Analysis of Body Size Measurements for U.S. Navy Women's Clothing and Pattern Design

McConville, John T.; Tebbetts, Ilse; Churchill, Thomas

doi:10.21236/ada068600

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In compiling a sizing system and choosing a fit model, a firm uses proportional relationships among body measurements, or key dimensions, to achieve the company fit. Key dimensions are good predictors of measurements of other body parts but must be convenient to measure, correspond to integral parts of the garment, have a high degree of correlation with other dimensions important in design and sizing, and not be highly correlated with one another (McConville, Tebbetts, & Churchill, 1979). Researchers have found there is no single key dimension which can accurately predict both vertical (height, length) and horizontal (girth, breadth, depth) measurements; at least two measurements are needed, one for a vertical index and one for a horizontal index (Horridge & Woodson, 1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement Specifications for Manufacturers' Prototype Bodies

Workman

Lentz²

2000

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to examine information on body measurement specifications for one prototype body used by women's apparel manufacturers-fit models. Specifically, information was examined to determine if fit model measurement specifications had changed since 1986. Measurement specifications need to be revised regularly to accommodate changes in the population's anthropometry. Advertisements for sizes 8 and 10fit models were collected from 1986 and 1997 trade publications in the apparel industry. The 1997 size 8 specifications for bust, waist and hips were larger than the 1986 size 8. In 1997, size 8 and size 10 fit model specifications did not statistically differ. The bust and waist of the 1997 size 8 were significantly larger than the 1986 size 10. The dearth of advertisements for size 10 fit models in 1997 and the fact that many advertisements either gave measurement specifications with no size designation or required a size 8 but gave no measurement specifications suggest that size 8 is the current sample size designation. While fit model measurement specifications have changed, the change appears to have been accomplished by designating as a size 8 what was previously a size 10. Technological advances have begun to revolutionize how apparel is produced. However, technology will not displace one aspect of conventional mass production-the customer's perception of fit—thus the continued need for use of a live prototype body, whether a professional fit model or a customer.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement Specifications for Manufacturers' Prototype Bodies

Workman

Lentz²

2000

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A total of 1,330 subjects with a mean age of 23.1 I years were included. As mentioned in previous studies (Green, 1981;Horridge & Woodson, 1988;McConville et al, 1979), key dimensions should have a high correlation with other dimensions related to a garment. Body measurements were determined by measuring subjects in their undergarments with an anthropometer (Siber Hegner #101), a beam caliper, medical scales, and 2-meter steel tapes (K&E Tip-Top Wyteface) (Laubach, McConville, Churchill, & White, 1977).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…Prior investigators (Haslegrave, 1986;McConville, Tebbetts, & Churchill, 1979;O'Brien & Sheldon, 1941) asserted that no single dimension is closely related to both vertical measurements (i.e., height and length) and horizontal measurements (i.e., girth, breadth, and depth). They suggested selecting a pair of key dimensions-one as an index of horizontal measurements and the other as an index of vertical measurements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Key Dimensions of Women's Ready-to-Wear Apparel: Developing a Consumer Size-Labeling System

Chun-Yoon

Jasper

1996

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key dimensions were selected for women's ready-to-wear garments to generate an anthropometric sizelabeling system designating garment size with body measurements. Two different statistical analyses were used to select key dimensions: residual variance analysis and factor analysis. The results of the study show that (a) the key dimensions selected by both means of analysis are similar, (b) the key dimensions used in most mail-order catalogs are appropriate, and (c) in addition to the key dimensions currently in use, another key dimension representing length or height is needed. Bust circumference was selected as a key dimension for all upper body garments. Hip and waist circumferences were selected for all lower body garments. The key dimensions representing length or height were sleeve inseam length or sleeve outseam length for long-sleeve shirts, shoulder height or shoulder length for short-sleeve or sleeveless shirts, crotch height for calfor ankle-length pants, and waist height for skirts.

show abstract

“…Table 3.1 ). That no single control dimension is related to both height and breadth/width is generally understood (McConville, 1986;McConville et al , 1979;O'Brien and Shelton, 1941). Thus, use of bi-or tri-dimensional systems to represent different aspects of variability in body size has been suggested (e.g.…”

Section: Sizes Size Intervals and Size Designationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…the control dimension(s), and the variability associated with them), identifi cation of the required number of sizes and formation of sub-groups, selection of design values for all dimensions needed to accommodate the variance in each sub-group, and the use of fi t testing at appropriate intervals (e.g. Chun-Yoon and Jasper, 1996;Green, 1981;Jung et al , 2010;Laing et al , 1999;McConville, 1986;McConville et al , 1979;Robinette, 1986;Salusso-Deonier, 1985). Properties of the fabrics or other materials from which an item is made, particularly extensibility/rigidity, need to be considered.…”

Section: Development Of Sizing Systems From Anthropometric Datamentioning

confidence: 99%