ArticlePDF Available

Women’s petite and regular body measurements compared to current retail sizing conventions

Authors:

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze petite women’s body size and figure and investigate whether current petite sizing charts accurately reflect actual petit size women’s bodies. This study also categorizes petite women’s body shapes and suggests primary body measurements as a base size for each shape. The ultimate goal is to suggest fundamental body measurements for apparel companies to modify and improve their sizing. Design/methodology/approach – This study used data from SizeUSA data to compare body measurements of 18-35-year-old petite women to regular women. The authors compared the results to measurement differences between petite and regular sizing charts of 14 apparel companies. Then, using the principal component analysis and cluster analysis, the authors classified petite women’s body shapes. Body measurements for each body type are contrasted with the current petite sizing charts, and then, the authors present differences as suggestions for modification and improvement of petite sizing. Findings – Industry sizing system do not generally represent average petite size women preciously except for stature. Within the petite women, four body types were identified (top petite: 30.0 percent, bottom petite: 30.8 percent, regular petite: 23.6 percent, and plus size: 15.4 percent). Of the four groups, the ASTM D7878 generally represented the “top petite” sizing. Originality/value – It is the first to analyze the industry petite sizing system utilizing population data and focus petite sizing for women aged 18-35. The authors believe this study could draw attention of the apparel industry, providing companies with ideas of how to improve their petite sizing for young women.
International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology
Women’s petite and regular body measurements compared to current retail sizing
conventions
Youngsook Kim Hwa Kyung Song Susan P. Ashdown
Article information:
To cite this document:
Youngsook Kim Hwa Kyung Song Susan P. Ashdown , (2016),"Women’s petite and regular body
measurements compared to current retail sizing conventions", International Journal of Clothing
Science and Technology, Vol. 28 Iss 1 pp. 47 - 64
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCST-07-2014-0081
Downloaded on: 10 November 2016, At: 18:27 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 29 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 199 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Classifying male upper lateral somatotypes using space vectors", International Journal
of Clothing Science and Technology, Vol. 28 Iss 1 pp. 115-129 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJCST-03-2015-0043
(2016),"Pattern alteration of women’s suits based on ease distribution", International Journal
of Clothing Science and Technology, Vol. 28 Iss 2 pp. 201-215 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJCST-07-2015-0083
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:173961 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
Womens petite and regular body
measurements compared to
current retail sizing conventions
Youngsook Kim and Hwa Kyung Song
Department of Clothing and Textiles,
Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea, and
Susan P. Ashdown
Department of Fiber Science and Apparel Design,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze petite womens body size and figure and investigate
whether current petite sizing charts accurately reflect actual petit size womens bodies. This study also
categorizes petite womens body shapes and suggests primary body measurements as a base size for
each shape. The ultimate goal is to suggest fundamental body measurements for apparel companies to
modify and improve their sizing.
Design/methodology/approach This study used data from SizeUSA data to compare body
measurements of 18-35-year-old petite women to regular women. The authors compared the results to
measurement differences between petite and regular sizing charts of 14 apparel companies. Then,
using the principal component analysis and cluster analysis, the authors classified petite womens
body shapes. Body measurements for each body type are contrasted with the current petite sizing
charts, and then, the authors present differences as suggestions for modification and improvement of
petite sizing.
Findings Industry sizing system do not generally represent average petite size women preciously
except for stature. Within the petite women, four body types were identified (top petite: 30.0 percent,
bottom petite: 30.8 percent, regular petite: 23.6 percent, and plus size: 15.4 percent). Of the four groups,
the ASTM D7878 generally represented the top petitesizing.
Originality/value It is the first to analyze the industry petite sizing system utilizing population data
and focus petite sizing for women aged 18-35. The authors believe this study could draw attention of the
apparel industry, providing companies with ideas of how to improve their petite sizing for young women.
Keywords Body shape, Industry sizing, Petite size, SizeUSA data
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Most ready-to-wear companies design clothing for consumers of average height and
weight ( Faust and Carrier, 2010). However, US national anthropometric survey
(SizeUSA) data shows that sizes other than those representing average height and
weight represent a significant percentage of the population (Textile Clothing
Technology Incorporated, 2004). For example, petite size females who are shorter than
54represent 54 percent of the population ages 18-35. Therefore, females who do not
fall within these average statistical categories can have difficulty finding well-fitted
clothing in the marketplace (Shim and Kotsiopulos, 1990; Shim and Bickle, 1993; Jones
and Giddings, 2010; Park et al., 2009).
Apparel companies recognize the valuable potential for providing for special size
consumers based on certain physical characteristics like height (i.e. petite and tall).
Apparel producers like Gap and JCPenney do offer sizes that accommodate multiple
International Journal of Clothing
Science and Technology
Vol. 28 No. 1, 2016
pp. 47-64
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0955-6222
DOI 10.1108/IJCST-07-2014-0081
Received 4 July 2014
Revised 2 July 2015
Accepted 8 September 2015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0955-6222.htm
47
Current retail
sizing
conventions
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
height categories like petite, average, and tall. Of all these special sizes, the petite
clothing market has been growing rapidly. The petite market is increasing annually by
more than 6 percent, and worldwide sales are expected to be USD57.7 billion by 2014
( Just-Style, 2008; Verdict Report, 2011). Still, in spite of this growth in demand,
approximately 50 percent of petite size women have reported it is hard to find petite
size clothing with the same level of fit as regular size clothing (NPD Group, 2012). While
petite womens figures cannot be simply downscaled from a regular womans figure, a
general industry practice when producing petite size clothing is simply to scale down or
shorten regular size clothing as a solution (Liu, 2011; Huckabay, 1992; Jones and
Giddings, 2010). Fit problems may still appear and can be attributed to proportional
differences in clothing patterns between the average and the specialty sizes.
No study has yet compared the measurements in petite sizing systems to those of
regular sizing systems regularly used in the industry. If this comparison is conducted,
it would be possible to infer how apparel companies are actually defining petite size
womens bodies and how petite size clothing is scaled down from regular size clothing.
The current study compares the petite and regular sizing systems. The study also
compares the results for the body measurements of petite size women to those for
regular size women using the US national anthropometric survey data (SizeUSA).
The results can help identify whether current retail sizing systems reflect actual petite
womens bodies.
Beyond solving the issue regarding downsizingregular size measurements, we
assumed that if companies do target-specific body shapes within the petite population,
they will provide better fit for this sub-group if their sizing system covers the whole
range of petite women sizes. Therefore, we categorize petite size womens body shapes
using statistical methods (principal component (PC) analysis and cluster analysis) and
suggest basic size measurements for petite sizing systems for each body shape group.
2. Literature review
2.1 Sizing standards for petite size misses women
The government has already provided voluntary apparel sizing standards to apparel
industry. The petitesize classification was first introduced in the publication, Womens
Measurements for Garment and Pattern Construction (OBrien and Shelton, 1941).
Misses women were divided into three categories, namely, short,”“regular,and tall.
The Shortdesignation was to be the first petiteclassification presented in
government documents.
The National Bureau of Standards (1958) then issued the Voluntary Product
Standard CS 215-58 titled, body measurement for the sizing of womens patterns and
apparel, which classified women as misses,”“women,and junioras well as
identifying short,”“regular,and tallas groups.
National Bureau of Standards (1971) published PS 42-70 as a revised version of CS
215-58 and removed the bust-hipcategory and shifted the size designation for bust
girth. In terms of stature, PS 42-70 defined petite size as a woman whose height was
shorter than 52. Petite size women were defined as women of shorter height (stature:
3½, waist height: 2½, and crotch height 1) and length (back waist length: ¾, arm
length: 1½, armscye depth: ) shorter than that of regular size women, but still
having the same girth and width measurements as the regular size.
In 1995, ASTM International superseded the National Bureau of Standards and
issued ASTM D5585, Standard Table of Body Measurements for Adult Female
Misses Figure Type, and in then 2011, this standard was updated based on SizeUSA
48
IJCST
28,1
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
data and current industry practices. The standard was only developed for misses
regular size women.
In 2013, ASTM International newly developed the ASTM D7878 for Missespetite
size women. Upon comparing ASTM D7878 to ASTM D5585, we found that the ASTM
International standard defined petite size women as a woman of a 3shorter stature,
¾shorter back waist length, 2shorter leg length, and 1shorter arm length than
regular size women. In terms of girths, petite women were defined as having a ½
larger waist girth and ½narrower shoulder width than regular size women, while the
rest of their girth and width measurements stayed the same for the two standards.
2.2 Petite clothing fit
The government has provided voluntary sizing standards, but the apparel industry has
not adhered to these standards (Faust et al., 2006). Since each apparel company
has different target consumers with different body sizes and shapes, petite sizing
systems can vary for different companies (Barbaro, 2006). In general, apparel
manufacturers develop their own sizing systems by either copying already developed
size charts or adjusting those charts through trial and error, relying on customer
surveys or an analysis of sales and returned merchandise reports (Petrova, 2007).
Prior research studies have revealed that women not within the average height
range are less satisfied with their clothing fit than average size women (Shim and
Kotsiopulos, 1990; Shim and Bickle, 1993; Jones and Giddings, 2010). When Shim and
Bickle (1993) investigated differences in satisfaction with apparel fit for three size
groups ( petite, medium, and tall), the petite size group showed the least satisfaction
with 21 fit locations and two fit factors (sizing definition and ordering information).
Shim and Kotsiopulos (1990) also indicated that those groups who were members of the
average category for height and weight (e.g. tall women) were the least satisfied with
their ready-to-wear apparel. The NPD Group (2012) then found that approximately
50 percent of petite size women reported it was hard to find petite size clothing with the
same level of fit as regular size clothing.
One possible reason that petite consumers are not satisfied with their clothing fit is
that apparel companies have produced petite size clothing without sufficient
knowledge or a clear understanding of the petite womans body type. Petite womens
figures cannot be simply downscaled from the regular womens figure types, and yet
some apparel companies have decided to produce their petite size clothing by simply
scaling down or shortening hems of regular size clothing (Liu, 2011; Huckabay, 1992;
Jones and Giddings, 2010).
This lack of proportionate adjustment to actual petite womens sizes increases the
probability that these customers will need to alter their petite-sized clothing after
purchasing it. Clothing companies need to understand petite size womens figures more
precisely and thoroughly. Because the petite size proportion does have different
dimensions from sizes for children or smaller adults of regular height, petite clothing
should not simply become smaller in its aspects of length and circumferences.
Little research has addressed petite womens body proportions and shapes (Kim,
1993; McRoberts, 2005). Kim (1993) compared petite womens body proportions for
60 Asians and Caucasians. The results indicated that Caucasian women generally have
a longer lower torso than Asians do. McRoberts (2005) investigated figure-type
variations for 52 petite women. Various figure types, i.e., apple-shape or pear-shape,
were found, but none of the participants had the typical standard hourglass silhouette
as defined by the Voluntary Product Standard PS 42-70. No study has analyzed petite
49
Current retail
sizing
conventions
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
size womens body proportions and figure types using the recent and larger amount of
anthropometric data now available.
2.3 Body shape classification methods
When female body shape categorization systems used in the research of apparel were
examined, three representative mathematical methods were found: first, drop
(difference) values of body circumference measurements; second, ratios of body
circumference measurements, and third, PC analysis and cluster analysis.
The first method utilizes the drop values between bust, waist, or hip circumference
measurements to identify body types. The International Organization for
Standardization (1991) published technical report, ISO/TR10652, standard sizing
systems for clothes, which offered guidelines to classify body shapes when creating a
sizing system based on anthropometric data. For example, for sizing systems for
womens garments that cover the upper or whole body, the International Organization
for Standardization classified figure types based on the drop value between bust and
hip girth into an A type (9 cm), M type (48 cm), and H type (3∼−4 cm or greater).
Several countries like Japan, Korea, Germany, and Hungary have utilized the first
method to create their own national sizing systems. For example, Korean Standard
Association (2009) classified female body types were based on the drop values between
bust and hip girth into an N type (36 cm), A type (921 cm), and an H type (143) for
garment-sizing systems for the upper body.
The second method for body shape analysis is based on the ratios of circumference
measurements for the bust, waist, high hip, abdomen, and hip. Simmons et al. (2004)
categorized nine whole body shapes (hourglass, bottom hourglass, top hourglass,
spoon, rectangle, diamond, oval, triangle, and inverted triangle) using five
circumference ratios. Lee et al. (2007) compared body types between US and Korean
women using the Simmons et al.s (2004) method.
The first and second methods are relatively simple to use. However, they do not include
height and length measurements, so they are not appropriate for the current study
because vertical measurements are critical to analyze petite womens figures adequately.
The third method used for body shape analysis applies both the PC analysis and
cluster analysis. PC analysis is used to reduce the number of measurement variables by
combining those measurements where the correlation is high into new composite
dimensions. Several prior studies have used PC scores as independent variables for a
cluster analysis when classifying body shapes.
Salusso-Deonier et al. (2006, 1985) utilized girths, lengths, and heights for PC
analysis to address the whole body shape. Most of the vertical measurements (heights
and lengths) belonged to one component, and most of the horizontal measurements
(girths) belonged to the other component. However, a cluster analysis could only
classify size-based groups like tall and leanand tall and obesebecause only the two
components were used as independent variables for the cluster analysis.
To extract a shape-based PC, Song and Ashdown (2011) used 15 drop values for
girths, front/back arcs, widths, and depths. The analysis extracted five shape-related
components (waist to top hip silhouette, top hip to hip silhouette, buttock prominence,
slope from front abdomen point to waist front point, and slope from front abdomen
point to front point at the hip level). Using a cluster analysis technique, curvy,hip
tilt, and straightshapes were identified.
The researchers in the current study concluded that the third method was
appropriate to analyze petite womens body shapes because it used multiple variables,
50
IJCST
28,1
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
including both vertical and horizontal measurements. To avoid having vertical
measurements or horizontal measurements into either the first or the second PC,
we normalized measurements by stature and utilized body measurements to stature
ratiosas independent variables for the PC analysis. By excluding the effect of stature
on other measurements, we also expected to extract PCs that would represent
distinctive body parts.
3. Research objectives
The purpose of this study is to provide information about body sizes and proportions of
petite women aged 18-35 and improve the petite size charts used for the apparel
industry. While the ASTM International (2013) developed a sizing for petite women
aged 18-55, we focussed women aged 18-35 because the body volume size such as bust
girth and hip girth is changed from over age 35 (Textile Clothing Technology
Incorporated, 2004). We assumed that there would be the problems when women aged
18-35 wear clothing generated from sizing charts of the industry sizing charts and
ASTM D7878 targeting women aged 18-55.
We analyzed womens petite and regular body measurements and compared them
with the current retail sizing conventions. We expect the results from this study will
assist apparel companies in understanding petite size womans body size and figure
and determine whether their current sizing systems accurately reflect actual petite size
body. We further categorized petite size womens body shapes and suggested primary
body measurements as a base size for each shape. Body measurements for each body
shape type are contrasted with the current petite sizing charts; differences are regarded
as suggestions for modification and improvement of petite sizing. The specific
objectives of the study are the following:
(1) Compare the industry petite size range to the size distribution of women ages
18-35.
(2) Compare the body measurements differences between petite and regular
industry size charts to those between petite and regular size women.
(3) Categorize petite size womens body shapes and identify their body
characteristics.
(4) Compare body measurements for each body shape type with the current petite
sizing charts (ASTM and selected apparel companies).
4. Methodology
4.1 Comparison of industry petite size range to size distribution for women ages 18-35
4.1.1 Industry petite size range. From the report titled The top 100 apparel specialty
stores ranked by industry sales(Chain Store Guide, 2012), we selected 14
apparel companies that produce both petite and regular clothing and have sales over
USD500 million. We searched the petite sizing systems posted on their websites for
March, 2014.
All 14 companies included bust girth, waist girth, and hip girth in their sizing
systems. Eight companies additionally listed leg length, and seven companies posted
arm length. Waist to hip length, thigh length, and total crotch length were listed by
only one company, so we excluded the three measurements from the analysis. In terms
of stature, 12 out of 14 companies listed a standard below their charts, so we included
51
Current retail
sizing
conventions
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
stature in the analysis. Finally, we investigated the range of the body measurements
across size range (measurements for minimum and maximum) for six measurements
(bust girth, waist girth, hip girth, leg length, arm length, and stature).
4.1.2 Size distribution for women ages 18-35. We utilized the data set from the
SizeUSA project, a national sizing survey using a 3D body scanner (Textile Clothing
Technology Incorporated, 2004). We selected 2,981 women ages 18-35. Then, we
removed 267 women (9.0 percent) who had stature taller than 58, considered to be in
the tall size category as defined by Jones and Giddings (2010). Using data for the 2,714
women, we calculated the percentiles for six measurements and compared those results
to the industry size ranges.
4.2 Comparison of body measurement differences for petite and regular size women
to measurements for petite and regular sizing systems
4.2.1 Comparison of body measurements of petite to regular size women. To compare
the body measurements for petite size women to those of regular size women, we
divided the 2,714 women into petite and regular size categories. We defined petite size
as a woman shorter than 54(Rasband and Liechty, 2006; Faust and Carrier, 2010).
As a result, 1,618 women were selected for the petitegroup, and 1,096 women were
selected for the regulargroup.
To compare body measurements for the two groups, we conducted a t-test based on
a 95 percent confidence level to compare the mean scores for 26 body measurements
(seven heights, five lengths, 11 girths, and three widths) and two drop values
(bust-waist girth and hip-waist girth) considered critical for proper clothing fit.
4.2.2 Comparison of body measurements for petite sizes to regular industry sizing
systems. Based on the sizing charts posted on 14 apparel company websites, we
calculated six measurement (stature, bust girth, waist girth, hip girth, leg length, and
arm length) differences between the petite and regular sizing systems using the same
size code. We compared these to measurement differences found between the petite and
regular groups for the SizeUSA data.
4.3 Petite womens body classification method
To classify petite womens body shapes, we first conducted a PC analysis (varimax
rotation method) using the statistical package SPSS 17.0. We selected 14 measurements
(five girths, three widths, and six lengths) critical for developing pattern blocks and
sizing systems (Table I). We divided each body measurement by stature, and utilized
14 body measurements by stature ratios for independent variables for a PC analysis.
The PC scores were used for independent variables of the following cluster analysis.
To classify the body shapes, we conducted two statistical analyses: first, X-means
cluster analysis using R program, second, K-means cluster analysis using the statistical
package SPSS 17.0. As the two methods can provide different intuition for structure of
data, we considered both methods to choose the number of clusters.
First, we programmed X-means using R program since there is no X-means in SPSS
program. X-means is a hierarchical model selection method. It performs two-means
clustering and checks by partial Bayesian information criterion value whether each
cluster should be further split into two sub-clusters. The final number of clusters were
automatically suggested by the program.
As a different clustering method, the K-means cluster analysis was conducted
according to the algorithm implemented in SPSS program. When we specified the
52
IJCST
28,1
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
number of clusters (K) to the program, the program first randomly assigned an initial
set of cluster centers. Then, the program found each woman to the nearest cluster
center by comparing Euclidean distances from each womans points to each
cluster centers. For each of Kclusters, the program found cluster centroid and update
cluster center location to centroid. The program repeated this procedure until the K-
means algorithm terminated when the centroids no longer change. We experimented
with different clusters, dividing the petite size women (n¼1,618) into two to five
groups. The researchers in the current study decided the final number of clusters based
on the significant differences between the clusters and a reasonable number of clusters
for further study such as the development of the sizing systems. Cluster mean of each
component score was computed and compared through Duncans multiple range tests
of the ANOVA post hoc analysis.
The goal of this study was not to look for the best separation of the data into distinct
clusters, but to determine factors and define body measurements for our solution to
sizing issues, resulting in the best answer for informing and creating sizing systems.
Considering the goal of the study, we determined the final number of clusters by
comparing the results of both statistical methods.
4.4 Comparison of body measurements for four petite groups to ASTM and industry
sizing charts
We calculated mean values for the 12 primary measurements of four body shape groups.
These were used for base size measurements for the sizing systems for these groups.
We compared these values with mid-sizes in ASTM D7878 and averages of 14 industry
sizing systems using one-way ANOVA analysis.
Measurement
location
Definitions from SizeUSA study (Textile Clothing Technology Incorporated,
2004)
Bust girth Measure bust circumference horizontally around the body under the arms,
across the nipples, and parallel to floor
Waist girth Measure body circumference at the smallest point of waist when viewed
from the side
High hip girth Measure high hip circumference of the body at high-hip level, approximately
3 inches below waist level and parallel to floor
Hip girth Measure circumference of hip measured around fullest part of buttocks
(at maximum posterior prominence of buttocks)
Max-thigh girth Measure circumference of upper leg 1 inch below crotch
Cross chest width Measure across chest front from armscye to armscye at the anterior
axillary fold point level
Cross back width Measure across back from armscye to armscye at the posterior axillary
fold point level
Across shoulder Measure across back from one shoulder point to the other on approximately
a 45-degree line
Front waist length Measure from center front neck base line to center front waist level
Back waist length Measure from cervical following contour of the spinal column to center
back waist level
Pelvic length Measure from waist circumference level vertically down to crotch level
Crotch height Standing erect without shoes with feet slightly apart, measure from
crotch straight down to soles of feet
Knee height Measure from knee circumference level vertically down to floor
Arm length Measure from shoulder point along the outside of the arm to wrist joint
Table I.
SizeUSA
measurement
locations used in
principal component
analysis
53
Current retail
sizing
conventions
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
Then, we additionally calculated the mean differences between petite and regular
sizes for four body shape groups, and compared them to those of the ASTM standards
(ASTM D5585 (regular size)-ASTM D7878 (petite size)) and industry sizing (regular
size-petite size).
5. Results and discussions
5.1 Industry petite size range vs size distribution for women
In Table II, industry size ranges are shown using arrows and the number of companies
for each size range is shown in parentheses next to each arrow. In terms of stature, the
industry petite size category generally fit half the women, and three out of 11
companies set maximum stature at 53, while eight companies defined it as 54, the
value at the 50th percentile of SizeUSA data. The industry standard of 54was also
consistent in the standards used in the prior research studies ( Faust and Carrier, 2010;
Rasband and Liechty, 2006).
In both petite and regular size charts, bust girth, waist girth, and hip girth
measurements were broadly distributed throughout the SizeUSA data. When
considered as a whole, the apparel companies did not set differences for size
distribution between the two charts.
None of the companies assigned size intervals for inseam length between sizes and set
their inseam length at 29(50th percentile), 29.5or 30. Industry size for arm length
was distributed above the 50th percentile for SizeUSA data.
Notes: The range of the sizing system for this variable; ( ), the number of companies with
the size range indicated by the arrow
Table II.
Size range of
industry petite sizing
systems and size
distribution of
women ages 18-35
from SizeUSA data
54
IJCST
28,1
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
5.2 Body measurements of petite vs regular size women
We compared 26 measurements and two drop values for petite size women to those of
regular size women in the SizeUSA data (see Table III). The petite group showed
significantly lower mean values than the regular group for all the vertical
measurements. The petite group had a 3.7shorter stature, 2.16lower crotch
height, and 1.26lower knee height on average than the regular size group ( po0.05).
The petite group also had significantly shorter lengths than the regular group by 0.14
at shoulder length, 0.82at the back waist, and 1.52shorter for arm length ( po0.05).
From the results, we recommend a degree of reduction in measurements for petite
sizes. Petite women were 0.82shorter at back waist length, 0.5(¼2.66 2.16) at waist
Petite
(n¼1,618)
Regular
(n¼1,096)
Body measurements Mean SD Mean SD
Mean difference
(regular-petite) tSig.
Height
Stature 62.06 1.69 65.76 0.93 3.70 73.44 0.00**
Cervical height 55.40 1.80 58.82 1.19 3.42 59.73 0.00**
Waist height 38.08 1.88 40.74 1.58 2.66 39.97 0.00**
Hip height 30.21 2.08 32.24 1.95 2.03 25.92 0.00**
Abdomen height 35.39 2.05 37.91 1.88 2.52 33.03 0.00**
Crotch height 27.97 1.41 30.14 1.16 2.16 43.67 0.00**
Knee height 16.79 0.91 18.06 0.76 1.26 39.19 0.00**
Length
Shoulder length 4.90 0.53 5.05 0.54 0.14 6.89 0.00**
Front waist length 14.35 1.62 14.74 1.61 0.40 6.27 0.00**
Back waist length 16.79 1.09 17.60 1.17 0.82 18.38 0.00**
Arm length 20.25 1.23 21.77 1.09 1.52 33.98 0.00**
Center back neck to wrist 27.51 1.44 29.24 1.27 1.73 33.07 0.00**
Girth
Neck base 14.60 1.49 14.81 1.13 0.21 4.02 0.00**
Bust 39.09 4.91 39.95 5.08 0.86 4.41 0.00**
Waist 32.60 5.08 33.32 5.33 0.72 3.57 0.00**
Hip 40.61 4.81 41.85 5.02 1.24 6.46 0.00**
Max-thigh girth 23.96 2.89 24.85 3.05 0.89 7.73 0.00**
Mid-thigh girth 19.76 2.44 20.39 2.57 0.64 1.56 0.12
Knee 14.90 1.39 15.39 1.44 0.49 8.86 0.00**
Calf 14.61 1.50 15.04 1.55 0.43 7.19 0.00**
Armscye 15.78 1.86 16.31 1.84 0.53 7.34 0.00**
Upper arm 11.55 1.93 11.79 2.03 0.24 3.13 0.00**
Elbow 9.93 1.24 10.23 1.18 0.30 6.30 0.00**
Width
Across shoulder 14.53 1.24 14.94 1.24 0.42 8.55 0.00**
Cross chest width 14.55 1.84 14.72 1.89 0.16 2.26 0.02*
Cross back width 13.85 1.39 14.42 1.40 0.56 10.30 0.00**
Drop
Bust girth-waist girth 6.491 1.804 6.628 1.902 0.137 1.880 0.06
Hip girth-waist girth 7.729 2.151 8.151 2.161 0.422 5.006 0.00**
Notes: *po0.05; **po0.01
Table III.
Mean and standard
deviation for petite
and regular size
groups for 28
measurements
(unit: inch)
55
Current retail
sizing
conventions
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
to crotch height, 2.16at inseam length, 0.9(¼2.16 1.26) at crotch to knee height,
1.26at knee length, and 1.73at arm length.
Also, there was significant difference between the two groups for most girths and
widths. The petite group also had significantly smaller girths than the regular group by
0.86at bust, 0.72at waist, 1.24at hip, and 0.24at upper arm ( po0.05). The t-test on
the hip-waist drop showed that the petite group had a straighter body shape between
waist and hip ( po0.05). As shown above, petite size should be scaled down from
regular size differently at each location.
5.3 Measurement differences for petite and regular size women vs differences between
petite and regular sizing systems
Table IV shows the mean differences for six measurements between petite and regular
women from the SizeUSA data and those for the petite and regular sizing systems of 14
companies. There were significant differences at bust girth (0.9), waist girth (0.7), and
hip girth (1.2) between the petite and the regular groups in the SizeUSA data. Six (A-F
in Table IV) companies assigned no difference between the two sizing systems, and
four companies (G-I) reduced the three girths by 0.5. Two companies ( J-K) reduced
them by 1from their regular chart measurements on the petite chart, the similar result
as for the SizeUSA data. The final three companies (L-N) set different entries for bust,
waist, and hip measurements. These companies might be targeting specific petite
women with different bust-waist-hip proportions, or they might misunderstand petite
womens actual body sizes.
For leg length, six companies reduced 3from their regular size, but the difference
between the two groups for the SizeUSA data were 2.2. Further, (H) company assigned
2.5and (L) company did 2.75, so apparel companies tended to reduce more inseam
length than actually needed.
For arm length, the difference between the two groups from SizeUSA data were 1.7;
however, three companies (A, E, and L) reduced the length by 1.25. Therefore, we
estimate petite size consumers may find their sleeve lengths to be longer than their
actual arm length.
5.4 PCs extracted for petite womens body classification
Three PCs were extracted (see Table V). Three PCs indicated a 77.3 percent variation
for the 14 variables. The first PC had high loadings with girth and width
measurements, while the second PC had a high correlation of upper body length and
pelvic length. The last PC had high loadings for lower body height and arm length.
Therefore, we interpreted PC1 as body volume,PC2 as torso length,and PC3 as
limb length.
5.5 Classification of petite size womens body shapes
To categorize the body shapes, we conducted two statistical analyses: first, X-means
cluster analysis using R program; second, K-means cluster analysis using the statistical
package SPSS 17.0. The X-means clustering method determined that two cluster should
not be further split, so suggested that two-group model is appropriate. The results are
as shown in Table VI. When two groups were categorized, they showed significant
differences in three PC scores, but the differences in PC1 scores (body volume) was
small. Group 1 relatively had the short torso length and long limbs, while Group 2 has
the reverse shape of Group 1.
56
IJCST
28,1
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
Measurement differences for petite and regular sizing systems used in apparel companies
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N)
Measurements
Mean differences
between petite
and regular size
groups in
SizeUSA data
Lands
End
Eddie
Bauer
Coldwater
Creek Express
L.L.
Bean Gap Talbots
Old
Navy
Banana
Republic
Ralph
Lauren
J.
Crew
Ann
Taylor
New
York &
Company
Jones
New
York
Bust girth 0.9** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 0.5
Waist girth 0.7** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1
Hip girth 1.2** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 1
Crotch height
(inseam length) 2.2** 3 3 3 3 3 2.5 3 2.75
Center back neck
to wrist (arm
length) 1.7** 1.25 1.5 1.25 1.5 1.25
Stature 3.7** 4 4.5 4 3 5 6 7 5 5 3
Note: **po0.01
Table IV.
Range of differences
for petite and regular
groups in SizeUSA
data compared to
actual differences
between petite and
regular sizing
systems used in
apparel companies
(unit: inches)
57
Current retail
sizing
conventions
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
K-means cluster method did not suggest the optimal number of clusters, so we should judge
which number of the clusters would be appropriate for our study. After dividing petite size
women into two to five groups, we concluded that four groups were the most appropriate
designation to represent petite womens body shapes accurately for the following reasons.
When two groups were categorized, they did not show significant differences in PC1
scores (body volume). When three groups were categorized, Groups 1 and 2 had similar
PC1 scores, even though they were significantly different ( po0.05). In the five-group
model, Group 1 represented only about 5 percent of the total data.
In the four-group model, the data relatively evenly distributed (Group 1: 30.0 percent,
Group 2 was 30.8 percent, Group 3 was 23.6 percent, and Group 4 was 15.4 percent).
Table VII shows that the overall Ffor the one-way ANOVA was statistically different
(po0.05). Front silhouettes and profile sketches of each body shape group are shown
in Figure 1 for comparison. The main body shape characteristics of each body shape
group were:
Group 1 (top petite) had the shortest torso and relatively average limbs.
Group 2 (bottom petite) had the shortest limbs and an average torso length.
Group 3 (regular petite) had a relatively longer torso and long limbs.
Group 4 (plus size) had larger body volume.
Principal component
Components Variables 1 2 3
Body volume
(girths and widths)
Bust girth/height 0.963 0.010 0.024
Waist girth/height 0.958 0.071 0.060
High hip girth/height 0.957 0.051 0.092
Hip girth/height 0.948 0.111 0.075
Across shoulder/height 0.890 0.053 0.076
Max-thigh girth/height 0.881 0.152 0.014
Cross back width/height 0.785 0.094 0.083
Cross chest width/height 0.670 0.027 0.052
Torso length
(waist and pelvic length)
Waist length, front/height 0.332 0.829 0.124
Waist length, back/height 0.008 0.807 0.269
Pelvic length (waist-crotch height)/height 0.471 0.801 0.104
Limb length
(arm and leg length)
Knee height/height 0.032 0.108 0.848
Crotch height/height 0.297 0.144 0.830
Arm length, shoulder to wrist/height 0.105 0.036 0.700
Total rotation sums of squared loadings 6.725 2.070 2.029
% of variance 48.039 14.787 14.496
Cumulative % 48.039 62.826 77.322
Table V.
Rotated component
matrix for principal
component analysis
of 14 body
measurements by
stature ratios
Body shape group
12
Components (n¼740) (n¼873) tSig.
Body volume 0.083 0.070 9.442 0.002
Torso length 0.721 0.611 1,271.676 0.000
Limb length 0.490 0.416 412.469 0.000
Table VI.
Mean for three
principal components
for two shape
groups from X-mean
analysis
58
IJCST
28,1
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
The X-means analysis generated separation of the data into distinct two clusters, but
we did not use clustering to look for the best separation possible of the data, but to
determine factors and define body measurements for our solution to sizing issues.
A number of petite size women who shop petite size for blouses, jackets, and other tops,
but buy their jeans and pants from regular sizing systems, and that the reverse is true.
We also know that some women shop only in petite, and in addition that there is a
demand for plus size petite (e.g. Jessica London and Lane Bryant). The two-cluster
solution from X-means analysis does not address the needs of the overall petite women
or of the plus size petite.
62”(5’2”)
16”
Group 1 (Top Petite) Group 2 (Bottom Petite) Group 3 (Regular Petite) Group 4 (Plus Petite)
Group 1 (Top Petite) Group 2 (Bottom Petite) Group 3 (Regular Petite) Group 4 (Plus Petite)
62”(5’2”)
20
3430
14
39
1838
14
30
38
19
3820
3420
18
33
14
40
1448
12
40
12
28
34
10
34
17
1417
1216
12
11
12
9
349
18
27 ”
316 27 ”
14
28 ”
38
Figure 1.
Front and side
views of four
body shapes
Body shape group
Components
1
(n¼486)
2
(n¼497)
3
(n¼381)
4
(n¼249) FSig.
Body volume 0.436
c
0.465
c
0.105
b
1.618
a
607.666 0.000
Torso length 0.873
d
0.305
b
1.015
a
0.457
c
615.203 0.000
Limb length 0.444
b
0.830
d
0.724
a
0.318
c
374.826 0.000
Note: aWbWc
Table VII.
Mean for three
principal components
for four shape
groups from
K-means analysis
59
Current retail
sizing
conventions
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
Therefore, we chose four-group model from K-means cluster analysis. No study has
analyzed actual petite size womens body proportions based on anthropometric
data to validate these different configurations. Our classification results show why
a number of petite women should buy top and bottom clothing in different size
categories, namely, that almost 60 percent of petite women (Group 1 (top petite, 30
percent), Group 2 (bottom petite, 30.8 percent)) did have different top and bottom
proportions. Apparel companies should clearly acknowledge these customers
needs because when petite women wish to purchase dress or coat items, both the top
and the bottom must fit well.
We also learned that 15.4 percent of the petite women can be classified as the plus
sizegroup. However, when we searched the petite size producers, only a few firms, such
as Talbots, Lane Bryant, and LandsEnd, actually produced clothing for plus size
women. Even though the plus size petite market is not a small one, apparel firms remain
rather shortsighted about this market. The apparel industry should acknowledge the
growing potential of the plus size petite clothing market and address it.
5.6 Body measurement of four petite sizing charts vs ASTM and industry sizing charts
Table VIII presented the results of comparison of mean values for the primary
measurements of four body shape groups to values of mid-sizes in ASTM D7878 and
averages of 14 industry sizing systems from one-way ANOVA analysis.
ASTM D7878 represented girth measurements of the industry sizing systems
almost perfectly. Of our four shape groups, the ASTM D7878 generally represented
top petitesizing. However, the other shape group sizing systems were different from
ASTM D7878.
Table IX presented the mean differences between petite and regular sizes for four
body shape groups, the ASTM standards (ASTM D5585 (regular size)-ASTM D7878
(petite size)) and industry sizing (regular size-petite size). Even when apparel companies
have different regular sizing systems, they can develop their petite sizing systems
further by deducting the values shown in Table VIII. The differences gathered from the
ASTM standards were generally similar to those for the top petitegroup. The rest of
the shape groups were different from the ASTM standards.
6. Significances, limitations, and future research opportunities
This study is significant in that it is the first to analyze the clothing industry petite
sizing system utilizing population data. This study focusses on petite sizing for women
aged 18-35, while ASTM D7878 was developed for women aged 18-55. We also
categorized petite size womens body shapes using PC analysis and cluster analysis
and suggested new primary base size body measurements for each shape group.
The point of the current study is not to simply downsizeregular measurements, but
create new sizing standards that more precisely fit the actual needs of petite women in
search of clothes that fit them well by providing sizing standards targeting specific
body shapes within the petite population. If companies do target-specific body shapes
within the petite population, they will provide better fit for this sub-group. The results
of this study can assist apparel companies in revising their petite sizing systems and
thus better understand petite size womens bodies and figure types and improve the fit
of their petite size clothing.
The limitation of this study was basing the analysis of charts by only 14 companies.
Therefore, the results may not be representative of all actual petite sizing systems in
60
IJCST
28,1
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
Petite groups in current study
Measurements
ASTM D7878
(average of sizes 8 and 10) Top petite Bottom petite Regular petite Plus petite Industry FSig.
Height and length
Stature 62 1/2
a
62 1/2
a
61 5/8
a
62 1/16
a
61 15/16
a
62
a
13.455 0.000**
Back waist length 15 3/8
d
16
c,d
17 1/4
a,b
17 1/2
a
16 1/2
b,c
189.621 0.000**
Waist to hip length 7 5/8 (curvy)
b,c
7 1/2 (straight)
b,c
9
a
8
a,b
7
b,c
6 5/8
c
154.534 0.000**
Waist to crotch length 10 (curvy)
b,c
10 5/8
b
9 5/8
c,d
9
d
11 1/2
a
369.653 0.000**
9 7/8 (straight)
c
10 5/8
b
9 5/8
c
9
c
11 1/2
a
369.679 0.000**
Crotch height 28 1/2
a,b
28 3/4
a,b
27 3/16
c
28 3/8
b
27 1/4
c
29 1/2
a
123.284 0.000**
Knee height 16 1/2
b,c
17 1/4
a
16 1/4
c
17 1/8
a,b
16 5/8
a,b,c
147.360 0.000**
Center back neck to wrist length 28 5/8
b
27 3/4
b
26 1/2
c
28 1/16
b
28 1/4
b
30 1/8
a
114.230 0.000**
Shoulder to wrist length 21 1/8
a
20 3/4
a
19 3/8
b
20 3/4
a
20 1/8
a,b
113.723 0.000**
Girth and width
Bust girth 36 3/4
b
37 1/4
b
36 3/4
b
39 1/2
b
46 1/2
a
36 1/8
b
292.731 0.000**
Waist girth 29 (curvy)
c
30 1/4
b,c
30 3/8
b,c
33 1/4
b
40 1/2
a
29
c
334.274 0.000**
30 1/2 (straight)
b,c
30 1/4
b,c
30 3/8
b,c
33 1/4
b
40 1/2
a
29
c
334.008 0.000**
Hip girth 39 3/4 (curvy), 39 (straight)
b
39 1/8
b
38 1/4
b
40 1/4
b
48 1/2
a
39
b
342.446 0.000**
Across shoulder width 15 1/6
b
14 1/8
c
14 1/16
c
14 5/8
b,c
16 3/16
a
217.813 0.000**
Note: aWbWcWd
Table VIII.
Mid-size ASTM
D7878, averages of
four petite groups
compared to
averages of 14
apparel companies
61
Current retail
sizing
conventions
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
the garment industry. In the future, researchers need to obtain spec sheets that
include measurements from more companies to validate the results of this
study. While this study analyzed only a specific population of US women ages
18-35, future research needs to analyze older womens petite sizes, petite women of
different ethnicities, and even mens petite sizing. This study can be considered as the
first step in revising the entire petite sizing for all those in need of that kind
of clothing.
References
ASTM International (2013), ASTM D7878-13: Standard Tables of Body Measurements
for Adult Female Misses Petite Figure Type, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Barbaro, M. (2006), Wheres the petite department? Going the way of the petticoat,The
New York Times, 28 May, p. A1(L).
Chain Store Guide (2012), Market Research: The Top 100 Apparel Specialty Companies, Chain
Store Guide, Tampa, FL.
Faust, M.E. and Carrier, S. (2010), Womens wear sizing: a new labelling system,Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 88-126.
Faust, M.E., Carrier, S. and Baptiste, P. (2006), Variations in Canadian womens ready-to-
wear standard sizes,Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 71-83.
Huckabay, D.A. (1992), Perceived body cathexis and garment fit and style proportion problems
of petite women, unpublished masters thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA.
International Organization for Standardization (1991), ISO/TR 10652: Standard Sizing Systems
for Clothes, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
Petite groups in current study
Measurements ASTM
Top
petite
Bottom
petite
Regular
petite
Plus
petite Industry
Height and length
Stature 3 3 1/4** 4** 3 5/8** 3 7/8** 4 3/4
Back waist length 3/4 5/8* 5/8 1 1/8 7/8
Waist to hip length 3/8 (curvy)
1/2 (straight) 3/8 1* 5/8 3/8
Waist to crotch length 0 (curvy)
1/8 (straight) 1/4** 7/8 3/8 3/4
Crotch height 2 2 1/8** 2 3/8** 1 3/4* 2 1/4** 2 7/8
Knee height 1 3/8 1 1/4** 1 3/8** 1* 1 1/4
Center neck to wrist length 2 1/8 1 5/8 1 7/8** 1 3/8* 2 1 3/8
Shoulder to wrist length 1 7/8 1 1/2 1 5/8** 1 1/8* 1 5/8
Girth and width
Bust girth 0 5/8* 1** 1/2 2 1/2 3/8
Waist girth 1/2 1/2 5/8 5/8 2 1/4 3/8
Hip girth 0 3/4 1 1/2 1 2 1/2 3/8
Across shoulder width 1/2 1/2** 3/8** 1/2 3/4
Notes: *po0.05; **po0.01
Table IX.
Measurement
differences for
ASTM D5585 and
ASTM D7878,
regular and petite
groups in SizeUSA
data, and average
differences between
petite and regular
sizing charts in 14
apparel industries
62
IJCST
28,1
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
Jones, M.R. and Giddings, V.L. (2010), Tall womens satisfaction with the fit and style
of tall womens clothing,Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 58-71.
Just-Style (2008), Global Market Review of Outsize Clothing Forecasts to 2014, Bromsgrove.
Kim, S.H. (1993), Analysis of petite-sized womens body proportions related to garment-fit,
doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Korean Standard Association (2009), KS K 0051: Sizing Systems for Female Adults Garments,
Korean Standard Association, Seoul.
Lee, J.Y., Istook, C.L., Nam, Y.J. and Park, S.M. (2007), Comparison of body shape between USA
and Korean women,International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, Vol. 19
No. 5, pp. 374-391.
Liu, N.N. (2011), Women struggle with being a size smaller than small, available at: www.
nwasianweekly.com/2011/05/women-struggle-with-being-a-size-smaller-than-small/
(accessed January 31, 2014).
McRoberts, L. (2005), Petite women: fit and body shape analysis, unpublished masters thesis,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
National Bureau of Standards (1958), Voluntary Product Standard CS 215-58: Body
Measurements for the Sizing of Womens Patterns and Apparel, US Department of
Commerce, Washington, DC.
National Bureau of Standards (1971), Voluntary Product Standard PS 42-70: Body Measurements
for the Sizing of Womens Patterns and Apparel, US Department of Commerce,
Washington, DC.
NPD Group (2012), Women Special Sizes Reports: Tops and Bottoms and Bra and Panty, NPD
Group, Port Washington, NY.
OBrien, R. and Shelton, W.C. (1941), Womens Measurements for Garment and Pattern
Construction, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Park, J., Nam, Y., Choi, K., Lee, Y. and Lee, K. (2009), Apparel consumersbody type and their
shopping characteristics,Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 372-393.
Petrova, A. (2007), Creating sizing systems, in Ashdown, S.P. (Ed.), Sizing in Clothing,
Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, pp. 57-87.
Rasband, J.A. and Liechty, E.G. (2006), Fabulous Fit, Fairchild Publications, New York, NY.
Salusso-Deonier, C.J., Borkowski, J.J., Reich, N. and Goldsberry, E. (2006), An alternative
approach to sizing apparel for women 55 and older,Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 96-111.
Salusso-Deonier, C.J., Delong, M.R., Martin, F.B. and Krohn, K.R. (1985), A multivariate method
of classifying body form variation for sizing womens apparel,Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 38-45.
Shim, S. and Bickle, M.C. (1993), Women 55 years and older as catalog shoppers: satisfaction
with apparel fit and catalog attributes,Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 11
No. 4, pp. 53-64.
Shim, S. and Kotsiopulos, A. (1990), Womens physical size, body-cathexis, and shopping for
apparel,Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 1031-1042.
Simmons, K.P., Istook, C.L. and Devarajan, P. (2004), Female figure identification technique
(FFIT) for apparel, part II: development of shape sorting software,Journal of Textile and
Apparel, Technology and Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
63
Current retail
sizing
conventions
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
Song, H.K. and Ashdown, S.P. (2011), Categorization of lower body shapes for adult
females based on multiple view analysis,Textile Research Journal, Vol. 81 No. 9,
pp. 914-931.
Textile Clothing Technology Incorporated (2004), SizeUSA, The National Sizing Survey
Women, Textile Clothing Technology Incorporated, Cary, NC.
Verdict Report (2011), UK Niche Clothing Segments 2011, Verdict Publications, London.
Corresponding author
Hwa Kyung Song can be contacted at: hksong@khu.ac.kr
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
64
IJCST
28,1
Downloaded by HONGIK UNIVERSITY At 18:27 10 November 2016 (PT)
... A 3D scanner scans the person's body, and then a computer algorithm extracts the measurements from the scan data. This method is the most expensive of the three, but it is also the most accurate [9]. Classifying body shape is a challenging task with many applications in the fashion industry. ...
Article
The global fashion industry plays a pivotal role in the global economy, and addressing fundamental issues within the industry is crucial for developing innovative solutions. One of the most pressing challenges in the fashion industry is the mismatch between body shapes and the garments of individuals they purchase. This issue is particularly prevalent among individuals with non-ideal body shapes, exacerbating the challenges faced. Considering inter-individual variability in body shapes is essential for designing and producing garments that are widely accepted by consumers. Traditional methods for determining human body shape are limited due to their low accuracy, high costs, and time-consuming nature. New approaches, utilizing digital imaging and deep neural networks (DNN), have been introduced to identify human body shape. In this study, the Style4BodyShape dataset is used for classifying body shapes into five categories: Rectangle, Triangle, Inverted Triangle, Hourglass, and Apple. In this paper, the body shape segmentation of a person is extracted from the image, disregarding the surroundings and background. Then, Various pre-trained models, such as ResNet18, ResNet34, ResNet50, VGG16, VGG19, and Inception v3, are used to classify the segmentation results. Among these pre-trained models, the Inception V3 model demonstrates superior performance regarding f1-score evaluation metric and accuracy compared to the other models.
... Acquiring accurate anthropometric data in a short time is critical for the apparel industry, since up-to-date anthropometric data can assist ready-to-wear apparel companies in identifying sectors of target market customers, and in analyzing and updating their sizing systems and patterns (Kim et al., 2016). As a traditional method to collect anthropometric data, body landmarks are manually marked on the body and the measurements are collected using direct measurement instruments such as measuring tape and calipers (Lu & Wang, 2008;Markiewicz et al., 2017). ...
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study is to develop algorithms for automatic landmark extraction on women with various upper body types and body inclinations using the Grasshopper algorithm editor, which enables the user to interact with the 3D modeling interface. First, 15 landmarks were defined based on the morphological features of 3D body surfaces and clothing applications, from which automatic landmark extraction algorithms were developed. To verify the accuracy of the algorithms on various body shapes, this study determined criteria for key body shape factors (BMI, neck slope, upper body slope, and shoulder slope) that influence each landmark position, classified them into body shape groups and sorted the scan samples for each body type using the 6th SizeKorea database. The statistical differences between the scan-derived measurements and the SizeKorea measurements were compared, with an allowable tolerance of ISO 20685. In the case of landmarks with significant differences, the algorithm was modified. It was found that the algorithms were successfully applied to various upper body shapes, which improved the reliability and accuracy of the algorithm.
... Petite women are defined differently by various authors and researchers both nationally and internationally. Defty (1988), Winks (1990), Barona-McRoberts (2005) Bailey (2010) and Kim et al. (2016) define a petite woman as being short in body stature. However, Bailey (2010) suggests that petite women's garments are manufactured principally with an emphasis on body height, which is 5'4" (163 cm) and below. ...
Article
Full-text available
Developing size charts for petite South African women from 3D body scanned E-tape measurements 98 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to develop upper and lower body dimensions' size charts for a sample of 200 petite South African women aged 20-54 years residing in Gauteng and with a height of 163 cm or below as determined from their e-tape anthropometric measurements obtained using a 3D full body scanner. The most prevalent body shape was found to be pear shaped (n=180). The size charts were evaluated by comparing the body measurements for a size 10/34 with a correspondingly sized commercial petite mannequin and the respective fit of shirt and trouser garments manufactured to fit a sample of nine size 10/34 women. The findings show that the 3D e-tape generated measurements from the size charts for the size 10/34 petite women produced an overall better quality of fit than the garments made using the e-tape measurements of the size 10/34 petite tailoring mannequin. The study highlights the current limitations of the petite women sizing charts in use in the South African apparel industry.-Ms MM Phasha*
... Bu nedenle niş gruplarındaki kadın tüketicilerin çeşitli uyum sorunları yaşayacakları (Y. Kim, Song & Ashdown, 2016;Nkambule, 2010;Romeo, 2013;Suller Zor & Vuruşkan, 2017) birçok araştırmada öngörülmekte ve hazır giyim şirketlerinin bu konuya özel bir eğilim göstermesi gerekmektedir. ...
Article
Full-text available
ZET Araştırmanın amacı Türkiye'de internet üzerinden satış yapan hazır giyim markalarının, giyim alışverişlerinde tüketiciye sundukları giysi boyutlandırma bilgilerini incelemektir. Çalışmanın materyalini markaların on-line satış sayfalarında bulunan giysi boyut çizelgeleri ve görselleri oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma örneklemine alınan markaların seçiminde; üretim faaliyetlerinin, tüketici kitlesinin genişliği ve kapsamı başlıca ölçüttür. Belirlenen ölçütleri en fazla karşılayan beş hazır giyim markasının internet alışveriş sitelerindeki giysi boyutlandırma bilgileri taranmıştır. Markalar isim yerine kodlanarak tanımlanmıştır. Verilerin taranmasında araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen gözlem formları kullanılmıştır. Veriler, yazılı ve görsel niteliklerine göre incelenmiştir. Veriler, tüketicilerin giysi satın alma davranışlarında bu verilerin kapsamının yeterliliği ve anlaşılırlığı üzerinden tartışılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda; markaların genel olarak giysi boyutlandırmayla ilgili temel bilgileri sundukları ancak ürün çeşitlilikleri söz konusu olduğunda içeriğin yetersiz kaldığı; ölçüm yerlerini gösteren şekillerde eksikliklerin bulunduğu tespit edilmiştir. Markaların giysi boyutlandırma çizelgeleri karşılaştırıldığında; hem beden numarası dağılımlarındaki aralıklarda hem de üst ve alt beden ölçülendirmelerinde farklılıklar bulunmuştur. Sonuçlar, internetten alışverişte markaları tercih eden tüketicilerin beklenti ve ihtiyaçlarını karşılayıp karşılayamayacağı bakımından yorumlanmaya çalışılmıştır. ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to examine clothing sizing information that the apparel brands in Turkey offer to the consumers in the purchase of their clothes on the internet. The material of the study consists of clothing size charts and visuals on the on-line sales pages of the brands. The extent and extent of production activities, consumer mass is the main criterion in the selection of the brands taken into the research sample. The clothing sizing information on the internet shopping sites of the five apparel brands that fullfilled the most determined criteria were scanned.Brands are defined by coding instead of their names. Observation forms developed by the researchers were used in the screening of the data. Data were analyzed according to their written and visual qualities. The data were discussed in terms
... Bu nedenle niş gruplarındaki kadın tüketicilerin çeşitli uyum sorunları yaşayacakları (Y. Kim, Song & Ashdown, 2016;Nkambule, 2010;Romeo, 2013;Suller Zor & Vuruşkan, 2017) birçok araştırmada öngörülmekte ve hazır giyim şirketlerinin bu konuya özel bir eğilim göstermesi gerekmektedir. ...
Chapter
Female body shape plays a vital role in the development of standard sizing systems, which further leads to providing appropriate clothing fit. Fit is not only a concern in regular sizes, but its severity is extrapolated in the case of plus sizes. Body proportions of curvy women do not change proportionally; therefore, there is a need to analyze body shapes for this group. The body positivity movement impels worldwide researchers to work in this category. The current study aims to identify Indian plus-size women’s body shapes using the modified Female Figure Identification Technique (FFIT) for apparel mathematical formulas, drop value, and bust-to-waist ratio method. A total of 400 subjects from six Indian cities (Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Shillong) participated in the research. Four girth dimensions: bust, waist, hip, top hip, and height were used to analyze plus-size bodies. Three sizing systems were developed using three apparel body shape identification techniques to identify the best-suited approach for plus-size subjects. Then, these were compared against each other based on cover percentage, aggregate loss, number of size groups, and size rolls. FFIT-based sizing system was the most suited approach to developing a system for plus-size subjects.
Article
Designers require consumer characteristics to develop enticing shopping apps. This paper investigates if attitudes toward attitude toward/ motivation to engage in m-Commerce are more appropriate characteristics than age and gender through statistical analysis. We reveal two groups rooted in attitude and motivation through two-step cluster analysis and apply binomial logistic regression to determine their association with shopping motivations. We show that age and gender have no association with multichannel retail importance or app design. We encourage practitioners to abandon gender stereotypes, design apps based on attitudinal and motivational characteristics, and use apps to increase convenience over brand enthusiasm.
Article
Full-text available
Body shapes are generally identified by subjective comparisons of body silhouettes or by calculating ratios of girths. In this study, we developed a reliable and objective categorization method for the lower body shapes of women using principal component (PC) analysis and cluster analysis. A total of 2,488 women aged 18—35 within the 90th percentile of body mass index (34.14) were selected from SizeUSA body scan data. Body measurements chosen for the analysis include buttocks angle and 14 proportional measures of widths, depths, front/back depths, girths, and front/back arcs of key lower body locations. Five PCs were extracted, but only the first three components made a strong contribution to explained variance (PC1: waist to top hip silhouette, PC2: top hip to full hip silhouette, and PC3: buttocks prominence). However, PC4 (abdomen prominence) and PC5 (slope from abdomen point to front hip point) were also critical for representing a distinctive shape. They had a single variable, and therefore each variable was retained as z-score. Three body shape groups were categorized by K-means cluster analysis using three PC scores and two z-scores. In order to provide a simple and intuitive application method for defining a new person’s body shape group, we developed two discriminant functions using raw measurements. Body shape can be classified within our system from body measurements by calculating function scores and comparing them with a bivariate plot of function scores of the body shape groups.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to examine Principal Component Sizing System (PCSS) methodology as an alternative approach to advancing the mathematical efficiency and effectiveness of apparel sizing for women 55 and older (Salusso-Deonier, 1982). The 1994 American Societyfor Testing and Materials (ASTM) national body measurement databasefor Women 55 and Older was classified using the PCSS method (ASTM, 2001). PCSS-55+ has a thickness-by-length structure similar to the current domestic sizing system. Only 25 sizes were needed to encompass the same range as compared to the 55 sizes within the current sizing standard. The PCSS method correctly classified 95% of subjects within 25 size categories and demonstrates potential as an alternative methodfor creating a simplified and marketable apparel sizing systems. With appropriate methods and databases, revision of US. apparel sizingfor women of all ages can provide long awaited valid and reliable sizing.
Article
Full-text available
Sizing standards used in the United States that identify the body measurements used in the design and development of clothing were established from identified "best practices" of the apparel industry. However, the industry as a whole has not adopted a single system of clothing sizing. We know that manufacturers and retailers use their own sizing systems as a marketing tool, convinced that this is a differential advantage of their product for their market. Regardless of the sizing systems used, however, almost all are based on the myth that humans have mathematically proportional bodies and that they grow in proportional ways. In addition, the shapes and proportions of today's American population differ greatly from the shapes of the generations before. So a variety of issues impact our inability to 'fit' the American customer of today. These fit issues continue to be a growing concern. Mass customization methodologies appear to provide a "solution" by allowing customized fit of apparel. A significant underlying problem exists, however, when attempting to alter a garment for fit based on one standard shaped garment product. "Extreme" alterations seldom provide the desired fit in the final garment. This discovery has led us to understand that optimal customization can only occur if customization starts from the most correctly shaped garment for each customer's "figure type". Thus a system was developed to identify female figure types using 3-D body scan data. This article, as Part Two of two, describes the process involved in the development of an expert shape sorting system using 3D body scan data. This software will enable the identification of personal body shapes, allowing the use of the most correctly shaped garment for the customization procedure that will better ensure satisfactory fit of the final garment.
Book
The 2nd Edition of Fabulous Fit combines a user-friendly approach to the fitting process with a dynamic visual presentation of technical procedures. Illustrations and photos guide you through the process of identifying a figure variation, recognizing incorrect fit and its cause, measuring the body and corresponding pattern area, adjusting the pattern, and altering garments. Fabulous Fit is a complete fit book, with solutions for 62 figure variations for the bodice, sleeves, skirts, and pants. This book is the essential text for coursework in fashion selection, fitting, and alteration.
Article
Differences in satisfaction with the fit of apparel purchased through catalogs and catalog attributes among three groups (petite, medium, and tall) of women 55 years and older were studied. A national random sample of 3,000 was obtained from two major catalog companies lists of catalogue recipients. The 872 respondents, 55 years and older, were included in the analysis. Overall satisfaction level with 26 specific apparel fit sites was relatively low for the entire sample, especially in relation to length, including blouseslsweater length, leg length of pants, skirtldress length, and jacket length. The petite group showed the least satisfaction with 21 fit sites, while the tall group showed the least satisfaction with 2 fit sites. In terms of catalog attributes, the petite group was least satisfied with Variety of Product Selection factor (e.g., style, color, fabric) and General Size and Fit factor (e.g., sizing definition, ordering information). Managerial implications for apparel manufacturers and catalog retailers to increase consumer satisfaction are given.
Article
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the relationships between consumers' body types and characteristics such as shopping orientation, past experience with fit problems, attitudes toward internet shopping and attitudes toward 3‐D body scanning. Design/methodology/approach This study collected body data from 441 Korean females who participated in 3‐D body scanning. Using a hierarchical cluster analysis, the body scanning identified five body types. Then body types and shopping characteristics variables were analyzed. Findings Slim respondents showed significantly higher hedonic shopping orientation and their attitude to internet shopping was positive, since they evaluated using the internet as being “fun”. By contrast, respondents with larger body types considered the convenience of internet shopping to be the most important feature. Respondents, regardless of their body types, regarded 3‐D body scanning as an enjoyable, futuristic and interesting experience. Moreover, respondents showed a high inclination to spend more money for customization services which utilize the 3‐D scanning technique. Originality/value This study analyzed Korean females' body shapes using 3‐D scanned body measurements. This study can contribute to integrate knowledge in the body measurement sector and the consumer behavior sector.
Article
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess tall women's satisfaction with the fit and style of apparel for tall women. Design/methodology/approach A total of 75 US women, who were at least 5 feet 8 inches and between 18 and 54 years old, were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with misses‐size and tall‐size apparel, in general, and with seven garment categories (jackets/blazers/coats, button‐up blouses, pullover tops/sweaters, skirts, jeans, pants, lingerie). Findings T ‐tests revealed that participants were more satisfied with the fit of tall‐size apparel than with the fit of misses‐size apparel, but were more satisfied with the style of misses‐size than with the style of tall‐size apparel. In addition, participants most frequently used the misses‐size designation to purchase clothing and rated style as more important than fit. Despite reported dissatisfaction with the fit of misses‐size apparel, participants appeared willing to sacrifice fit to have the desired styles. Research limitations/implications The study was limited to US women in Southwestern Virginia. Thus preferences affected by regional product offerings may be reflected in the responses. Practical implications The paper provides discussion on implications of mass customization in resolving the conflict tall women report between the desire for properly fitting apparel and the desire for current style trends. Originality/value No existing empirical research has examined tall women's satisfaction with products specifically designed for their special anthropometric and style preference needs. This research serves as the foundation for extending research for the market segment from an applied and basic research approach.
Article
Purpose To demonstrate that the current weaknesses in women's ready‐to‐wear size standardization charts originate not only in the obsolescence of the base data but also in the non‐adherence of order initiators to the suggested standard sizes. Design/methodology/approach Trouser manufacturers were selected in such a way as to cover the full price‐range spectrum. They provided their waist standard measurements and confirmed that they use the same measurements for all product lines. In‐store measurements were done. Garments were chosen at random from the selection offered in store and measured systematically. The specifications provided by the order initiators, the standard measurements prescribed, and the garment measures were all measured. Findings Results clearly indicate that order initiators do not adhere to the standard sizes charts and garment manufacturers are incapable or unwilling to produce garments that meet the order initiators’ specifications. Research limitations/implications Product selection and limited sample do not allow generalization yet clearly confirm this hypothesis. Practical implications Questions the pertinence of investing heavily in the modernization of standard sizes charts if the industry and the governments are not ready to impose adherence by order initiators. Originality/value Fills an important void in the existing literature as, although a number of authors have stated that garment manufacturers do not respect the standard sizes proposed by different national organizations or governmental agencies, the authors could not identify one research demonstrating this fact.
Article
The purpose of this study was to develop a multivariate method for structuring a sizing system for women's apparel. The I 977 suvey of U.S. Army women was the data base. The sample was limited to 1217 subjects who were White or Black and 17-3 5 years old. The methodology underlying PS 42-70, the current U.S. sizing standard, was studied relative to recent changes in body form classification, apparel production, and merchandising which support development of multivariate methodology. Examination of PS 42-70 as a classification system for the sample showed inadequate proportioning of overall body dimensions, particularlyshoulder breadth and body segment lengths. The experimental method used components 1 and 2 to summarize body form variation as the relationship between body thickness and length. A Principal Component Sizing System (PCSS) was constructed by partitioning the distribution of principal components 1 by 2 into 26 sizes. A per subject comparison of "goodness of fit" of PS 42-70 and PCSS showed PCSS consistently closer to subjecfs' overall body proportions than PS 42-70. The multivariate relationship between body thickness and length is fundamental to body form and size variation. Our results indicate that PCSS better represents that relationship for the sample studied.