement for all traits. The study highlights the importance of practical demonstrations, standardized observation procedures, and accurate phenotype identification in Zoology education. Since the statistical significance labels require verification, the chi-square findings should be interpreted cautiously. Furthermore, these traits are best treated as classical human phenotypic variations rather than assuming that all follow simple single-gene Mendelian inheritance.