The purpose of this study was to examine Principal Component Sizing System (PCSS) methodology as an alternative approach to advancing the mathematical efficiency and effectiveness of apparel sizing for women 55 and older (Salusso-Deonier, 1982). The 1994 American Societyfor Testing and Materials (ASTM) national body measurement databasefor Women 55 and Older was classified using the PCSS method (ASTM, 2001). PCSS-55+ has a thickness-by-length structure similar to the current domestic sizing system. Only 25 sizes were needed to encompass the same range as compared to the 55 sizes within the current sizing standard. The PCSS method correctly classified 95% of subjects within 25 size categories and demonstrates potential as an alternative methodfor creating a simplified and marketable apparel sizing systems. With appropriate methods and databases, revision of US. apparel sizingfor women of all ages can provide long awaited valid and reliable sizing.
Abend. J. (1993, July). Our fit over fit. Bobbin, 28-80.
2.
Amster, R. K. (1985, August). Sizing up apparel standards. Bobbin, 50-56.
3.
Anderson-Connell, L. J., Brannon, E. L., & Ulrich, P. V. (2002). A consumer-driven model for mass customization in the apparel market. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 6, 240-258.
4.
Ashdown, S. P., & DeLong, M. (1995). Perception testing of apparel ease variation. Applied Ergonomics, 26(1), 47-54.
5.
American Society of Testing and Materials. (2001). D 5586-01, Standard Table of Body Measurementsfor Women Aged 55 and Older. Philadelphia: Author.
6.
American Society of Testing and Materials (1994). D 5586-94, Standard Table of Body Measurementsfor Women Aged 55 and Older. Philadelphia: Author.
7.
Brunn, G. (1983, November). The shape of your customer. Bobbin, 96-103.
8.
Chumlea, W, Roche, A., & Webb, P. (1984). Body size, subcutaneous fatness and total body fat in older adults. International Journal of Obesity, 8, 311-317.
9.
Churchill, E., Churchill, T., McConville, J. T., & White, R. M. (1977a). Anthropometry of women of the U.S. army1977; Report No 2-Basic univariate statistics. (Technical Report NATICK77124). Natick: U.S. Army Research and Development Command.
10.
Churchill, E., Churchill, T., McConville, J. T., & White, R. M. (1977b). Anthropometry of women of the U.S. army-1977; Report No 3-Bivariate Frequency Table. (Technical Report NATICK77124). Natick: U.S. Army Research and Development Command.
11.
Croney, J. (1977). Anthropometricsfor designers. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.
12.
Dob-Verband, 1983. DOB-Grossenlabellen Korpermal3tabellen Marktanteilkabellen fer Damenoberbekleidung. Berlin, Haus der deutschen Bekleidkungsindustrie.
13.
Fisher, P. (Ed.) (1994). Age Erasersfor Women. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press.
14.
Fralix, M.From mass production to mass customization. (2001). Journal of Textile and Apparel Technology and Management, 1(2), 1-7.
15.
French, G. (1975). International sizing. Clothing Institute Journal, 23, 155-162.
16.
Garn, S. (1975). Bone loss and aging. In The Psychology and Pathology of Human Aging (pp. 3958). New York: Academic Press.
17.
Gazzuolo, E. B. (1985). A theoreticalframework for describing body form variation relative to pattern shape. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul.
18.
Goldsberry, E. (1994). Women 55 and older: How well is the domestic apparel sizing system addressing their needs. (ASTM Institute for Standards Research, ISR PCN 33-000008-18). Philadelphia: American Society of Testing and Materials.
19.
Goldsberry, E., Shim, S., & Reich, N. (1996a). Women 55 years and older: Part I: Current body measurements as contrasted to the PS 42-70 data. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 14(2), 108-119.
20.
Goldsberry, E., Shim, S., & Reich, N. (1996b). Women 55 years and older: Part II: Overall satisfaction and dissatisfaction with fit of readyto-wear. Clothing and Textile Research Journal, 14(3), 14-24.
21.
Gordon, M. (1993, July). The size 8 myth. Allure, 46, 48-48, 53-53.
22.
Green, M.E. (1981). An application of U.S. Army women's anthropometric data to the derivation of hypothetical sizing/tariffing systems. Clothing Research Journal, 9, 16-32.
23.
Istook, C. (2000). Rapid prototyping in the textile and apparel industry: A pilot project. Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, 1(1), 1-14.
24.
International Standards Organization 3635. (1980). Size designation of clothes-Definitions and body measurement procedure. South Africa: Author.
25.
Jolliffe, I. T. (1986). Principal Component Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.
26.
Kim, J. (1975). Factor analysis. In N. H. Nie, C. W. Hull, J. G. Jenkins, K., Steinbrenner, & D. H. Bent (Eds). SPSS: Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed) (pp. 257-288). New York: McGraw-Hill.
27.
Kowalski, C. (1972). A commentary on the use of multivariate statistical methods in anthropometric research. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 36, 119-132.
28.
Kunick, P. (1984). Modern sizing and patternmakingfor women's and children's garments. London: Author.
29.
LaBat, K., & DeLong, M. (1990). Body cathexis and satisfaction with fit of apparel. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8(2), 97-102.
30.
McKinnon, L., & Istook, C. (2001). Comparative analysis of the image twin system and the 3T6 Body scanner. Journal of Textile and Apparel Technology and Management, 1(2), 1-7.
31.
O'Brien, R., & Shelton, W C. (1941). Women's Measurements for Garment and Pattern Construction (U.S.D.A. Misc. Pub. 454). Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
32.
Patterson, C. A., & Warden, J. (1984). Selected body measurements of women aged 65 and older. Clothing and Textile Research Journal, 2(2), 23-30.
33.
Reich, N., & Goldsberry, E. (1993). Development of body measurement tables for women 55 and older and the relationships to ready-to-weargarment size. (ASTM Institute for Standards Research, ISR PCN 33-000006-18, ISR06). Philadelphia: American Society of Testing and Materials.
34.
Riley, K. (1994, July). News release: Lee, Wrangler, Levis, Talbots, Home shopping network, QVC and Shadowline first to sponsor ASTM/ISR nationwide sizing survey of women aged 18-55. ASTM Institute for Standard Research (pp. 2-4). Philadelphia: American Society of Testing and Materials.
35.
Rodwell, W (1970). Towards metric sizing. Clothing Institute Journal, 16(2), 3-3.
36.
Salusso-Deonier, C. (1982). A method for classifying adultfemale bodyform variation in relation to the US. standard for apparel sizing. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44 (2), Sec B P0465.
37.
Salusso-Deonier, C., DeLong, M. R., Martin, F., & Krohn, K. (1985-86). A multivariate method of classifying variation for sizing women's apparel. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 4(1), 38-45.
38.
Salusso-Deonier, C. (1989). Gaining a competitive edge through top quality sizing. American Societyfor Quality Control Transactions, 371-376.
39.
Salusso-Deonier, C. J., Markee, N. L., & Pedersen, E. L. (1991). Developing realistic stimuli for assessing observers' perceptions of male and female body types. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 603-610.
40.
Schewe, C. (1988). Marketing to our aging population: responding to physiological changes. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 5(3), 61-73.
41.
Skerlj, B., Brozek, J., & Hunt, E. (1953). Subcutaneous fat and age changes in body build and body form in women. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1, 577-600.
42.
Slom, S. (1978, June 6). Sears revision of women size 10 reflects lack of national standards. The Wall Street Journal. 10-10 p.
43.
Simmons, K. P., & Istook, C. L. (2001, May). Comparison of 3-Dimensional body scanners for use potential. Textile Asia, 32(5), 48-52.
44.
Smathers, D. G., & Horridge, P. E. (1978-1979). The effects of physical changes on clothing performance of elderly women. International Journal of Aging and Human Development9(3), 273-278.
45.
Society for Advanced Engineering International. (2003). Civilian American and European Surface Anthropometry Resource Project-CAESAR. Retrieved March 10, 2005 from http://www.aeionline.sae.org/technicalcommittees/caesarhome.htm%233dna.
46.
Staples, N. (1995). A comparison of U.S. Army and U.S. commercial misses anthropometric body dimensions specification [Abstract]. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Textile and Apparel Association, 99.
47.
Styrelsen for Teknisk Utvecklin. (1978). Konstrucktionsosh. Plagg mattlistorfor damklader, Kompement Till Stuutrednig (NR701977), Stockholm, Sweden.
48.
Strom, S. (1993, January 31). One size fit all the way to middle age. The New York Times, p. 2.
49.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1958). Body measurementsfor the sizing of women's patterns and apparel (Commercial Standard CS215-58), Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
50.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1971). Voluntary Product Standard: Body measurementsfor the sizing of women's patterns and apparel (National Bureau of Standards Publication PS 42-70), Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
51.
Vandenberg, S. (1968). A factor analysis of garment measure of Dutch women. Human Biology, 40, 295-313.
52.
White, R. (1978). Anthropometry and human engineering. Yearbook of Anthropology, 115-125.
53.
Woodson, E. M., & Horridge, P. E. (1990). Apparel sizing as it relates to women age sixty-five plus. Clothing and Textile Research Journal, 8(4), 7-13.
54.
Workman, J. (1991). Body measurements specifications for fit models as a factor in clothing size variation. Clothing and Textile Research Journal, 10(1), 31-36.
