Average American women’s clothing size: comparing National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys (1988–2010) to ASTM International Misses & Women’s Plus Size clothing

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to determine the current average clothing size of adult American women. Secondary data of average body measurements from the most recently published National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys were compared to ASTM International industry clothing size standards. Findings suggest that, contrary to popular assumptions, the average American woman’s (AAW’s) clothing size is larger than anticipated. The AAW wears between a Misses size 16–18, which corresponds to a Women’s Plus size 20W, with greater distinctions found when considering race and ethnicity. It is suggested that updating Misses and Plus-size clothing standards should be a major priority.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tfdt20
Download by: [Washington State University Libraries ], [Deborah Christel] Date: 31 August 2016, At: 07:48
International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and
Education
ISSN: 1754-3266 (Print) 1754-3274 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tfdt20
Average American women’s clothing size:
comparing National Health and Nutritional
Examination Surveys (1988–2010) to ASTM
International Misses & Women’s Plus Size clothing
Deborah A. Christel & Susan C. Dunn
To cite this article: Deborah A. Christel & Susan C. Dunn (2016): Average American women’s
clothing size: comparing National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys (1988–2010)
to ASTM International Misses & Women’s Plus Size clothing, International Journal of Fashion
Design, Technology and Education, DOI: 10.1080/17543266.2016.1214291
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2016.1214291
Published online: 05 Aug 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 5
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Average American women’s clothing size: comparing National Health and
Nutritional Examination Surveys (1988–2010) to ASTM International Misses &
Women’s Plus Size clothing
Deborah A. Christel and Susan C. Dunn
Department of Apparel Merchandising, Design and Textiles, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study is to determine the current average clothing size of adult American
women. Secondary data of average body measurements from the most recently published
National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys were compared to ASTM International
industry clothing size standards. Findings suggest that, contrary to popular assumptions, the
average American woman’s (AAW’s) clothing size is larger than anticipated. The AAW wears
between a Misses size 16–18, which corresponds to a Women’s Plus size 20W, with greater
distinctions found when considering race and ethnicity. It is suggested that updating Misses and
Plus-size clothing standards should be a major priority.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 12 April 2016
Accepted 14 July 2016
KEYWORDS
Average American woman
(AAW); clothing size;
voluntary sizing standards;
plus-size apparel
1. Introduction
The US popular press recurrently reports on the increas-
ing rates of obesity, obesity-related diseases, and the
growing body size of American women. Today’s
women are larger and fit into a wider range of size cat-
egories than in previous decades. The women’s plus-
size category is a growing market segment with more
than two-thirds of American women classified as over-
weight or obese (Ogden, Carroll, Kit, & Flegal, 2014,
p. 808). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) defines an American woman as a female, 20 years
of age and older, and living in the United States of Amer-
ica (McDowell, Fryar, & Ogden, 2009, p. 18). Currently
in the US, women’s apparel sizing is arbitrary, non-
determinate, and differs among factors such as style,
age or size classification, and brand (Lee & Steen, 2014,
pp. 320–323). This lack of uniformity presents challenges
when discussing and classifying female populations and
individuals by clothing size and not by body
measurements.
Discussion of this topic, while voluminous, is often in
discord. A Google search for the phrase, ‘average Amer-
ican woman clothing size’results in roughly 4,350,000
hits. Most recently, a PR Web article stated, ‘size 14 is
the US average, but more than 60 percent of women
size 12 and over say that they can’t find clothing in the
same calibre as in standard sizes’(Corrigan, 2013).
Another market research company reported that ‘The
plus-size market usually refers to women’s size 14 and
up’(Plunkett, 2015). It therefore appears that the
majority of American women wear plus-size clothing.
Owing to the constraints of this manuscript, the authors
cannot give in-depth consideration to the full gamut of
articles and publications considering the average Amer-
ican woman (AAW) wearing clothing size 14 that appear
in published resources. Sample references, however,
include (Aagerup, 2010; Acosta, 2012; Almond, 2013;
Bogenrief, 2012; Crow, 2010; Elejalde-Ruiz, 2015;
Gruys, 2012; Monget, 2011; Otieno, Harrow, & Lea-
Greenwood, 2005; Peters, 2015; Scaraboto & Fischer,
2013). While these sources cite 14 as the average size,
they are doing so in a non-standard sizing context.
Although AAW’s size is a frequent topic of discussion,
the media rarely provide the citation or source of their
information. The consistent assertion of 14 as the aver-
age size sparked the researchers’interest into the validity
and accuracy of the AAW’sclothing size. While the 2004
publication of the SizeUSA national survey claims to be
an excellent database for size comparison, it is not avail-
able to the public (Alexander, Pisut, & Ivanescu, 2012,
p. 7). SizeUSA surveyed 6814 female respondents age
18 and over, and reported that the AAW is a size 14
(Croasmun, 2004). The media continues to assert that
the AAW wears a clothing size 14, while the fashion
industry categorises size 14 at the beginning of plus
size (Winn, 2004, p. 491). Unfortunately, the SizeUSA
© The Textile Institute and Informa UK Ltd 2016
CONTACT Deborah A. Christel deborah_christel@wsu.edu Department of Apparel Merchandising, Design and Textiles, Washington State University,
Johnson Hall Annex, Room C-15, PO BOX 646406, Pullman, WA, USA
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2016.1214291

survey data are over 10 years old. In order to determine
the accuracy of today’s female body measurements, this
study incorporated more recent data collected from the
CDC and compared the results to ASTM International
(ASTM-I) Body Measurements Related to Misses and
Women’s Plus Size Clothing.
2. Related literature
2.1. Voluntary sizing standards
ASTM-I (formerly known as the American Society for
Testing and Materials) is recognised as a leader in devel-
opment and delivery of voluntary consensus standards
and provides clothing size standards for females, includ-
ing Girls (regular & slim), Girls Plus, Juniors, Adult
Misses, Misses Maternity, Adult Misses Petite, Women
55+, and Women’s Plus (Subcommittee D13.55, n.d.).
In the US, however, standards are driven by the private
sector. Many standards are voluntary and developed
through consensus methods that reflect the needs of pro-
ducers and manufacturers, users and consumers, and the
government. The American National Standards Institute
(ANSI), a non-governmental and not-for-profit organis-
ation, coordinates the activities of the standards develop-
ment community in the US (A guide to United States
apparel and household textiles, 2013). Some apparel
standards are mandatory rather than voluntary. For
example, children’s pyjamas (A guide to United States
apparel and household textiles, 2013) must be flame-
resistant and self-extinguishing, while oil workers’cloth-
ing is also required to be fire-retardant (Occupational
Safety & Health Administration, 2010).
Within ASTM-I, each standard has a sponsoring
committee that governs recommendations. As technol-
ogy advances, ASTM-I requires each standard be revised
and re-approved by the committee at a minimum of
every eight years. If the deadline passes and the standard
is not revised or re-approved, ASTM-I considers it with-
drawn, inactive, and discontinued, as is the case with the
standard for Women’s Plus (ASTM D6960-04,2004).
Standards may be withdrawn with or without replace-
ment. Withdrawn standards are still available and used
by the public for informational purposes.
2.2. Review of American clothing sizing systems
Body and clothing sizes are concepts often used inter-
changeably. Anthropometric data collection, such as
that of the CDC’s publications, determines body size
and measurements, which are primarily used in health
contexts (Fryar, Gu, & Ogden, 2012). Anthropometric
data are generally defined as ‘the study of human body
measurements especially on a comparative basis’
(Anthropometry, n.d.). The National Health and Nutri-
tion Examination Survey (NHANES) and CDC anthro-
pometric data (Harrison & Robinette, 2002) contribute
to ASTM-I clothing size suggestions. However, individ-
ual apparel companies in the US ultimately govern labels
and clothing size with no legal regulation (Bubonia-
Clarke & Kontzias, 2012, p. 165).
Clothing sizes are typically determined relative to
figure types for merchandising classifications, such as
Juniors, Misses, and Women’s departments. Many
women’s apparel manufacturers base their current size
labelling on one of two resources: ASTM-I’s standard
tables of body measurements, or the US voluntary size
standards, which were published in 1958 and based on
data collected in the 1930’s (Brown & Rice, 2013, p. 202).
2.3. Merchandising classifications
Merchandising classification of apparel further compli-
cates sizing issues. Womenswear is divided into various
merchandising categories, independently determined
by each retail store. Three body types or size classifi-
cations for womenswear often correlate to the merchan-
dising categories. For example, Junior sizes are designed
to fit a short, slender, growing, and youthful figure. They
feature higher bust lines and higher waistlines than
Misses sizes. ASTM-I standards classify Junior sizes as
0–19 in odd numbers (ASTM D6829-02,2015).
The body type known as Misses, also called Missy
sizes, is intended to fit the average proportion and height
of American women (Lee & Steen, 2014, p. 277). Misses
sizing is designed for a fully developed female figure,
with breasts and hips, that has not yet experienced child-
birth or body ageing effects (Subcommittee D13.55, n.d.).
ASTM-I suggests Misses’sizes should range from 00 to
20; most Misses retailers, however, only carry up to a
size 12 or 14 (Alexander et al., 2012, p. 3).
The body type sizes designated Women’s are con-
sidered to fit adult women of an average height with
full, mature figures (Brown & Rice, 2013, p. 208; Bubo-
nia-Clarke & Kontzias, 2012, p. 165). ASTM-I does not
classify an independent category as Women’s. Rather,
ASTM-I provides Plus-size standards, which were pre-
viously designated as sizes 34–52 (Voluntary Product
Standards, 1971) but now are classified with the same
size designations as both Misses and Women. The sub-
jective definition of plus-size clothing is generally recog-
nised as beginning at a Women’s size 14 (Peters, 2015).
ASTM-I begins its standards for plus-size figure types
at size 14 with a W that distinguishes Women’s from
Misses (ASTM D6960-04,2004). However, ASTM-I
withdrew this standard in 2004 (ASTM D6960-04,
2D. A. CHRISTEL AND S. C. DUNN

2004). It is currently working to expand and clarify a
wider range of sizes that expands to a woman’s 32W
(ASTM WK41040, n.d.).
Many retailers have notable merchandising sections
that cater to age, figure type, and size stereotyped styles.
Although the stereotyping of size designations and ages
can be justified to a degree, no designated age range
falls under Juniors, Misses, Women’s, or Women’s
Plus Sizes. For example, the majority of Junior-size con-
sumers are young teenagers; so the styling of Junior
apparel is oriented to youthful trends. However, there
are exceptions to these generalisations, which make it
difficult for adult women with a Junior figure to find
a clothing style appropriate for their age, lifestyle, and
desired size (Burns & Bryant, 2002, p. 142). Many retai-
lers today, for example Wal-Mart, simply designate a
Juniors department, combine Misses and Women’s
without clarification of figure type, then have a separate
plus-size clothing section. As the US population has
become increasingly diverse in body shape and size,
clothing sizes have become even less reliable (Clifford,
2011) and more frustrating for many plus-size
consumers.
2.4. Anthropometric data collection
Government and private associations play a part in col-
lecting body size data to help understand body growth
patterns for tracking obesity and body shape and size.
However, there are few sources of public data from
which to draw information to help identify the shape
and size of the AAW. The most valid source of bench-
mark data for determining average American measure-
ments is the National Health and Nutritional
Examination Survey (NHANES). NHANES was most
recently conducted between 2007 and 2010 by the
CDC, which is housed under the US Department of
Health and Human Services (Fryar et al., 2012). The sur-
vey collected body measurements from a representative
sample of 5552 female respondents aged 20 years and
over in the US.
For decades, the CDC has tracked changes in body
height, weight, and various other measures of health
information using variations of the NHANES. However,
the publication dates and time span of data collection are
scattered. For example, data collected between 1988 and
1994 were published in 2009 (McDowell et al., 2009),
while data collected between 1999 and 2002 were pub-
lished four years earlier in 2005 (McDowell, Fryar,
Hirsch, & Ogden, 2005). While these disparities do not
inherently seem problematic, conflict can arise when
other governing bodies, such as ASTM-I, use the data
to develop sizing standards. With an information gap
of over 10 years, the most appropriate method to form
an up-to-date analysis of the AAW clothing size is to
access national and public anthropometric measure-
ments similar to that collected by SizeUSA.
3. Methodology
3.1. Analysis of secondary data
Secondary data review is one of several methods used for
obtaining information to asses or compare data.
Through the use of secondary data, the researchers
hoped to form a clearer, more detailed, and up-to-date
analysis of the clothing size worn by the AAW. Second-
ary data are data that has been collected, collated, and
analysed by other agencies, institutions, or bodies
(Cooper & Schindler, 2003). Databases consisting of
US physical examination information and clothing size
standards were utilised for the analysis.
To acquire secondary data containing physical exam-
ination information and average body measurements of
Americans, the researchers accessed the NHANES
from the CDC. The data sets used within this study
include:
.Anthropometric reference data for children and
adults: United States, 2007–2010, National Center
for Health Statistics (Fryar et al., 2012);
.Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and
Adults: United States, 2003–2006 (McDowell, Fryar,
Ogden, & Flegal, 2008);
.Anthropometric reference data for children and
adults: United States, 1999–2002 (McDowell et al.,
2005), and;
.Anthropometric reference data for children and
adults: United States, 1988–1994 (McDowell et al.,
2009).
The NHANES samples are reported to be representa-
tive of the population of the United States, and the results
may be generalised to describe the population.
The second source of data was collected from ASTM-I
Adult Female Misses Figure Type, Size Range 00–20
(ASTM, 5585-11,2011), and the Women’s Plus Size
Figure Types, Sizes 14W–32W (ASTM D6969-04,2004).
For the purpose of the study, the authors focused on
comparisons of waist measurement, which is a reliable
measurement to determine clothing size, and is the pri-
mary measurement from which pants sizes are derived
(Huang et al., 1999; Lee & Steen, 2014). The main part
of the study involved the production of tables to compare
the waist measurements from the CDC data sets to the
ASTM-I standards.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 3

4. Results
Tables 1 and 2were created using clothing sizes from the
data sets Adult Female Misses Figure Type, Size Range
00-20 (ASTM, 5585-11,2011), and the Women’s Plus
Size Figure Types, Sizes 14W–32W (ASTM D6969-04,
2004). The tables display the numeric size designation
with the corresponding waist circumference. Most nota-
bly, Women’s Plus-size 14 corresponds between Misses
size 10–12 and brings to light a complex problem. A
Plus-size woman with a 31 ½′′ waist actually wears a
smaller size designation in Misses.
Next, tables were created that compare the mean waist
measurements from four NHANES data sets from 1988
and 2010. This information is presented as three racial
and ethnic categories, as distinguished by the NHANES,
and is summarised in Tables 3–5. Each table displays the
years in which the data were collected, publication date,
sample size, the mean waist measurement in centimetres
and inches, and the corresponding ASTM size desig-
nation for Misses and Plus size.
Table 3 provides an overall illustration of collective
measurements for non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic
Black, and Mexican-American women.
It is evident that the AAW has increased in waist cir-
cumference over the past 21 years. Women’s waists have
increased 2.6′′ between 1988 and 2010. Comparison of
this data to ASTM-I in (Tables 1 &2) suggests that the
AAW, including White, Black and Mexican-American
races and ethnicities, now wears between a Misses size
16–18 which corresponds to a Women’s Plus size 20W.
Table 4 provides an overall illustration of collective
measurements for Non-Hispanic Black American
women.
For Non-Hispanic Black American woman, illus-
trated in (Table 4), the waist circumference increased
3.11′′ between 1988 and 2010. Comparison of this data
to the ASTM-I suggests that average non-Hispanic
Black American women currently wear between a Misses
18–20 which corresponds to a Women’s Plus size 22W.
Table 5 provides an overall illustration of collective
measurements for Mexican-American women.
From 1988 and 2010, Mexican-American Women
increased in waist circumference by 2.283′′. Comparison
of this data to the ASTM-I suggests that the average
Mexican-American woman, currently wears Misses size
18 that falls between a Women’s Plus size 20W–22W.
While shown in (Table 3), and reported in a summar-
ised, collated manner in the source data, American
women who identify as Caucasian were not reported
independently of Black and Mexican races and ethnici-
ties, thus making comparison between White, Black
and Mexican-American race and ethnicities not feasible.
However, the authors can see that independently, Black
American women increased in waist size by 3.11′′, fol-
lowed by the collective group by 2.6′′, and lastly
women who identified as Mexican American increased
waist size the least by 2.283′′.
5. Discussion
After comparing the data sets from NAHNES and ASTM-
I clothing size charts, the authors determined that the
notion of the AAW clothing size 14 was from one of
two sources. First, noted with an asterisk in (Table 3),
the CDC data published in 2009 were compared to
ASTM-I sizing charts and found to correspond to Misses
size 14. A second possibility is that many articles and
media reports refer to SizeUSA as the survey that con-
cluded the AAW wears clothing size 14 (Zernike, 2004).
Many articles, academic and otherwise, do not directly
cite or mention any source to this statistic’sorigin,
Table 1. ASTM-I standard tables of body measurements for adult
female Misses.
Size 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Waist 29 ½ 30 ½ 32 ¼ 34 36 38 ½ 40 ½
Note: Figure Type, Size Range 00–20 (ASTM, 5585-11,2011).
Source: © [ASTM International]. Reproduced by permission of Kathe Hooper
ASTM, 5585-11 (2011)Body Measurements for Adult Female Misses, copy-
right ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA
19428. Permission to reuse must be obtained from the rights holder.
Table 2. ASTM-I standard table of body measurements related to
Women’s Plus Size.
Size 14W 16W 18W 20W 22W 24W 26W
Waist 31 ½ 33 ½ 35 ½ 37 ½ 39 ½ 41 ½ 43 ½
Note: Figure Types, Sizes 14W–32W (ASTM D6969-04,2004).
Source: © [ASTM International] Reproduced by permission of Kathe Hooper
ASTM D6969-04 (2004)Body Measurements Related to Women’s Plus Size,
100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. Permission to
reuse must be obtained from the rights holder.
Table 3. White-, Black-, and Mexican-American race and ethnicity.
Years data collected Published Sample size (N) Mean cm Inches ASTM-I Misses ASTM-I Plus
1988–1994 2009* 8061 88.6 cm 34.881 14* 16W/18W
1999–2002 2005 4212 92.7 cm 36.496 16 18W/20W
2003–2006 2008 4134 94.1 cm 37.047 16/18 18W/20W
2007–2010 2012 5552 95.2 cm 37.480 16/18 20W
Note: Waist circumference for females, 20 years old and above 1988–1994 (McDowell et al., 2009), 1999–2002 (McDowell et al., 2005), 2003–2006 (McDowell et al.,
2008), and 2007–2010 (Fryar et al., 2012). *Authors’conclusion of one source of ‘average American woman clothing size 14.’
4D. A. CHRISTEL AND S. C. DUNN

possibly assuming the information is common knowledge
(Monget, 2011; Scaraboto & Fischer, 2013). The SizeUSA
survey also has notable potential flaws. The survey is 11
years old and may be outdated to the current population’s
composition. Respondent ages, while disclosed, are not
discussed or analysed by apparel categories, which affects
size classification. A study of SizeUSA states that,
‘Researchers weighted their samples according to a CDC
study of average height and weight to make sure they
did not count too many people who were especially
heavy or light, short or tall’(Zernike, 2004). The CDC
used 2004 data for weighing, which was twenty years
old from the time of the study. The SizeUSA survey there-
fore weighted and considered outliers by outdated data,
potentially skewing their statistical analysis before data
collection began. The specific methodology of excluding
individuals deemed as outliers is not disclosed, and is sus-
pect to the valid statistical analysis of this data.
Examining other data sets presented in this study, the
authors speculate the AAW’s clothing size 14 was deter-
mined using the 50th percentile waist measurement, 34′′,
from the 2009 CDC report and compared to the ASTM-I
Standard Tables of Body Measurements for Adult
Female Misses Figure Type, Size Range 00–20 (ASTM,
5585-11,2011). The Misses Figure Type (Table 1) indi-
cated the waist girth measurement of 34′′ correlated to
a Misses size 14 resulting in the determined average
clothing size. This conclusion is problematic for two
reasons. First, the data published in 2009, which was
the basis of the average size, were from measurements
collected between 1988 and 1994 (McDowell et al.,
2009) and compared to ASTM-I Misses Standards
(ASTM D5585, 2011). As a result, the ‘average size 14’
was 20 years outdated even before it was published.
Second, the use of the term average is problematic
because the statistical language and use of data is
incorrect in reporting the actual mean. The 50th percen-
tile number refers to the median number, which is dis-
tinct and different from the mean. The median is
defined as the 50th percentile of a set of measurements
when the data set contains a total odd number of obser-
vations. In the case of an even number of observations,
the median can be considered the average (Pagano &
Gauvreau, 2000, p. 41). The CDC data sets of waist cir-
cumference publish both the 50th percentile in an odd
data set, together with the mean. From this, it appears
that the individual who first came to the conclusion
assumed that the 50th percentile indicated the average,
when in fact it does not.
The understanding of body and clothing size leads to
well-designed and well-informed research. The authors
therefore question the validity of the research and articles
that present the AAW size 14 as ‘fact’. It could be said
that the size 14 fact was used so frequently and with little
fact checking because it was, and still is, a critical refer-
ence point. Unfortunately, many writers failed to cite
where they found the fact, while critical research was
also not used to verify or validate the accuracy.
The results indicate that the AAW have been evalu-
ated under false data for decades. Countless news
articles, fashion periodicals, and academic manuscripts
have justified research and discussions based on the out-
dated and misleading conclusion that the AAW wears
clothing size 14. The consequences of misrepresentation
of data may be damaging for all parties involved.
5.1. Consumer impact
The women’s plus-size market, size 14 and higher, is a
growing segment in the USA as more than 66% of Amer-
ican woman over the age of 20 are classified as over-
weight or obese as of 2012 (Ogden et al., 2014, p. 808).
Table 4. Non-Hispanic Black.
Years data collected Published Sample size (N) Mean cm Inches ASTM-I Misses ASTM-I Plus
1988–1994 2009 2296 92.8 cm 36.535 16/18 18W/20W
1999–2002 2005 830 97.5 cm 38.385 18 20W/22W
2003–2006 2008 906 99.2 cm 39.055 18/20 20W/22W
2007–2010 2012 1046 100.7 cm 39.645 18/20 22W
Note: Waist circumference for females, 20 years old and above 1988–1994 (McDowell et al., 2009), 1999–2002 (McDowell et al., 2005), 2003–2006 (McDowell et al.,
2008), and 2007–2010 (Fryar et al., 2012).
Table 5. Mexican-American race and ethnicity.
Years data collected Published Sample size (N) Mean cm Inches ASTM-I Misses ASTM-I Plus
1988–1994 2009 2019 91.1 cm 35.866 14/16 18W/20W
1999–2002 2005 1001 92.7 cm 36.496 16 18W/20W
2003–2006 2008 790 95.8 cm 37.716 16/18 20W/22W
2007–2010 2012 998 96.9 cm 38.149 18 20W/22W
Note: Waist circumference for females, 20 years old and above 1988–1994 (McDowell et al., 2009), 1999–2002 (McDowell et al., 2005), 2003–2006 (McDowell et al.,
2008), and 2007–2010 (Fryar et al., 2012).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 5

As a key social consequence, many women compare
themselves to the mythical AAW clothing size 14 and
evaluate how they differentiate. The authors speculate
that women may be relieved in knowing the average
clothing size worn is larger than thought. The industry’s
lack of compliance to a standard of sizing, in addition to
the subsequent discrepancies of fit, further contributes
and distorts consumers’perceptions of size (Kennedy,
2009, p. 517). While the smaller clothing size style and
figure may be desirable, it is not reality; thus, it is impera-
tive that our society considers the veracity of the true size
of humanity.
The authors further consider how this knowledge may
influence the retail categorisation of plus-size apparel. It
is difficult to comprehend that while most plus-size
clothing starts at a size 14, the AAW of today has not
worn a clothing size 14 or had such measurements for
over 20 years. ASTM-I has withdrawn the clothing size
standard for adult female plus figure types, which ranged
from size 14W to 32W. According to ASTM-I, a new
standard guide for this figure type is under development,
though the expected release date is not yet apparent
(ASTM Standard WK41040, n.d.).
The AAW actually wears between a Misses size 16–18,
which is equivalent to a Women’s Plus size 20. In light of
this overlap in sizing classification, frequent reports of
female customers being frustrated about the general fit
and sizing of clothing is understandable (Scaraboto &
Fischer, 2012). This situation reinforces the recommen-
dation that updating plus-size standards should be a
major priority for ASTM-I.
5.2. Industry impact
With sizing standards provided and followed, the
amount of returned clothing could be reduced and the
shopping experience of women could be improved.
Inconsistent sizing designations and classification factors
have contributed to greater product returns and
exchanges (Faust & Carrier, 2010). Variations in sizing
contributed to $194 billion in returned clothing in
2010, and more than $264 billion in lost sales for US
retailers in 2012. Returned merchandise impacts stores
and adds up to millions of dollars lost in state sales tax
revenue. At present, the US is losing a total of $536
million to $1.04 billion in sales tax revenues at a time
when state budgets need it the most (Consumer returns,
2012).
6. Conclusions and future study
The AAW in the United States does not correspond to an
apparel size 14, but instead wears between a Misses size
16–18, and a Women’s Plus size 20W, with greater dis-
tinctions among racial and ethnic groups. Based on the
results of this study, much work is needed in clarifying
the classifications of apparel. Little unification between
academic, professional industry associations, and the
fashion industry exists in the sizing and retail merchan-
dising classification of apparel. Compounded with
inconsistent size ranges, this disparity is partially due
to the plus-size demographic having not yet been clearly
defined. The markets of Misses, Women’s, and Women’s
Plus-size appear to be interwoven and should be con-
sidered a topic in future studies. Future research should
consider psychographic and demographic information
when discussing the plus-size population.
The inefficiencies in today’s understanding of body
size and clothing size may be better addressed by accu-
rately using current data from public CDC studies. The
practice of using outdated CDC data and expired
ASTM-I standards is problematic for several reasons.
First, when no standard is available, or if it has expired,
companies and consumers are left to develop their own
standards. Second, the use of outdated, discontinued,
or withdrawn data and standards may be dangerous, or
could be composed of irrelevant data that create incon-
sistency for manufacturers and consumers. The fashion
industry should consider public, accurate, and reliable
body measurement data to classify and discuss the popu-
lation (Daanen & Ter Haar, 2013). New standards based
on data collected through body scanners should be devel-
oped –optimistically with academic rigour, or through
accessibility and careful analysis. Improved standards
would better reflect today’s current clothing merchandis-
ing categories and ASTM-I classifications, more accu-
rately characterize women, and hopefully improve
standards, even if they remain voluntary.
In light of the problems and inconsistencies found, it
is the researchers’hope that this information accurately
expresses the average size of adult women in America
and clarifies how women’s clothing sizes are determined.
The authors have attempted to provide a better under-
standing of the apparel industry’s inadequacy in defining
and meeting the demands of the AAW consumer.
Designers and retailers may find that they need to repo-
sition themselves in consumers’minds to regain their
lost target market.
7. Limitations
This study used public nationally governmental funded
body measurements to determine average clothing size.
The authors recognize that other studies may have
used privately purchased body measurements data sets
and different clothing standards and therefore may
6D. A. CHRISTEL AND S. C. DUNN

have come to different conclusions. The authors ana-
lysed collected body measurement data and provided
observations and criticisms/commentary to the reported
corresponding clothing size from an academic perspec-
tive. Similar results are expected if other measurements
were analysed, and a future analysis of a more holistic
view of measurements is proposed. Data analysed and
discussed are representative only of the adult female
population within the US and may not be generalisable
outside this population.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCiD
Deborah A. Christel http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7090-4572
Susan C. Dunn http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5636-2535
References
Aagerup, U. (2010). To sell or not to sell: Overweight users’
effect on fashion assortments. Journal of Brand
Management,18(1), 66–78. doi:10.1057/bm.2010.49
Acosta, J. P. (2012). Women of generous proportions: An
empirical study of full-figured brands and the consumer
bonding experience. Academy of Marketing Studies
Journal,16(2), 97–106.
Alexander, M., Pisut, G. R., & Ivanescu, A. (2012).
Investigating women’s plus-size body measurements and
hip shape variation based on SizeUSA data. International
Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education,5
(1), 3–12.
Almond, K. (2013). Fashionably voluptuous: Repackaging the
fuller-sized figure. Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress,
Body Culture, 197–222. doi:10.2752/
175174113X13541091797689
Anthropometry. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from
www.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropo
metry
ASTM D5585-11. (2011). Standard table of body measure-
ments for adult female Misses figure type, size range 00-20.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. doi:10.
1520/D5585-11
ASTM D6829-02. (2015)Standard tables of body measure-
ments for juniors, sizes 0 to 19. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA. doi:10.1520/D6829-02R15
ASTM D6960-04. (2004). Standard table of body measure-
ments relating to women’s plus size figure types, size 14W-
32W (Withdrawn 2013). ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA. doi:10.1520/D6960-04
ASTM WK41040. (n.d.). New guide for D6960-04(10) Standard
tables of body measurements relating to women’s plus size
figure types, sizes 14W–32W (WK 22878/76) expiration 4/
13. Was re-balloted negatives issues not resolved? ASTM
International.Retrieved from http://www.astm.org/
DATABASE.CART/WORKITEMS/WK41040.htm
Bogenrief, M. (2012, December 21). Retailers can’t ignore 100
million plus-size American women forever. Business Insider.
Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/why-isnt-
plus-size-bigger-2012-12
Brown, P., & Rice, J. (2013). Ready-to-wear apparel analysis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Higher Ed.
Bubonia-Clarke, J., & Kontzias, O. T. (2012). Apparel pro-
duction terms and processes (p. 165). New York, NY:
Fairchild Books.
Burns, L. D., & Bryant, N. O. (2002). The business of fashion:
Designing, manufacturing, and marketing. New York, NY:
Fairchild Books.
Clifford, S. (2011, April 24). One size fits nobody: Seeking a
steady 4 or a 10. New York Times. Retrieved from www.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/business/25sizing.
html?_r=2&hp
Consumer returns in the retail industry. (2012). The Retail
Equation. Retrieved from http://www.theretailequation.com/
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research
methods (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw International.
Corrigan, N. (2013, July 12). 72 Percent of U.S. women wear
size 12 and above –Gabriella Rossetti launches high-end
collection for 12-22. PRWEB. Retrieved from http://www.
prweb.com/releases/2013/7/prweb10922959.htm
Croasmun, J. (2004, March 12). Survey shows American Sizing
‘Standard’doesn’t fit. Ergonomics Today. Retrieved from
https://ergoweb.com/survey-shows-american-sizing-stand
ard-doesnt-fit/
Crow, K. (2010, August 25). Size 14 is average American
woman’s size, but not the average shopper’s. Kim Crow.
Retrieved from http://www.cleveland.com/style/index.ssf/
2010/08/size_14_is_average_american_wo.html
Daanen, H. A. M., & Ter Haar, F. B. (2013). 3D whole body
scanners revisited. Displays,34(4). doi:10.1016/j.displa.
2013.08.011
Elejalde-Ruiz, A. (2015, April 6). Torrid’s new Loop store caters
to demand for stylish plus-size fashions. Chicago Tribune.
Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-
torrid-state-street-0407-biz-20150406-story.html
Faust, M. E., & Carrier, S. (2010). Women’s wear sizing: A new
labelling system. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal,14(1), 88–126.
Fryar, C. D., Gu, Q., & Ogden, C. L. (2012). Anthropometric
reference data for children and adults: United States,
2007–2010. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital
Health Statistics,11(252), 23. Retrieved from http://www.
cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_252.pdf
Gruys, K. (2012). Does this make me look fat? Aesthetic labor
and fat talk as emotional labor in a women’s plus-size cloth-
ing store. Social Problems,59(4). doi:10.1525/sp.2012.59.4.
481
Harrison, C. R., & Robinette, K. M. (2002). Air Force Research
Laboratory. United States. CAESAR: Summary statistics for
the adult population (ages 18–65) of the United States of
America. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Air Force Research
Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Crew
System Interface Division, Air Force Materiel Command.
Huang, Z., Willet, W. C., Colditz, G. A., Hunter, D. J., Manson,
J. E., Rosner, B., …Hankinson, S. E. (1999). Waist circum-
ference, Waist: Hip ratio, and risk of breast cancer is the
nurses’health study. American Journal of Epidemiology,
150(12), 1316–1324.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 7

Kennedy, K. (2009). What size am I? Decoding women’s cloth-
ing standards. Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body
Culture,13(4), 511–530. doi:10.2752/175174109X467512
Lee, J., & Steen, C. (2014). Technical sourcebook for designers
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing Inc.
McDowell, M. A., Fryar, C. D., Hirsch, R., & Ogden, C. R.
(2005). Anthropometric reference data for children and
adults: United States, 1999–2002. National Center for
Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics, (361), 23.
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad361.pdf
McDowell, M. A., Fryar, C. D., & Ogden, C. L. (2009).
Anthropometric reference data for children and adults:
United States, 1988–1994. National Center for Health
Statistics. Vital Health Statistics,11(249), 53. Retrieved
from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_249.
pdf
McDowell, M. A., Fryar, C. D., Ogden, C. L., & Flegal, K. M.
(2008). Anthropometric reference data for children and
adults: United States, 2003–2006. National Center for
Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics, (10). Retrieved
from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr010.pdf
Monget, K. (2011, January 24). The Oprah effect. WWD.
Retrieved from http://wwd.com/globe-news/intimates-
activewear/more-choices-for-plus-sizes-3443993/
Occupational Safety & Health Administration. (2010, March
19). Enforcement policy for flame-resistant clothing in oil
and gas drilling, well servicing, and production-related oper-
ations [1910.132; 1910.132(a); 1910.132(d)]. United States
Department of Labor. Retrieved from www.osha.gov/
Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Kit, B. K., & Flegal, K. M. (2014).
Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United
States, 2011–2012. JAMA,311(8), 806–814. doi:10.1001/
jama.2014.732
Otieno, R., Harrow, C., & Lea-Greenwood, G. (2005). The
unhappy shopper, a retail experience: Exploring fashion,
fit and affordability. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management,33(4), 298–309. doi:10.1108/
09590550510593220
Pagano, M., & Gauvreau, K. (2000). Principles of biostatistics
(2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: DuxBury.
Peters, L. D. (2015). You are what you wear: How plus-size
fashion figures in fat identity formation. Fashion Theory:
The Journal of Dress, Body Culture,18(1), 45–72. doi:10.
2752/175174114X13788163471668
Plunkett, J. W. (2015). Plunkett’s Apparel & Textiles Industry
Almanac. eBook ISBN: 978-1-62831-693-3.
Product Standard PS 42-70. (1971, September). Voluntary
Product Standard PS 42-70: Body measurements for the siz-
ing of women’s patterns and apparel (withdrawn).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce &
National Bureau of Standards. Retrieved from http://gsi.
nist.gov/global/docs/vps/psfiles/PS_42-70.pdf
Scaraboto, D., & Fischer, E. (2013, April). Frustrated
Fatshionistas: An institutional theory perspective on consu-
mer quests for greater choice in mainstream markets.
Journal of Consumer Research,39(6), 1234–1257. doi:10.
1086/668298
Subcommittee D13.55 on Body Measurement for Apparel
Sizing. (n.d.)ASTM international. Retrieved from http://
www.astm.org/COMMIT/SUBCOMMIT/D1355.htm
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Institute of
Standards and Technology. (2013). A guide to United
States apparel and household textiles compliance require-
ments (rev. ed.). GCR 12-970. Retrieved from www.http://
gsi.nist.gov/global/docs/apparel_guide.pdf
Winn,J.(2004). Making it big. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice,28(5), 487–500. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2004.00059.x
Zernike, K. (2004, March 1). Sizing up America: Signs of
expansion from head to toe. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/01/us/
sizing-up-america-signs-of-expansion-from-head-to-toe.
html?pagewanted=all
8D. A. CHRISTEL AND S. C. DUNN