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

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to analyze petite women’s body size and figure and investigate whether current petite sizing charts accurately reflect actual petit size women’s bodies. This study also categorizes petite women’s body shapes and suggests primary body measurements as a base size for each shape. The ultimate goal is to suggest fundamental body measurements for apparel companies to modify and improve their sizing.

Design/methodology/approach

This study used data from SizeUSA data to compare body measurements of 18-35-year-old petite women to regular women. The authors compared the results to measurement differences between petite and regular sizing charts of 14 apparel companies. Then, using the principal component analysis and cluster analysis, the authors classified petite women’s body shapes. Body measurements for each body type are contrasted with the current petite sizing charts, and then, the authors present differences as suggestions for modification and improvement of petite sizing.

Findings

Industry sizing system do not generally represent average petite size women preciously except for stature. Within the petite women, four body types were identified (top petite: 30.0 percent, bottom petite: 30.8 percent, regular petite: 23.6 percent, and plus size: 15.4 percent). Of the four groups, the ASTM D7878 generally represented the “top petite” sizing.

Originality/value

It is the first to analyze the industry petite sizing system utilizing population data and focus petite sizing for women aged 18-35. The authors believe this study could draw attention of the apparel industry, providing companies with ideas of how to improve their petite sizing for young women.

Citation

Kim, Y., Song, H.K. and Ashdown, S.P. (2016), "Women’s petite and regular body measurements compared to current retail sizing conventions", International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 47-64. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCST-07-2014-0081