The aim of skin-marker-based motion analysis is to reconstruct the motion of a kinematical model from noisy measured motion of skin markers. Existing kinematic models for reconstruction of chains of segments can be divided into two categories: analytical methods that do not take joint constraints into account and numerical global optimization methods that do take joint constraints into account but require numerical optimization of a large number of degrees of freedom, especially when the number of segments increases. In this study, a new and largely analytical method for a chain of rigid bodies is presented, interconnected in spherical joints (chain-method). In this method, the number of generalized coordinates to be determined through numerical optimization is three, irrespective of the number of segments. This new method is compared with the analytical method of Veldpaus [1988, “A Least-Squares Algorithm for the Equiform Transformation From Spatial Marker Co-Ordinates,” J. Biomech., 21, pp. 45–54] (Veldpaus-method, a method of the first category) and the numerical global optimization method of Lu and O’Connor [1999, “Bone Position Estimation From Skin-Marker Co-Ordinates Using Global Optimization With Joint Constraints,” J. Biomech., 32, pp. 129–134] (Lu-method, a method of the second category) regarding the effects of continuous noise simulating skin movement artifacts and regarding systematic errors in joint constraints. The study is based on simulated data to allow a comparison of the results of the different algorithms with true (noise- and error-free) marker locations. Results indicate a clear trend that accuracy for the chain-method is higher than the Veldpaus-method and similar to the Lu-method. Because large parts of the equations in the chain-method can be solved analytically, the speed of convergence in this method is substantially higher than in the Lu-method. With only three segments, the average number of required iterations with the chain-method is times lower than with the Lu-method when skin movement artifacts are simulated by applying a continuous noise model. When simulating systematic errors in joint constraints, the number of iterations for the chain-method was almost a factor 5 lower than the number of iterations for the Lu-method. However, the Lu-method performs slightly better than the chain-method. The RMSD value between the reconstructed and actual marker positions is approximately 57% of the systematic error on the joint center positions for the Lu-method compared with 59% for the chain-method.