Page 135 - Anthropometry, Apparel Sizing and Design

Apparel size designation and labeling 131

correlated. As for example, waist girth and hip girth had 0.96 Pearson’s correlation
coefficient. Then, waist girth and the high hip girth were correlated with Pearson’s
correlation coefficient of 0.90. Interestingly, no significant correlation was found
between the height and weight. Thus no significant correlations were found between
any height and the girth measurements. Results showed Pearson’s correlation coeffi-
cient of 0.29 between height and weight, whereas the results of the hip height and the
hip girth showed 0.17 Pearson’s coefficient. In other words, one can be tall and big or
tall and slim or again short and big or short and slim. Table 5.1 shows some of these
Pearson’s correlations. Variables are as follows: h refers to height, w refers to weight,
and g refers to girth. Then, B refers to bust; W refers to waist; H refers to hip and HH
high hip; HT refers to high tight, whereas T refers to tight; and lastly, C refers to
crotch. Then, when letters are put together as it is the case for hHH, it refers to height
of the high hip.
As mentioned in the literature, to be effective, size designation needs to provide a
small number of sizes, so manufacturers/brands would use it. At the same time, it
needs to be distinguishing enough that consumers could find the appropriate garment
that suits them best. Taking only those mostly related to the lower part of their body,
with the use of software such as SPSS and Statistica, Faust and Carrier (2009) clus-
tered these individuals into 11 groups. The number of groups was based on a reason-
able amount of size designations defined by one retailer/brand. These size
designations on the market run from 4 to 22 with a size 16 and one 16W for a total
of 11 designated sizes. When clustering into only 11 linear sizes, Faust and Carrier
(2009) argue that while the amount of numbered sizes may be interesting, it provides
no indication of the underlying shape. To be effective, it needs to be split into two or
three shapes/groups similar to the original sizing system where + and were
added to the size number. Moreover, since there is no correlation between height
and weight or height and any girths and since women today wear pants, they argue
that it is important to provide the length onto the size designation. According to
Rasband and Lietchy (2006), the best way to provide the length of a pants is by mea-
suring the inseam.

5.3.1 Clustering according to similar height, size, and shape
By observation, one can see that people differ in size and shape (Rasband and Lietchy,
2006). According to Patterson (2012) Afro-Americans differ in size and shape from
their White Caucasian American counterparts.
Patterson (2012) argues that even if Afro-Americans would try, there is no way that
they could be close in size and shape to their White counterpart. “Of course, the way
fat is treated in the black community only reflects how fat is treated in mainstream
culture and the fashion community. However, as ‘curvy’—not too fat, now—is
becoming more acceptable in the fashion world, it’s clear the main shade of acceptable
curvy is White” (Tasha Fierce in Patterson, 2012). With this in mind the author looked
not only at the relation between ethnicity and body measurements but also at differ-
ences between age groups.