See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247783680

Size Variation in Women’s Pants

Article  in  Clothing and Textiles Research Journal · January 2003

DOI: 10.1177/0887302X0302100103

CITATIONS READS
32 5,812

1 author:

Tammy R. Kinley
University of North Texas
51 PUBLICATIONS   511 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tammy R. Kinley on 29 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Size Variation in Women’s Pants

Tammy R. Kinley

Abstract
The U.S. sizing system involves the use of a size code to direct customers to garments most likely to fit their body.
The popular press reports expensive clothes tend to run large and there is inconsistency within each size category.
The purpose of this study was to determine how much inconsistency there is within size categories, the difference
in size of two different price points (inexpensive and expensive), and two different types of label (national and
private) of women’s pants. To this end, the waist, crotch, and inseam of 1011 pairs of pants were measured. Incon-
sistency was found in each size category, expensive pants generally were larger in measurement, and little signifi-
cant difference was found between national and private label merchandise except for sizes 4 and 6.

Kinley, T. R. (2003). Size variation in women’s pants. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 21(1), 19-31. Key
Words: clothing size, size discrepancy, vanity sizing.

Any woman who has shopped for clothing has likely work to measure sizes across several brands has not been
noticed that there is variation in garment dimensions within published. Documentation of the extent of acknowledged
size categories. Shopping for women’s apparel can be frus- discrepancies will help the apparel industry assess the need
trating because most garments must be tried on to determine for size standardization. The findings will be important to
fit (LaBat, 1989). Even though labels contain a code to aid retailers and apparel manufacturers as they select and write
the customer in finding the size most likely to be appropri- specifications for products. Knowing that discrepancies exist
ate for achieving fit, individual lines are sized differently and identifying the company fit in comparison to competi-
and the size code does not contain information about the tors may foster customer loyalty if size specifications re-
body measurements on which the size is based (Workman main consistent over time (Workman, 1991). Academicians
& Lentz, 2000). The popular press and the trade press have can benefit from this knowledge as they teach future de-
published articles that illustrate the inconsistencies of gar- signers and buyers to create and select merchandise most
ment sizing and the resulting frustration consumers have with appropriate for their target market.
achieving fit (see, for example, Abend, 1993; “Clothes that
Fit,” 1998; Fellingham, 1991; Tamburrino, 1992a, 1992b, How Garments Are Sized
1992c). Retailers are also frustrated with size inconsistency In the design stage, garments are generally fitted to a
because of the “expense associated with returned merchan- size 8 or a size 10 fit model. Patterns are developed for the
dise, lost sales, brand dissatisfaction [and] time spent in the size 8 or size 10 and then adjusted for larger and smaller
fitting room” (DesMarteau, 2000, p. 42). sizes according to a system of body dimension variations
For these reasons: frustration with achieving fit, limited used by that manufacturer (Brown & Rice, 1998). A fit model
size code information, inconsistencies in dimensions of gar- is a person who has body dimensions that correspond with
ments, and lost sales, this research was conducted to measure the manufacturer’s interpretation of the dimensions of their
the degree of variation in women’s pants. This study is con- median target customer. The designer and the pattern maker
ducted as a preliminary step in empirically measuring the use the fit model’s body to determine the proportional rela-
extent of women’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction with fit. tionships needed to achieve the company fit (Workman &
The apparel industry is interested in size discrepancy as Lentz, 2000). Two aspects of this process may help to ex-
evidenced by articles in its primary trade magazine, Bobbin, plain size variation: (a) every manufacturer has its own in-
over the past 10 years. Consumers are interested in this is- terpretation of a size 8 (or size 10) body; and (b) each manu-
sue, as illustrated by articles in Vogue and Glamour cited in facturer can develop a system of body dimension variations
this paper. While some manufacturers and journalists may used for making different sizes (Workman, 1991).
have intuitive thoughts about size discrepancy, empirical Size charts do exist. They have been available for use
since the early twentieth century (Workman, 1991). The
early charts were based on small-scale limited surveys
of college women (Brunn, 1983). In the 1930s standard
Author’s Address: University of North Texas, School of Merchandis- sizes were developed for uniforms for women in the armed
ing & Hospitality Management, P.O. Box 311100, Denton, TX 76203. services. These sizes were organized by the U.S. Depart-

© International Textile & Apparel Association, 2005 Volume 21 #1 2003 19

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 29, 2015
ment of Agriculture into a set of body measurements (U.S. As noted, sizing for a particular line involves a fit model.
Dept, of Agriculture, 1941) that were distributed by the Workman (1991) conducted a study of advertised dimen-
National Bureau of Standards to the clothing industry to be sions for fit models in 1976 and 1986 issues of Women’s
used in developing standardized sizes (U.S. Dept. of Com- Wear Daily and California Apparel News. In 1986 she found
merce, 1958). no significant differences between advertised dimensions
In 1969 the International Standards Organization (ISO) of a size 8 and a size 10 fit model in height, bust, and waist.
began an attempt to standardize sizing on an international Only in the hip measurement was the size 8 found to be
level. The committee assigned to the task identified three significantly smaller than the size 10. When 1986 adver-
objectives: determine the relationship between one dimen- tisements for fit models were compared to 1975 advertise-
sion and another in a particular garment, establish the size ments, Workman found the advertised size 10 hip measure-
of the intervals between garment sizes, and decide what the ment to be significantly larger in 1986. Workman concluded
size shall be called. They concentrated their work on the that a size 10 in 1976 had been re-labeled a size 8 in 1986
naming of sizes. In the end, it was decided that particular and reported, “The range of measurement specifications for
body dimensions (in cm) that the garment was designed to both size 8 and size 10 fit models reflects the chaotic con-
fit would serve as the size designation on the label. In ditions prevailing in the apparel industry concerning the
women’s pants, for example, the size designation might be sizing of women’s clothing” (p. 34). Nine years later Work-
listed as hip 85, waist 61, and outside leg length 96. The man and Lentz (2000) updated the original study and com-
numbers assigned are determined by the manufacturer rather pared 1997 with 1986 advertisement specifications for fit
than a size chart. “The committee envisaged a time when it models. They found that a size 8 was hard to define. As a
would be only necessary to use [85, 61, 96] without any matter of fact,
explanation” (French, 1975, p. 160). Additional information
could be included as desired by the manufacturer to describe ... all size 10 measurements were encompassed
the size designation system or to encompass body shape within the size 8 ranges. Not only has the numeri-
variability. The committee also endorsed the pictogram, cal size designation changed from a 10 to an 8 ...,
which is a stylized outline of the human body on which can but according to these ranges, it appears that a size
be depicted the relevant body measurements for a particular 8 is not only an 8 but also a 10 (p. 257).
garment (French, 1975; “Mondoform the,” 1991). However,
neither the use of body dimensions the garment is designed Further, Workman and Lentz (2000) found fewer adver-
to fit nor the pictogram are widely used for women’s ap- tisements for a size 10 fit model in 1997 than in 1986 or
parel in the United States, even though this system appears 1976 indicating a size 6 may be the accepted fit model size
to reduce or eliminate confusion regarding expected fit. The designation in the future, even though the size dimensions
system advocated by the ISO (ISO/TR 10652) is very open; may not differ from the current size 8 designation.
it simply supports the use of a relevant body dimension the The size designation on the label is the consumer’s
garment is designed to fit as the size code. Furthermore, the guide to expected fit. However, clothing and textiles re-
format does not dictate a given number of sizes for each searchers have identified the significant difference between
category of garment (Minks, 1992). stated measurement and the actual measurement of men’s
jeans, suggesting that even garments sized with circumfer-
Measurement Variation ential measurements are not always reliable (Sieben & Chen-
Garment sizing seems very random (Roach, 1996). As Yu, 1992). In another study, researchers reported that when
noted, apparel manufacturers design each line based on the they had an individual subject try on 28 pairs of jeans la-
needs of their own target market (Abend, 1993; Daria, 1993; beled with a size number that would be expected to fit, only
Fellingham, 1991; Tamburrino, 1992a) and they change their two pairs fit well enough to purchase (Delk and Cassill,
standard body measurements over time (Chun-Yoon & Jas- 1989). Kwon, Paek, and Arzeni (1991) found that 91.2% of
per, 1995; “Clothes That Fit,” 1988; Workman & Lentz, non-catalog shoppers chose not to shop for apparel in cata-
2000). So clearly, this practice is a source of measurement logs because they cannot try the garment on before pur-
variation. Another source of measurement variation is the chase. Focus group interviews conducted by Gaal and Burns
fact that U.S. women’s sizing systems currently consist of (2001) indicated that size information was very important
the assignment of abstract size numbers that are based on for catalog purchase. Participants preferred to have precise
circumferential measurements but those assigned size num- garment measurements; they liked size charts as well as
bers have no direct relationship with any part of the female inseam lengths. They also desired pant’s hip and waist mea-
body (Tamburrino, 1992a). For example, a size 4 (abstract surements, jacket length, and blouse’s arm length, bust, and
number) might be designed to fit a 31" bust (circumferential neck measurements.
measurement) but the bust measurement the garment is Tamburrino (1992c) identified size inconsistencies
designed to fit is rarely noted on the label. Most manufac- among 50 apparel manufacturers supplying Neiman
turers choose not to use standardized size charts because Marcus. A selection of size 8 garments were fitted on sev-
unique sizing can be a marketing tool for competitive ad- eral standard Wolf form sizes. Forty-two percent (n = 21)
vantage (DesMarteau, 2000). Interestingly, when Schofield of the size 8 garments fit a size 12 form, whereas only 20%
(2000) compared 42 size charts of various manufacturers to (n = 10) fit the size 8 form (Tamburrino, 1992c). Abend
body measurement data gathered by the U.S. Army, some (1993) estimated that 70 to 80% of the garments on the rack
of the assumptions common to manufacturing size charts may not fit the size stated and DesMarteau (2000) reported
were not supported by actual human measurements. 50% of women and 62% of men cannot find a good fit.

20 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal © International Textile & Apparel Association, 2005
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 29, 2015
McVey (1984) estimated that 70% of garments on mark-
down racks are there because of problems with workman- Purpose and Hypotheses
ship or fit.
Researchers have proposed new sizing systems for
women’s clothing based on actual body measurements (i.e., The popular and trade press documents the frustration
Ashdown, 1998; Caldwell, 1996; Chun-Yoon & Jasper, that female consumers feel because the garment dimensions
1996; “Equal Jeans,” 1996; Tamburrino, 1992c), but ac- represented by size codes are inconsistent (Brown & Rice,
knowledge that it is unlikely that manufacturers would adopt 1998; Fellingham, 1991). Expensive clothing seems to run
such a system because they really have no incentive to do large. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent
so. Two concepts to consider when developing a size sys- that sizes vary, the difference in size of two different types
tem are the aspect of fit for the particular body type repre- of label (national and private) and two different price points
sented by the company’s target market and the psychologi- (inexpensive and expensive). Two hypotheses were tested.
cal need of people to feel slim (Tamburrino, 1992a). “Those The selling strategy used by some companies, to use a
who have succeeded in establishing a successful business small size number for a particularly proportioned garment
are adamant not to make changes [in their basic pattern] in order to flatter the ego of consumers, is one factor affect-
unless they are necessitated by the company’s particular ing the variation in garment size in a given category
customer base” (Tamburrino, 1992a, p. 44). (DesMarteau, 2000). Authors in the popular press indicate
As a proposed compromise that facilitates customized that it is the expensive lines that intentionally run large. To
size charts for apparel lines and a better indication of fit for determine empirically whether this is true across brands, the
the consumer, Chun-Yoon and Jasper (1995) found that both following hypothesis was tested:
male and female subjects preferred a size description sys- I. Expensive women’s pants will be significantly larger
tem that included more than two key body dimensions. The in measurement than inexpensive women’s pants with
least preferred system for women was the current system of the same size designation in three areas: waist, inseam,
assigned numbers with no apparent correlation to actual body and crotch.
measurements. Pictograms are another preferred system Expensive pants were defined as pants with an original re-
(Chun-Yoon & Jasper, 1995) but manufacturers are con- tail price of $100 or more. Inexpensive pants were defined
cerned about the detriments of adding measurement infor- as having an original retail price of $50 or less.
mation to size labels (DesMarteau, 2000). Limited research is available with regard to the effect
of brand category on size variation. One purpose of private
Garment Size Dimensions and Price label merchandise is to maximize markup (Jarnow &
The term vanity sizing is used in the popular press to Dickerson, 1997) at a low price point. To keep price down,
describe the tendency of expensive lines of apparel to be cut production costs would be kept to a minimum. To lower
large or have large physical dimensions. That is, a size 6 in production costs, a company can maximize utilization of
an expensive brand will be larger in dimension than a size fabric, which could necessitate cutting a smaller pattern. To
6 in an inexpensive brand, as an attempt to appeal to the that end, the following hypothesis was tested:
vanity of customers who want to think of themselves as II. National brands will be significantly larger in measure-
wearing a smaller size (Brown & Rice, 1998). Proof that ment than private label brands with the same size des-
manufacturers engage in vanity sizing comes from a popu- ignation in three areas: waist, inseam, and crotch.
lar press article. An image consultant and personal shopper National brands are defined as clothing “designed and pro-
reported that more expensive divisions of a designer’s line duced by non-retailing firms, usually supported by national
(such as Anne Klein) would be sized a little larger than the promotion campaigns and ... widely available for purchase
less expensive line (Anne Klein II). The reason cited: “If at retail stores” (Huddleston, Cassill, and Hamilton, 1993,
you are spending a lot of money, you want to feel good about p. 51). Private label brands are defined as goods that are
yourself” (Fellingham, 1991, p. 160). produced exclusively for one retailer and carry only the name
Sieben and Chen-Yu (1992) found that an inverse price of the retailer that sells it or a brand name that is owned by
to size relationship existed for men’s jeans. Results of their the retailer (Jarnow & Dickerson, 1997).
study indicated significant discrepancies at each of three In addition, since studies could not be located that ad-
price levels, with the higher price range showing the greater dressed size discrepancies between garment styles labeled
discrepancy between the stated and actual waist measure- with the same size numbers, the data in the present study
ment. At the other end of the spectrum, manufacturers of were analyzed for possible discrepancies between two gar-
lower end garments must cut corners in production in order ment styles: straight-front versus pleated-front pants. Did
to use price as a marketing feature. One way they might do the additional fullness of pleats affect waist, inseam, and
this is to reduce styling ease (Jarnow & Dickerson, 1997). crotch measurements? Discrepancies in size between gar-
Researchers have found a significant relationship ment styles was not an original purpose of the study, there-
between price and consumers’ perception of product qual- fore the number of pants in each cell for each style was not
ity (Norum & Clark, 1989). Since garment size may be a controlled. The variation of cell sizes is acknowledged as a
component of quality perception, consumers may also as- limitation of the study.
sume that size information on higher priced products is The interaction between the variables of price and
more accurate than on lower price products (Sieben & Chen- brand with regard to waist, crotch, and inseam measure-
Yu, 1992). ments for the entire sample and for each of the two styles
was also computed.

© International Textile & Apparel Association, 2005 Volume 21 #1 2003 21

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 29, 2015
 lengths). In most cases, the pants were measured on the sales
Method floor during the afternoon or evening hours of a Monday,
Tuesday, or Wednesday when store traffic was light. Pants
were removed from the hanger, measured, data was recorded,
Selection of Garment Category and the pants were then returned to the hanger according to
Misses pants were chosen for the study because fitting individual store merchandising policy. Individual clothing
the lower body is a greater challenge and a source of racks were re-merchandised upon completion of data col-
greater stress than fitting the upper body. Women are ac- lection, again according to store merchandising policy. A
cepting of a looser fit with an upper body garment while minimum of 60 pairs of pants in each of the brand catego-
they tend to be dissatisfied with their lower body and con- ries and each of the price categories for each size were
scious of fit problems with lower body garments (LaBat & measured (see Table 1). The inclusion of the variable, style,
DeLong, 1990). was added after data collection and therefore the number of
pants in each cell was not as carefully monitored, which is
Research Design a limitation of the study. A variety of both national and private
Pants. The pants measured had either a plain or twill brands were selected to represent the myriad of choices
weave construction with a straight waistband that fit at the available to the consumer. The pants measured and grouped
waist of the body. Pockets and belt loops may or may not for price were the same pants grouped and measured for
have been included. All pants were of regular length; no brand. That is, a single pair of size 10 pants might be rep-
petite or tall pants were measured. The pants had either a resented in the low price category and in the national brand
straight front or pleated front. The six size designations category. A data collection form was used to record the date,
included 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14. These sizes were selected store name, price, brand, style (pleated or straight front),
because they represent the majority of sizes sold in the country of origin, and waist, crotch, and inseam measure-
missy category. ments. The three dimensions (waist, crotch, and inseam) were
Data collection. Data were collected by a team consist- measured to the nearest 1/8-inch by each of three members
ing of the researcher and four research assistants (hereinaf- of the research group.
ter referred to as the research group). In order to assure in- To obtain waist data, the waistband of the pants was
tra- and inter-judge reliability, each research group member fastened and the circumference measured from the edge of
measured 10 pairs of pants along the three dimensions four the overlap. For the inseam data, the inseam of the left leg
different times in a laboratory situation. Data were entered was measured from the center of the crotch seam to the
into a spreadsheet and the difference between the minimum bottom of the hem. The crotch data was the measurement
and maximum measurements taken for each dimension of from the top of the waistband at center back to the top of the
each garment was computed. Our task was to continue waistband at center front. The width of the waistband was
measuring a single garment until the difference between the not measured specifically. As a result, some pants may have
minimum and the maximum was less than 0.5-inches. When had a wider or more narrow waistband, which would affect
this was achieved, measurements taken by each member of the crotch measurement and this is acknowledged as a limi-
the research group were compared for consistency. tation of the study. However, no extremely wide or narrow
Prior permission was obtained from retail managers for waistbands were included in the sample.
the trained research group to measure a total of 1011 pairs Data analysis. Six sizes were measured (4, 6, 8, 10, 12,
of pants inside 20 different retail stores in a large southwest- and 14). The independent measurements obtained by the
ern metropolitan city and surrounding suburbs. Pants were research group were entered into a database. Even with train-
selected based on size, price, brand, and conformity to style ing three data collectors may get different measurements for
specifications (no elasticized or dropped waists, no knit the same seam, so a rule for consistency was needed. In the
fabrics, no un-hemmed pant legs, and no tall or petite literature, Sieben and Chen-Yu (1992) reported an accept-

Table 1. Description of Sample: Number of Pants Measured Per Category

Inexpensive Expensive
Total Price Price Private National Pleated Straight
Size Measured < $50 > $100 Label Brand Front Front

4 143 72 71 77 66 55 87
6 147 78 69 78 69 48 97
8 175 100 75 83 92 68 99
10 184 107 77 84 100 73 95
12 189 107 82 77 112 84 97
14 173 90 83 111 62 59 99
Total 1011 554 457 510 501 387 574

22 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal © International Textile & Apparel Association, 2005
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 29, 2015
Table 2. Range (in Inches) for Waist, Crotch, and Inseam Measurements Within Each Size (Entire Sample)

Dimension 4 6 8 10 12 14

Waist
Minimum 23.00 26.50 25.13 27.46 27.50 30.38
Maximum 31.50 33.33 32.92 33.67 35.33 38.21
Difference 8.50 6.83 7.79 6.21 7.83 7.83
Mean 27.97 28.93 29.87 30.79 32.12 33.75
Std. Dev. 1.56 1.26 1.31 1.15 1.30 1.19
n 132 135 160 158 167 151

Crotch
Minimum 21.08 21.29 23.13 24.21 24.38 26.21
Maximum 34.25 34.50 32.17 32.58 34.38 34.63
Difference 13.17 13.21 9.04 8.37 10.00 8.42
Mean 27.03 27.89 28.70 29.23 30.35 31.09
Std. Dev. 2.42 2.19 2.03 1.95 1.80 1.71
n 123 132 141 148 151 134

Inseam
Minimum 27.42 26.38 26.54 27.71 28.71 25.13
Maximum 33.13 33.29 33.79 33.54 34.33 33.54
Difference 5.27 6.91 7.25 5.83 5.62 8.41
Mean 30.81 30.9 31.11 31.16 31.17 31.14
Std. Dev. 1.05 1.22 1.28 1.13 1.04 1.30
n 139 138 159 170 171 158

Note. The number of pants in each size category vary with regard to the number of waist, inseam, and crotch measurements. This is because when the
measurements taken by the members of the research group for a single pair of pants were compared along a dingle dimension (for example, waist), if the
difference between the largest and smallest measurement for that dimension (waist) was > 1.5 in., the measurements for that dimension (waist) for that pair
of pants was deleted from the data. For example, if the three waist measurements taken by three members of the research group for a single pair of size
4 pants were: 24 in., 24.125 in., and 25.5 in., all three measurements were deleted from the database.

able tolerance level of 0.5 inch to 1 inch for men’s jeans

offered for retail sale, depending on the seam and the manu- Results
facturer. To reduce errors in the present study, the mini-
mum and maximum measurements for each dimension for
each pair of pants were determined and the difference was As expected, the waist, crotch, and inseam measurements
computed. If that difference was 1.5 in. or larger, that di- of pants within the same size number varied (see Table 2).
mension for that pair of pants was eliminated from the data. Waist measurements varied from 6.21 in. to 8.5 in., crotch
This procedure resulted in variation in the total number of measurements from 8.37 in. to 13.21 in., and inseam mea-
pants in each cell in Table 2. This rule appeared to be surements from 5.27 in. to 8.41 in. within the different size
generous enough to allow for human error and strict enough categories. For example, the difference between the largest
to eliminate completely inaccurate measurements. The re- and smallest size 4 waist measurement was 8.50 in., the dif-
sulting data were averaged for each dimension for each pair ference between the largest and smallest size 4 crotch mea-
of pants and that average became the data used for statisti- surement was 13.17 in., and the difference between the larg-
cal analysis. est and smallest size 4 inseam measurement was 5.27 in.
Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) and Since six different size categories were measured on
univariate analyses (ANOVA) were used to investigate dif- three different dimensions, a decision rule was needed to
ferences among the means of the three pant measurements determine whether a hypothesis would be supported. Based
(waist, crotch, and inseam) for price and brand for each of on the sample, if the relationship held for the majority of
the six sizes of the group as a whole, and then separately sizes (four of the six sizes) for at least one dimension (waist,
for straight-front and pleated-front pants. Separate crotch, or inseam), the hypothesis was supported.
MANOVA were computed for each size. Since MANOVA The results of the MANOVA for the first hypothesis,
is useful for comprehensive analyses of variance for mul- expensive pants (> $100) would be larger than inexpensive
tiple dependent variables (Cooley & Lohnes, 1971), it was pants (< $50) along the three dimensions measured, are pre-
computed to determine overall differences among groups sented in Table 3. Since a significant overall main effect
on the dependent measurements. ANOVA is concerned with was found for each of the six sizes in each of the style cat-
a specific difference across groups (Cooley & Lohnes, 1971) egories, H1 is supported. Separate univariate analyses com-
and was computed to determine differences on a specific paring the means for waist, crotch, and inseam were com-
dependent variable (for example, size 6 waist) for each price puted for each of the six size categories for the group as a
and brand category. whole, for pleated-front pants, and for straight-front pants.

© International Textile & Apparel Association, 2005 Volume 21 #1 2003 23

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 29, 2015
Table 3. Mean Measurements, MANOVA, and ANOVA Results for Inexpensive and Expensive Pants (in Inches) for Waist, Crotch,
and Inseam

Size 4 Size 6 Size 8

Entire Entire Entire

Variable Sample Pleated Straight Sample Pleated Straight Sample Pleated Straight

Multivariate F 44.46*** 8.70*** 22.58*** 19.93*** 11.73*** 16.18*** 16.28*** 7.51*** 12.19***
Waist
Inexpensive 28.62 27.40 28.85 28.88 28.26 29.22 29.87 28.97 30.48
Expensive 27.29 26.82 27.91 29.13 28.54 29.49 29.85 29.27 30.31
Univariate F 24.83*** 1.09 8.92** 1.09 1.37 0.70 0.01 1.54 0.41
Crotch
Inexpensive 26.11 28.35 25.69 27.89 28.88 27.38 28.54 29.67 27.82
Expensive 27.90 28.98 26.47 27.98 30.46 26.45 28.98 30.88 27.46
Univariate F 17.21*** 0.88 2.06 0.05 23.72*** 3.72 1.44 14.59*** 0.72
Inseam
Inexpensive 30.42 29.79 30.53 30.27 30.35 30.31 30.60 30.13 30.88
Expensive 31.21 30.90 31.63 31.69 31.27 31.94 31.81 31.24 32.26
Univariate F 31.25*** 11.09** 25.95*** 56.75*** 10.95** 46.29*** 35.37*** 16.25*** 28.33***

Size 10 Size 12 Size 14

Entire Entire Entire

Variable Sample Pleated Straight Sample Pleated Straight Sample Pleated Straight

Multivariate F 18.62*** 11.79*** 8.47*** 9.83*** 14.57*** 6.14*** 12.29*** 7.10*** 6.76***
Waist
Inexpensive 30.67 30.10 30.94 31.92 31.37 32.08 33.57 33.12 33.65
Expensive 31.08 30.55 31.51 32.68 32.22 33.09 35.90 33.57 37.60
Univariate F 3.86 3.69 3.88 11.50*** 8.49** 12.35*** 1.71 2.80 1.70
Crotch
Inexpensive 28.88 29.91 28.38 30.11 30.52 29.77 30.79 31.83 30.56
Expensive 29.69 31.29 28.39 30.64 32.11 29.31 31.52 32.77 30.61
Univariate F 5.60* 24.36*** 0.00 2.88 34.52*** 1.05 5.41* 6.77* .021
Inseam
Inexpensive 30.67 30.35 30.87 30.54 30.54 31.02 30.55 30.43 30.50
Expensive 31.74 31.74 32.02 31.47 31.47 31.81 31.68 31.44 31.86
Univariate F 38.40*** 38.40*** 24.72*** 19.28*** 19.28*** 11.55*** 30.38*** 16.03*** 19.09***

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

34
Mean Measurements (Inches)

32

30

28

26

24
All-W Pl-W St-W All-C Pl-C St-C All-I Pl-I St-I

Expensive Inexpensive

Figure 1. Comparison of mean measurements of waist (W), crotch (C), and inseam (I) of the entire
sample (All), pleated (Pl), and straight-front (St) pants at two price points for size 12.

24 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal © International Textile & Apparel Association, 2005
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 29, 2015
 34

Mean Measurements (Inches)

32

30

28

26

24
All-W All-C All-I Pl-W Pl-C Pl-I St-W St-C St-I

National Private

Figure 2. Comparison of mean measurements of waist (W), crotch (C), and inseam (I) of the entire
sample (All), pleated (Pl), and straight-front (St) pants of two brand categories for size 4.

Table 4. Mean Measurements, MANOVA, and ANOVA Results for Private and National Label Pants (in Inches) for Waist, Crotch,
and Inseam

Size 4 Size 6 Size 8

Entire Entire Entire

Variable Sample Pleated Straight Sample Pleated Straight Sample Pleated Straight

Multivariate F 22.76*** 10.19*** 14.36*** 3.81* 8.23*** 4.04** 12.15*** 0.93 20.37***
Waist
Private 27.45 26.12 28.00 28.82 28.28 29.10 29.54 28.83 29.78
National 28.52 27.54 29.28 29.18 28.53 29.62 30.10 29.24 31.17
Univariate F 14.66*** 11.92** 21.30*** 3.32 1.03 2.60 7.01** 2.20 41.37***
Crotch
Private 26.04 27.64 25.40 27.52 29.23 26.61 28.21 30.26 27.52
National 28.00 29.69 26.70 28.37 30.13 27.33 29.19 30.29 27.79
Univariate F 20.97*** 18.98*** 6.77* 4.32* 5.58* 2.22 7.53** 0.01 0.40
Inseam
Private 30.53 30.08 30.71 30.97 30.24 31.40 31.27 30.41 31.62
National 31.12 31.07 31.15 30.90 31.38 30.68 31.14 30.81 31.50
Univariate F 10.83** 13.07** 3.62 0.84 19.97*** 5.91* 0.32 1.32 0.13

Size 10 Size 12 Size 14

Entire Entire Entire

Variable Sample Pleated Straight Sample Pleated Straight Sample Pleated Straight

Multivariate F 1.25 2.53 2.67 2.86* 0.74 1.58 1.35 1.80 0.88
Waist
Private 30.99 30.44 31.04 32.39 31.51 32.83 33.97 33.31 34.24
National 30.75 30.27 31.49 32.16 31.88 32.31 35.37 33.44 36.72
Univariate F 1.32 0.40 2.36 0.90 1.28 2.85 0.61 0.20 0.65
Crotch
Private 28.91 30.47 28.45 29.82 30.98 29.09 30.82 32.10 30.38
National 29.55 30.64 28.30 30.70 31.37 29.98 31.43 32.59 30.75
Univariate F 3.42 0.18 0.10 7.96** 1.21 4.07* 3.57 1.66 0.87
Inseam
Private 31.19 30.43 31.57 31.17 30.73 31.48 31.09 30.69 31.37
National 31.14 31.04 31.26 31.25 31.08 31.31 31.14 31.27 31.02
Univariate F 0.06 3.90 1.31 0.19 1.89 0.45 0.34 4.02 0.96

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

© International Textile & Apparel Association, 2005 Volume 21 #1 2003 25

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 29, 2015
Analysis of the entire sample without regard to style indi- styles, as well as the crotch seam of the pleated pants, varied
cated each dimension for size 4 varied significantly and two significantly. In each case the expensive pants were larger.
of the three dimensions for sizes 10, 12, and 14 varied sig- The differences are illustrated in Figure 1.
nificantly. When style was controlled, the crotch length of The results of the MANOVA for the second hypoth-
sizes 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14, and the waist of size 12 varied esis, national brands will be larger than private brands within
significantly with the pleated-front pants. The waist mea- each size category along the three dimensions measured, are
surement of sizes 4 and 12 varied significantly in the straight- presented in Table 4. Analysis of the entire sample without
front pants. In addition, the inseam measurement for each regard to style indicated a significant overall main effect for
size varied significantly regardless of style. For all signifi- sizes 4, 6, 8, and 12. When style was controlled, a signifi-
cantly different dimensions, except size 4 waist, the expen- cant overall main effect was computed for sizes 4, 6, and 8
sive pants were larger. straight-front pants. For straight-front pants, the waist of sizes
To illustrate the differences, consider the size 12 pants 4 and 8, the crotch of sizes 4 and 12, and the inseam of size
in this sample. The waist and inseam measurements of both 6 varied significantly. In the pleated pant style, the waist of

Table 5. Multivariate Analysis F-Statistic of Waist, Crotch, and Inseam Pant Measurements by Price, Brand, and Style

Size 4 6 8 10 12 14

Entire Sample
Price 29.27*** 10.89*** 11.99*** 12.45*** 12.14*** 7.46***
Waist 11.63*** 1.71 0.34 7.47** 17.22*** 1.28
Crotch 4.75* 1.13 0.09 1.68 3.26 2.23
Inseam 40.10*** 28.60*** 28.57*** 34.91*** 25.70*** 20.57***
Brand 15.79*** 2.87* 11.28*** 0.32 1.69 0.31
Waist 14.32*** 2.54 25.08*** 0.86 0.04 0.63
Crotch 17.32*** 1.90 0.15 0.000 4.77* 0.35
Inseam 24.51*** 1.97 0.36 0.45 0.43 0.08
Style 19.58*** 15.71*** 37.14*** 18.57*** 14.42*** 8.06***
Waist 28.16*** 12.99*** 67.93*** 22.85*** 13.74*** 1.36
Crotch 27.67*** 45.46*** 61.40*** 46.13*** 33.92*** 20.41***
Inseam 22.43*** 0.74 16.75*** 10.21** 7.04** 0.95
Price x Brand 7.95*** 4.15** 6.93*** 8.32*** 3.45* 1.50
Waist 1.71 0.17 3.45 3.25 0.19 0.74
Crotch 13.21*** 9.51** 3.68 6.65* 10.48** 4.09*
Inseam 12.27*** 3.19 1.91 2.95 0.03 0.05

Pleated Front
Price 13.26*** 7.60*** 3.48* 6.42*** 9.62*** 4.56**
Waist 1.98 0.758 0.04 1.19 7.51** 2.82
Crotch 0.53 19.76*** 2.58 9.22** 20.57*** 4.63*
Inseam 19.08*** 4.76* 7.60** 15.67*** 15.83*** 10.84**
Brand 8.82*** 4.73** 0.75 1.70 0.56 0.19
Waist 5.88* 0.38 1.99 0.60 0.44 0.10
Crotch 6.16* 0.84 0.02 0.34 1.34 0.00
Inseam 25.45*** 13.72*** 0.12 2.05 0.73 0.19
Price x Brand 7.20*** 6.31** 6.63*** 12.59*** 3.26* 2.30
Waist 0.84 3.78 0.96 1.02 0.27 0.68
Crotch 5.92* 9.12** 18.52*** 28.98*** 8.340** 5.72*
Inseam 6.55* 7.58** 0.67 1.21 0.08 0.38

Straight Front
Price 22.71*** 13.86*** 11.37*** 7.03*** 5.38** 5.91***
Waist 16.48*** 1.73 0.52 6.64* 9.30** 1.98
Crotch 7.61** 2.09 0.63 0.00 0.44 0.08
Inseam 26.08*** 39.40*** 27.81*** 20.09*** 10.61** 16.15***
Brand 10.53*** 3.61* 21.93*** 2.99* 1.23 0.65
Waist 8.23** 3.76 42.90*** 4.13* 1.00 1.28
Crotch 16.94*** 2.06 0.20 0.08 3.70 0.88
Inseam 3.43 2.32 0.29 0.43 0.01 0.00
Price x Brand 8.48*** 3.52* 9.17*** 3.80* 1.82 0.95
Waist 18.49*** 0.77 3.24 2.60 0.01 1.62
Crotch 10.97** 6.48* 0.33 0.18 4.45* 0.77
Inseam 6.95** 0.00 12.22*** 1.87 0.27 0.83

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

26 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal © International Textile & Apparel Association, 2005
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 29, 2015
the size 4 pants and the crotch and inseam of sizes 4 and 6 except the inseam of the straight-front pants, yielded sig-
varied significantly. To illustrate the differences, consider nificant differences between private and national brands. The
the size 4 pants in this sample. All dimensions measured, differences are illustrated in Figure 2.

Table 6. Means of Waist, Crotch, and Inseam Pant measurements by Price, Brand, and Style

Price: Inexpensive Expensive

Brand: Private National Private National

Style: Flat Pleat Flat Pleat Flat Pleat Flat Pleat Total

Size 4
Waist 27.97 26.99 29.84 27.73 28.03 25.85 27.66 27.50 27.97
Crotch 25.50 28.33 25.91 28.36 25.23 27.43 28.96 30.04 26.99
Inseam 30.11 28.67 31.02 30.69 31.68 30.51 31.52 31.17 30.81

Size 6
Waist 29.02 28.07 29.37 28.72 29.16 28.78 30.10 28.45 29.01
Crotch 27.68 29.09 27.15 28.40 25.78 29.55 27.67 30.83 27.93
Inseam 30.52 29.87 30.16 31.48 32.08 31.10 31.69 31.34 30.98

Size 8
Waist 29.92 28.89 30.96 29.02 29.68 28.66 31.51 29.38 29.84
Crotch 27.58 30.50 28.03 29.10 27.48 29.59 27.42 31.09 28.81
Inseam 30.33 30.23 31.33 30.07 32.51 30.90 31.77 31.30 31.18

Size 10
Waist 30.88 30.40 31.01 29.93 31.16 30.50 32.20 30.56 30.81
Crotch 28.55 30.70 28.20 29.47 28.36 30.10 28.43 31.63 29.39
Inseam 30.78 29.89 30.95 30.61 32.19 31.33 31.70 31.42 31.18

Size 12
Waist 32.25 31.14 31.98 31.52 33.22 32.19 32.90 32.24 32.17
Crotch 29.83 30.82 29.74 30.33 28.60 31.27 30.39 32.41 30.38
Inseam 31.08 30.38 30.98 30.65 31.75 31.38 31.90 31.51 31.18

Size 14
Waist 33.97 33.07 33.51 33.23 34.38 33.85 41.97 33.49 34.78
Crotch 30.54 32.13 30.57 31.18 30.29 32.03 31.05 32.97 31.27
Inseam 30.70 30.33 30.41 30.64 31.73 31.48 32.04 31.43 31.12

34
Mean Measurements (Inches)

32

30

28

26

24
Inexp W Exp W Inexp C Exp C Inexp I Exp I

National Private

Figure 3. Comparison of mean measurements of waist (W), crotch (C), and inseam (I) of inexpensive
(Inexp) and expensive (Exp) private and national label straight-front pants for size 6.

© International Textile & Apparel Association, 2005 Volume 21 #1 2003 27

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 29, 2015
 34

Mean Measurement (Inches)

32

30

28

26

24
Inexp W Exp W Inexp C Exp C Inexp I Exp I

National Private

Figure 4. Comparison of mean measurements of waist (W), crotch (C), and inseam (I) of inexpensive
(Inexp) and expensive (Exp) private and national label pleated pants for size 6.

34
Mean Measurements (Inches)

32

30

28

26
I-4 E-4 I-6 E-6 I-8 E-8 I-10 E-10 I-12 E-12 I-14 E-14

National Private

Figure 5. Range of means for inexpensive (I) and expensive (E) pleated pants in each size (4, 6, 8, 10,
12, and 14) for both private and national labels.

Interestingly, there were no significant differences be- In each figure, the mean values are charted to compare each
tween private and national brands for sizes 10 and 14. In all of the three mean measurements for waist (W), crotch (C),
significantly different cases except size 6 straight-front in- and inseam (I) for inexpensive (Inexp) and expensive (Exp)
seam, the national brands were larger than the private label private and national label pants.
brands (see Table 4). Since there was a significant differ- The main effects of the individual means of the entire
ence between private and national brands in four of the six sample (Table 6) were examined with line graphs. For straight
sizes, Hypothesis II is supported. front pants, both private and national brands become larger
The interaction between the two independent variables in the waist at higher price points at roughly the same rate
(price and brand) is presented in Tables 5 and 6. When the of increase. The range of measurements between price points
entire sample, without regard to style, was analyzed, signifi- is greater with national labels. On the crotch measurement,
cant interactions were found between price and brand for private label brands get somewhat smaller with increasing
sizes 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12. The two styles were also analyzed sizes, at higher price points, whereas national brands get
separately. For the pleated pants, significant interactions were larger. The most dramatic differences, interestingly, are in
found for sizes 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. For the straight-front sizes 4 and 14. The inseams are longer at the higher price
pants, significant interactions were found for sizes 4, 6, 8, points for both brand categories. The range of inseam mea-
and 10. To illustrate the differences, Figure 3 shows a graphic surements for sizes 6, 10, 12, and 14 are narrow.
representation of the means for size 6 straight-front pants The main effects on the pleated pants indicate waist
and Figure 4 illustrates the means for size 6 pleated pants. measurements are larger at higher price points. The mea-

28 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal © International Textile & Apparel Association, 2005
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 29, 2015
surements of private and national brands of pleated pants longer in length. For most of the sizes, however, waist and
are similar and not significantly different. The crotch seam crotch measurements did not vary substantially; the only two
is consistently longer at higher price points with national dimensions that varied significantly for straight-front pants
brands, and shorter in sizes 4, 6, 8, and 14 in the private (besides inseam) were the size 4 and size 12 waist. With the
label brands. The range of inseams is so dramatic between pleated pants, five of the sizes varied in crotch length, but
price points and labels, it is presented graphically in Figure only the size 12 varied in the waist. From this data, I can
5. Inseam lengths increase consistently at higher price points conclude that expensive pants are generally larger, but in
for all but size 6 national brands; however, inseam lengths many cases the difference in measurement is not dramatic.
increase much more than the waist and crotch measurements. For the dimensions that were significantly different
between national brands and retailer private label brands,
the national brands were consistently larger. This discrep-
ancy may be because the national manufacturers have a
Conclusions broad-based appeal and may be sized to accommodate body
variation within a size category. Retailers who sell private
labels may be conserving fabric as much as possible to re-
With analysis of 1011 pairs of pants measured along the duce the cost per garment and thus increase markup, as well
waist, crotch, and inseam, this study indicates there is size as have a smaller and more homogeneous target market.
variation within six of the size categories in women’s ready- Interestingly, Sieben and Chen-Yu (1992) found that size
to-wear. The variability ranged from 5.27 in. in the inseam of information on manufacturer-promoted brands was more
size 4 pants to 13.21 in. in the crotch seam of size 6 pants. accurate than the size information on retailer private label
This relatively large degree of variation means that a con- brands when the stated measurements on the label were
sumer will not be able to determine likely fit simply from the compared to actual measurements.
numerical information given on a typical size label. Again, the lack of significant differences is notewor-
The reason for the size variation is the ability of gar- thy. The measurement variation was greater in the smaller
ment manufacturers to create “unique” sizing standards and sizes, while sizes 10, 12, and 14 yielded consistent measure-
to select a fit model based on their perception of their target ments with only one exception, the size 12 crotch. For the
customer. Since people have a variety of sizes and shapes, larger sizes in the study, private and national labels were
this system enables a large total number of manufacturers to relatively consistent.
fit a large number of people. For the consumer, some effort Another interesting finding is that most comparisons for
is required to find a manufacturer who accommodates their size 4 were significantly different. Although there is a missy
particular size and shape. size 2, it is not commonly found in retail stores, making the
Expensive pants were found to be significantly larger size 4 the smallest size generally available. If the vanity
in all six size categories, although two of the categories only theory addressed in the popular press is true and women
had significant variation in the inseam measurement. In all desire a small size number to make themselves feel good,
but one case, the size 4 waist, the expensive pant was sig- the great variation in this size category is no surprise. From
nificantly larger. When style was held constant, most of the the data in this study, it appears that several manufacturers
variation was found in pleated front pants, with at least two are interested in fitting a “size 4 figure,” though they do not
of the dimensions significantly different for five of the six necessarily agree on the dimensions of that figure.
sizes. One reason for larger pants being more expensive is The frustrations with size ambiguity is not a new dis-
that a higher cost per garment will necessitate a higher retail cussion, as exemplified in the review of literature for this
price. This cost flexibility can enable the manufacturer to be study. Manufacturers have been urged to become consistent
generous in the cut of the garment. Further, expensive gar- with each other and retailers have been urged to make their
ments, in this case pants that cost $100 or more, may be sold departments shopper-friendly by exerting control over size
in venues that offer alterations. It is much easier to make a discrepancies (Colacecchi, 1990; Kramer, 1999; Tamburrino,
garment smaller to achieve fit than it is to “let it out.” Ex- 1992a, 1992b, 1992c). The consumers’ desire for informa-
pensive pants may also be made from fabrications that will tive labels such as the pictogram that incorporates real body
be flattering to the figure when allowed to hang freely from dimensions the garment has been designed to fit has been
the waist thus requiring a generous cut. It is, therefore, logi- documented (Chun-Yoon & Jasper, 1995) and advocated by
cal that pleated pants were found to vary more in measure- the ISO (French, 1975). Yet the response by industry is
ments since this style would allow more fashion ease and be practically non-existent. The industry defends its freedom
commonly available at the higher price point. for creativity (Abend, 1993; Daria, 1993, etc.) and to date
Sieben and Chen-Yu (1992) also found that expensive has resisted informing the consumer of intended fit through
men’s jeans ran larger. The actual inseam and waist mea- pictogram labeling. Some jeans manufacturers, including
surements for three price categories were larger than those Lee/Riders, have attempted consumer education through
indicated on the size label, with the greatest discrepancy at point-of-sale (POS) illustrations to describe the intended fit
the highest price level in the study, indicating that the price/ of their eight fits for women and five fits for men (loose fit,
size relationship is not limited to women’s wear. relaxed fit, etc.), but the body measurements each size of
Although the range in measurements is interesting, it is jeans is designed to fit is not available to the consumer
important to note the lack of significant differences as well. (Stankevich, 1996). Chic jeans has produced similar POS
With regard to price, the only consistently significant varia- signage for their product. Levi Strauss offers custom-fit jeans
tion was the inseam measurement. Expensive pants were for women through a combination of prototypes to be tried

© International Textile & Apparel Association, 2005 Volume 21 #1 2003 29

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 29, 2015
on to determine fit and kiosks equipped for dial-up connec- Journal, 14(1), 89-95.
tions directly to a factory in Tennessee (Caldwell, 1996). Clothes that fit. (1998, September). Glamour, 122,128.
The lack of brand effects in the larger sizes studied suggest Colacecchi, M. B. (1990, September). Will standardized sizes
some effort toward consistency among private labels when for apparel measure up? Catalog Age, 7, 9, 34.
compared to national brands. Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. (1971). Multivariate data
Perhaps the educational efforts in the jeans industry will analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
trickle into other clothing categories, but in the meantime, Daria, I. (1993, February). Why more designers are design-
consumers need to be made aware that there is size variation ing large-size clothes – and why some still won’t. Glam-
within size categories. The fact that a particular size in one our, 91, 149-150.
brand does not fit is likely explained by the different size Delk, A. E., & Cassill, N. L. (1989, August). Jeans sizing:
charts used by different apparel producers and/or a change Problem and recommendations. Apparel Manufacturer,
in the size of the pattern that created the garment. Although 1, 18-23.
pants at a higher price point tend to be larger than pants at DesMarteau, K. (2000, October). CAD: Let the fit revolu-
a lower price point, this is not true all of the time. And al- tion begin. Bobbin, 42, 42-56.
though national brands tend to be larger than private label Equal jeans for different bodies. (1996, May 6). Discount
brands, this is not always true. Store News, 35, A34.
Inaccurate size statements and inconsistencies among Fellingham, C. (1991, August). Whose body is this for,
size designations increase consumer difficulty in achieving anyway? The secrets of a perfect fit. Glamour, 89, 159-
fit. Manufacturers design for their particular market with a 160.
particular figure type in mind; however, psychological costs French, G. W. (1975, April). International sizing. Clothing
occur when consumers experience frustration and aggrava- Institute Journal, 23, 155-162.
tion with the process (Sieben & Chen-Yu, 1992). This study Gaal, B., & Burns, L. D. (2001). Apparel descriptions in
was conducted to examine the extent of variation. The frus- catalogs and perceived risk associated with catalog
tration consumers experience with finding the appropriate purchase. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10,
size to achieve fit might be reduced by de-emphasizing the 22-30.
number on the label and focusing on comfort achieved Huddleston, P., Cassill, N. L., & Hamilton, L. K. (1993).
through appropriate fit. Apparel selection criteria as predictors of brand orien-
Future research should address the psychological costs tation. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12(1),
of achieving fit, as well as consistencies within particular 51-56.
brands. If finding a brand that consistently delivers fit is the Jarnow, J., & Dickerson, K. G. (1997). Inside the fashion
consumers’ goal, as indicated by the popular, trade, and business (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/
academic press, how reliable is this strategy? It would also Prentice Hall.
be beneficial to determine perceived difference in fit between Kramer, S. D. (1999, June). Getting together on sizing.
two garments that have a statistically significant difference Catalog Age, 16, 22.
in measurement, but not a large amount of difference on a Kwon, Y.-H., Paek, S. L., & Arzeni, M. (1991). Catalog
measuring tape. versus non-catalog shoppers of apparel: Perceived risks,
shopping orientations, demographics, and motivations.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10(1), 13-19.
LaBat, K. L. (1989). Improving garment fit — a challenge
References to industry. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Quality Con-
gress of American Society for Quality Control Congress
Transactions, 377-382.
Abend, J. (1993, July). Our fits over fit. Bobbin, 34, 78-79. LaBat, K. L., & DeLong, M. R. (1990). Body cathexis and
Ashdown, S. P. (1998). An investigation of the structure of satisfaction with fit of apparel. Clothing and Textiles
sizing systems: A comparison of three multidimensional Research Journal, 8(2), 43-48.
optimized sizing systems generated from anthropomet- McVey, D. (1984, February). Fit to be sold. Apparel Indus-
ric data with the ASTM standard D5585-94. Interna- try, 45, 24-26.
tional Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, Minks, J. W. (1992). The sizing of clothes. International
10(5), 324. Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 4(1), iii.
Brown, P., & Rice, J. (1998). Ready-to-wear apparel analy- Mondoform the new ideal. (1991, November). Textile Ho-
sis (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. rizons, p. 30.
Brunn, G. W. (1983, November). The shape of your cus- Norum, P. S., & Clark, L. A. (1989). A comparison of qual-
tomer. Bobbin, 25, 96-103. ity and retail price of domestically produced and im-
Caldwell, B. (1996, October 28). Trading size 12 for a cus- ported blazers. Clothing and Textiles Research Jour-
tom fit. Informationweek, 44. nal, 7(3), 1-9.
Chun-Yoon, J., & Jasper, C. R. (1995). Consumer prefer- Roach, M. (1996, August). The numbers game. Vogue, 86,
ences for size description systems of men’s and women’s 94, 96.
apparel. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 29, 429-441. Schofield, N. A. (2000). Investigations of pattern grading
Chun-Yoon, J., & Jasper, C. R. (1996). Key dimensions of assumptions used in the sizing of U.S. women’s cloth-
women’s ready-to-wear apparel: Developing a consumer ing for the upper torso. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
size-labeling system. Clothing and Textiles Research tion, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.

30 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal © International Textile & Apparel Association, 2005
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 29, 2015
 Sieben, W. A., & Chen-Yu, H. J. (1992). The accuracy of of American women (Miscellaneous Publication No. 454).
size information on men’s prewashed jeans. Clothing Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing office.
and Textiles Research Journal, 11(1), 74-82. U.S. Department of Commerce (1958). Body measurements
Stankevich, D. G. (1996, July). Fitting in. Discount Mer- for sizing of women’s patterns. Commercial Standard
chandiser, 36, 74-78. CS 215-58. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-
Tamburrino, N. (1992a, April). Apparel sizing issues, part ing Office.
1. Bobbin, 33, 44-46. Workman, J. E. (1991). Body measurement specifications
Tamburrino, N. (1992b, May). Apparel sizing issues, part 2. for fit models as a factor in clothing size variation.
Bobbin, 33, 52-60. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10(1), 31-36.
Tamburrino, N. (1992c, June). Sized to sell. Bobbin, 33, 68- Workman, J. E., & Lentz, E. S. (2000). Measurement speci-
74. fications for manufacturers’ prototype bodies. Clothing
U.S. Department of Agriculture (1941). Body measurements and Textiles Research Journal, 18, 251-259.

© International Textile & Apparel Association, 2005 Volume 21 #1 2003 31

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 29, 2015

View publication stats