Theory & Literature Review - Florida State University

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF HUMAN SCIENCES
THE DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT OF A SOFT STRUCTURAL PROTOTYPE FOR
POSTURAL ALIGNMENT
By
Lisa Barona McRoberts
A Dissertation Submitted to the
Department of Textiles and Consumer Sciences
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Awarded:
Spring Semester, 2008

The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Lisa Barona McRoberts defended on
March 17, 2008.
____________________________________
Rinn M. Cloud
Professor Directing Dissertation
____________________________________
Catherine Black
Professor Co-Directing Dissertation
____________________________________
Thomas Ratliffe
Outside Committee Member
____________________________________
Jeanne Heitmeyer
Committee Member
____________________________________
Lynn Panton
Committee Member
Approved:
_______________________________________________________
Barbara Dyer, Chair, Department of Textiles and Consumer Sciences
_______________________________________________________
Billie J. Collier, Dean, College of Human Sciences
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.
ii

To Norman, NaNa, Tori, Neal and PaPa.
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
With great appreciation and respect, the author wishes to thank Dr. Rinn Cloud and Dr.
Catherine Black for serving as her major professors, mentors, and friends. Dr. Cloud recruited
her to doctoral studies, guided her academic formation, and supported her endeavor throughout,
donating countless hours outside of work. Dr. Catherine Black made a huge impact on her
academic formation both as a student and instructor, while providing support and guidance
throughout her original prototype development. She would also like to thank Dr. Tom Ratliffe,
Dr. Lynn Panton, and Dr. Jeanne Heitmeyer for all of their assistance and support as committee
members, as well as their flexibility in scheduling. Dr. Grace Namwamba and Dr. Devona
Dixon provided guidance, hospitality, and support with the body scanner at Southern University.
In addition, she would like to recognize Dr. Bonnie Belleau for encouraging and supporting her
endeavor to and throughout graduate studies. Dr. Betsy Garrison, Dr. David C. Blouin, and
Xiaoting Wang provided continuous statistical support with statistical analysis. Dr. Teresa
Summers is recognized for serving as both an academic and entrepreneurship mentor. Yvonne
Marquette Leak, Elva Bourgeois, Pamela Rabalais Vinci, Dr. Jenna Kuttruff, Dr. Pamela
Monroe, Dr. James Garand, Dr. Kathleen Rees, Debbie Welker, and Dr. Ioan Negelescu are
recognized for their contributions to the academic’s career. Yvonne Marquette Leak is further
thanked for her undergraduate academic mentoring, especially her expertise in fit and couture
techniques. Debbie Welker, Dr. Chuanlan Liu, Dr. Cyndi DeCarlo, and Dr. Loren Marks are
thanked for their support, mentoring, and friendship as colleagues at Louisiana State University.
The author would also like to thank the fabulous fifteen females that participated in the study.
In addition, the author appreciates the continued love and support of her family. Her
parents, Dr. Narses Barona and Mrs. Luz Marina Barona, are thanked for a lifetime of love,
iv

support, mentoring, and inspiration. Her husband, William Norman McRoberts, III, and
children, Victoria Anne McRoberts and Neal Lane McRoberts, have all continuously supported
and sacrificed throughout the academic’s career. In particular, her husband has generously given
of his time to move to New York and Tallahassee for two years, and assist with many other
responsibilities including serving as a research assistant. Her daughter, Victoria, has provided
graphic design and publishing expertise. Her son, Neal, served as a research assistant throughout
the study. Her accomplishment has been a team effort. In addition, the author appreciates her
mother-in-law, Mrs. Melanie McRoberts, who provided frequent assistance, her sister-in-laws,
Tanie Bush, and Mary Lea McRoberts Manning, and, her brother, Narses, who each provided
support throughout the academic’s endeavor.
Lastly, the author wishes to recognize the daily support and guidance of her loyal friends
Jennifer Watson, Anne Davis, Anna Jacobs, Cindy Jacobs, Joe Jacobs, Don Bell, Terry Hughes,
Lorye Watson, Charles Freeman, and Diana Sindicich. Dr. Gina Manguno-Mire and Dr. Ariana
Wall are especially thanked for their academic support, guidance and friendship. Additionally,
other dear friends are recognized for their contributions of love and support, Dana Berggreen,
Jean Edwards, Liz Harris, Kevin Harris, Matt Hebert, Karla King, Don Cozine, Gilles Morin,
Lori Robert, Roy Robert, Mary Lousteau, and Troy Lousteau, along with heartfelt gratitude for
her original source of inspiration and continued affection, Denise and Dick Claflin.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION……………………………………….…………………………………………...iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………….……………………………... iv
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................xiii
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………..……....xiv
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1
Purpose…………………………………...…………………………......………...……… 3
Objectives............................................................................................................................ 3
Development Objective..................................................................................................... 3
Testing Objectives............................................................................................................. 3
Hypotheses………………………………………………………………………………... 3
Research Questions……………………………………………………………………….. 5
Assumptions……………………………………………………………………...……..... 5
Limitations………………………………………………………….…………………...... 5
Definitions………………………………………………………………………………....6
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE…...…………………………………………………..….… 7
Functional Design Process………………………………………………..…………….… 7
Postural Alignment……………………………………………………........….………... 10
Importance of Proper Postural Alignment.……………………………………….……. 11
Definition of Postural Alignment…………….............……………………….……….. .11
Adverse Effects of Improper Postural Alignment........……………………….……….. 12
Current Corrective Approaches for Improper Posture..……………………….……….. 13
Need for Thoracic Support Research…………..............……………………….……… 15
Wearer Acceptability…………………………….......………………........….…………. 16
Comfort……………………………..............………………………........….…………. 17
Thermal comfort…………………................………………………........….…………. 18
Fit….......................………………................………………………........….…………. 18
Mobility..................………………................………………………........….………….20
Psychosocial Comfort........………................………………………........….…………. 21
Summary............................………................………………………........….…………. 22
3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND PRELIMINARY WORK………………...…....23
Functional Design Process................................................................................................ 23
Preliminary Work............................................................................................................... 26
Market Analysis............................................................................................................... 26
Rigid Support Products.................................................................................................. 26
vi

Semi-rigid Support Products.......................................................................................... 27
Non-rigid Support Products........................................................................................... 28
Informal Interviews.......................................................................................................... 30
Preliminary Prototype Development and Evaluations.................................................... 31
Fabrics............................................................................................................................. 31
Informal Postural Analysis.............................................................................................. 32
Preliminary Fit Assessment............................................................................................. 32
Construction of Prototypes................................................................................................ 33
Hypotheses and Rationale.................................................................................................. 33
Research Questions and Rationale for Psychosocial Comfort .......................................... 36
4 METHODS...........……………….……………………………………………………... 37
Design of the Study............................................................................................................ 37
Participant Selection.......................................................................................................... 37
Treatments: Support Products............................................................................................ 38
Sizes................................................................................................................................. 40
Order of Treatments......................................................................................................... 41
Wear Protocol………........................................................................................................ 43
Postural Alignment Effectiveness……………................................................................ 44
Wearer Acceptability....................................................................................................... 46
Thermal Comfort……………………………….............................................................46
Skin Temperature.......................................................................................................... 46
McGinnis Thermal Scale............................................................................................... 46
Fit………………………………………………............................................................. 47
Model Fit Evaluation Index........................................................................................... 48
Mobility........................................................................................................................... 48
Range of Motion…........................................................................................................ 48
Movement Assessment Scale……………………........................................................ 48
Psychosocial Questions…………………………………................................................ 48
Pilot Study……………………………...…………………............................................... 49
Data Analysis..................................................................................................................... 49
Independent and Dependent Variables............................................................................ 49
Statistical Analysis............................................................................................................. 52
Content Analysis................................................................................................................ 53
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............……………….………………………………... 55
Sample……………............................................................................................................55
Hypothesis Testing……….................................................................................................59
Postural Alignment Effectiveness.................................................................................... 59
Body Scans………...……….........................................................................................59
Photographs.................................................................................................................. 61
A Priori Contrasts……………….............................................................................. 62
Discussion……………………….............................................................................. 63
Wearer Acceptability…………...………........................................................................ 64
A Priori Contrasts………………................................................................................66
Discussion………………………............................................................................... 66
vii

Thermal Comfort…..…………...………........................................................................ 68
Skin Temperature……………...................................................................................... 68
A Priori Contrasts………………............................................................................... 70
Discussion………………………............................................................................... 70
McGinnis Thermal Scale…………….......................................................................... 71
Discussion………………………............................................................................... 72
Fit……………...…..…………...………......................................................................... 73
Static Tight-to-loose Fit……………............................................................................ 73
A Priori Contrasts………………............................................................................... 74
Discussion………………………............................................................................... 75
Static Fit Satisfaction ….…………….......................................................................... 75
Discussion………………………............................................................................... 77
Dynamic Tight-to-loose Fit…………….......................................................................77
A Priori Contrasts………………............................................................................... 79
Discussion………………………............................................................................... 80
Dynamic Fit Satisfaction ……………......................................................................... 80
A Priori Contrasts………………............................................................................... 81
Discussion………………………............................................................................... 82
Mobility……..…..…………...………............................................................................ 82
Range of Motion……………………........................................................................... 83
Discussion………………………............................................................................... 84
Ease of Movement……………………........................................................................... 84
Overall Mobility……………………........................................................................... 84
A Priori Contrasts………………................................................................................. 85
Ease of Individual Movements….……………............................................................ 86
A Priori Contrasts – typing movement…................................................................... 88
A Priori Contrasts – reaching forward movement…………….…............................. 89
A Priori Contrasts – raising arms to sides movement (abduction)............................. 90
A Priori Contrasts – turning torso movement………………..................................... 91
A Priori Contrasts – spreading arms movement…..................................................... 92
A Priori Contrasts – raising arms overhead movement…………….…..................... 93
Discussion………………………............................................................................... 95
Research Questions ..………............................................................................................. 95
Psychosocial Comfort………………………………….…………….......................... 95
Summary………………………………….……………............................................ 100
6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS.......102
Summary……………...................................................................................................... 102
Conclusions………...………........................................................................................... 103
Recommendations for Prototype Improvements………..................................................104
Implications………...………...........................................................................................105
Future Studies……………………................................................................................ 105
viii

APPENDIX 107
A Human Subjects Application - Florida State University………………………..............107
B Human Subjects Application - Louisiana State University............................................. 110
C Human Subjects Application - Southern University at Baton Rouge..………................ 114
D Consent Letter………….…………………………………………………………......... 116
E Consent Form………….…………………………………………………...................... 118
F Demographic Subject Information………….…………….............................................. 121
G New York Posture Rating Chart…………….................................................................. 123
H Wear Test Protocol.......................................….……..........……...…………..…........... 125
I Study Instruction Booklet….……................…………………….…………….............. 131
J Analysis of Variance for Individual Mobility Movements..........................................… 147
K Range of Motion Results Table….……................…………..……………………….... 150
L Frequencies of Participant Responses to Psychosocial Questions…………………...... 152
M Analysis of Prototype Bust Concerns for Participants..................................................... 155
References..………………………...……………….……………………………………… 157
Biographical Sketch………...……………………………………….…………................... 163
ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Stages of DeJonge (1984) Design Process and Example Studies Employing Aspects of
the Stages……………………………………………………………….......................8
Table 2 – Functional Design Process for Soft Structural Garment for Posture Alignment........... 24
Table 3 – Functional Design Interaction Matrix of Garment Specifications of Prototype............ 30
Table 4 – Treatment Sizing Chart.................................................................................................. 41
Table 5 – Random Assignment Chart for Order of Treatments………......................................... 42
Table 6 – Independent and Dependent Variables as Operationalized………............................... 51
Table 7 – Self-Reported Age, Race, and Employment Status of the Fifteen Participants………. 56
Table 8 – Height, Weight, Circumferential and Vertical Dimensions for Participants…………. 57
Table 9 – Means of Height, Weight, Circumferential and Vertical Dimensions by Race………. 58
Table 10 – Analysis of Variance for Postural Alignment Effectiveness by Treatment as Captured
by Body Scans……………………………………………………………………………………60
Table 11 – Mean Postural Alignment Scores of Body Scans by Treatments after the Wear
Protocol………………………………………………………………………………………….. 60
Table 12 – Analysis of Variance for Postural Alignment Effectiveness by Treatment as Captured
by Photographs…………...………………………………………………………………………61
Table 13 – Mean Postural Alignment Scores of Photographs by Treatments after the Wear
Protocol………………………………………………………………………………………….. 62
Table 14 – A Priori Contrasts for Postural Alignment Effectiveness by Treatments…………… 63
Table 15 – Analysis of Variance for Wearer Acceptability...…………………………………… 65
Table 16 – Mean Wearer Acceptability by Treatment and Stage……………………………….. 65
Table 17 – A Priori Contrasts for Wearer Acceptability by Treatments by Stage……………… 67
Table 18 – Analysis of Variance for Thermal Skin Test…………………………………..……. 69
Table 19 – Mean Skin Test by Treatment and Stage………………………...………………….. 69
Table 20 – A Priori Contrasts for Skin Temperature at Two Stages of the Wear Protocol...…… 71
x

Table 21 – Analysis of Variance for McGinnis Thermal Test…………………………….….… 72
Table 22 – Mean McGinnis Thermal Scale Tests for Treatments at Stage 3…..……………….. 72
Table 23 – Analysis of Variance for Static Tight-to-Loose Fit Assessments……………...….… 74
Table 24 – Mean Static tight-to-loose Fit Assessments by Treatments.…....…..………………. 74
Table 25 – A Priori Contrasts for Static Tight-to-Loose Fit Assessments by Treatments….…... 75
Table 26 – Analysis of Variance for Overall Static Fit Satisfaction……………….………….… 76
Table 27 – Mean Overall by Static Fit Satisfaction by Treatment.…......…………...………….. 77
Table 28 – Analysis of Variance for Dynamic Tight-to-Loose Fit Assessments……….....….… 78
Table 29 – Mean Dynamic Tight-to-Loose Fit Assessments by Treatment..….......…..…….….. 79
Table 30 – A Priori Contrasts for Tight-to-Loose Fit Assessments by Treatment..…...……….. 79
Table 31 – Analysis of Variance for Dynamic Fit Satisfaction Assessments..…....…………… 81
Table 32 – Mean Dynamic Fit Satisfaction Assessments by Treatment……..…....…………… 81
Table 33 – A Priori Contrasts for Dynamic Fit Satisfaction …………..……..…....…………… 82
Table 34 – Analysis of Variance for Range of Motion of Movement by Treatment....……….... 83
Table 35 – Analysis of Variance for Overall Mobility…….…………..….……………………. 85
Table 36 – Mean Overall Mobility by Treatment..………......…..……………………………… 85
Table 37 – A Priori Contrasts for Treatment.....................................…………………………… 86
Table 38 – Analyses of Variance with Significant Outcomes for Ease of Movement with
Mobility for Individual Movements……....….…………………………………………………. 87
Table 39 – Mean Ease of Movement for Six Movements by Treatment....………......…..…….. 88
Table 40 – A Priori Contrasts for Ease of Movement for Mobility for the Typing Movement… 89
Table 41 – A Priori Contrasts for Ease of Movement when Reaching Forward……………..…. 90
Table 42 – A Priori Contrasts for Ease of Movement for Mobility for the Raising Arms
Movement……………………………………………………………………………………….. 91
xi

Table 43 – A Priori Contrasts for Ease of Movement for Mobility for the Torso Turn
Movement……………………………………………………………………………………….. 92
Table 44 – A Priori Contrasts for Ease of Spreading the Arms……………….……………..…. 93
Table 45 – A Priori Contrasts for Ease of Movement with Mobility for the Raising Arms
Overhead Movement…………………………………………………………………………….. 92
Table 46 – Results of Aesthetic Attribute Questions ..............................................................….. 99
xii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Three views of the human spinal column..................................................................... 10
Figure 2 – Rigid support: Miami J® Collar by Ossur.................................................................... 26
Figure 3 – Semi-rigid support: Original Cincher Support System by DocOrtho........................... 27
Figure 4 – Semi-rigid support: The Soft Form® Posture Brace from DocOrtho.......................... 27
Figure 5 – Non-rigid support product: The Upper Back Support from Orthobionics................... 28
Figure 6 – Non-rigid support product: The Posture Corrector by First Street............................... 29
Figure 7 – Prototype Sketch........................................................................................................... 31
Figure 8 – The Preliminary Prototype............................................................................................ 32
Figure 9 – Photograph of Treatments............................................................................................ 39
Figure 10 – Body Scan: Prototype................................................................................................. 44
xiii

ABSTRACT
Proper alignment of posture can serve as a preventative measure or treatment for back
pain or strain. Despite the prevalence of spine (back) problems in the domestic population, many
patients are non-compliant with current methods of treatment or prevention which include
exercise (Dettotri, Bullock, Sutlive, Franklin, & Patience, 1996), use of supports (Dunn, Brace,
Masud, Haslam, & Morris, 2005 ), and sometimes surgery (MayoClinic.com, 2007). Supports
include rigid, brace-type structures as well as semi-rigid or non-rigid structures, some of which
are worn like garments. The development of a soft structural support garment to support proper
postural alignment may meet with improved compliance based on the symbiotic relationship
between comfort and wearer acceptability (Rutherford-Black & Khan, 1995; Huck & Kim, 1997;
Watkins, 1995; and Barker, 2007).
Postural alignment is established by the relationship between the five areas of the back
and their relationships to one another (Rhodes, 1996). Existing support garments have focused
on the cervical and lumbar regions of the back or on multiple regions. There is a lack of research
on the thoracic region of the spine and the possible role of soft structural support garments in
encouraging proper postural alignment by focusing on that area.
This study developed and tested a prototype for a soft structural support garment for the
thoracic area of the spine to improve postural alignment. The purpose was to design and assess
the postural alignment effectiveness, wearer acceptability, and comfort aspects of a prototype
soft structural thoracic support garment as compared to two commercially available thoracic
support garments (ComA and ComB). Each of the treatments was assessed for postural
alignment effectiveness using an existing photographic method and using a method developed in
this study that employs a 3-dimensional body scanner. Participants wore the garments during a
prescribed activity protocol to evaluate wearer acceptability, thermal comfort, fit, and mobility.
The results of the study indicated that the prototype was successful in providing
equivalent postural alignment, thermal comfort, static and dynamic fit satisfaction, overall
mobility, and psychosocial comfort, as compared to the two commercially available structural
support garments. The prototype also provided similar wearer acceptability as the commercially
available support A (ComA). However, the prototype provided better wearer acceptability than
the commercially available support B (ComB). The prototype was also rated as having better
ease of movement for typing and reaching forward than ComB and was perceived as more
xiv

loosely fitted than both ComA and ComB. Additionally, more participants provided positive
comments regarding the aesthetics, style, and design of the prototype than the other treatments.
The prototype also provided significantly better postural alignment than the control as
measured by the photographic method used in the study. This indication of postural alignment
effectiveness of a soft structural support garment for the thoracic area of the spine adds to the
body of knowledge regarding the use of such garments for prevention or treatment of poor
posture. Results of the study provided information for improvement of the prototype including
frequent suggestions from participants that a built-in bra would be desirable.
xv

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Clothing development can be based on specific tasks or activities. Examples of
functional clothing development include purposes ranging from high performance active
wear such as engineered sports bras to specialized hospital gowns for the neonate in
intensive care units. The functional design process provides a framework for developing
specialized clothing to resolve a specific problem (DeJonge, 1984). The first step in this
process involves the identification of the design challenge or problem. Requests for the
development or improvement of functional clothing can originate from many sources
with end-users being a frequent one. For the study at hand, my experience with upper
back pain from repetitive motion in my occupation (apparel designer) led me to realize
the need for a comfortable, soft structural support garment for improving postural
alignment.
The spinal column comprises five areas: the cervical area (neck), thoracic area
(upper back), lumbar area (lower back), the sacral area (pelvis), and the coccygeal
(tailbone). Postural alignment is determined by the vertical positioning of the vertebrae
(Rhodes, 1996) in these five areas of the spine and the relationships between the areas,
which form curves (Western, Rhodes, & Stevenson, 2002). “Each curve is
interdependent on each other so that movement of one curve above or below another acts
to balance the head” (Western et al., 2002, p. 36).
During their lifetime, most people experience back pain partially attributed to
improper postural alignment (Lawrence, Helmick, Arnett, & Deyo, 1998). Over 40% of
domestic workers suffer from back pain, and the annual cost of back-related problems
extends into billions of dollars for domestic employers (Ricci, Stewart, Chee, Leotta,
Foley, & Hochberg, 2006). A survey taken by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
ranks back or spine problems as the second highest cause of disabilities in the United
States (CDC, 1999). Prolonged improper postural alignment may lead to possible
decreased blood flow, decreased space between the vertebrae for proper function,
inhibited breathing and oxygen transfer, impaired internal organ function, increased
headaches and mood alterations, increased tension and muscle tightness resulting in back
1

pain, as well as damage to the back or spine (Posture and Back Health, 2005). Women
aged forty to sixty-five are particularly susceptible to the development of unhealthy
spinal curvatures associated with osteoporosis (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services
2002a).
A relationship between posture and back, shoulder, and wrist musculoskeletal
disorders has been established by Vieira and Kumar (2004). These authors also
confirmed an association between posture and problems in the neck, shoulder, arms, hips,
and knees. Their literature review shows that the focus of previous research has been on
the lumbar area of the spine, followed by the cervical area of the spine. The limited
amount of research on the thoracic region of the spine warrants studies of this area.
Current methods for improving postural alignment of the spine include exercises
for muscle strengthening (Dettotri, Bullock, Sutlive, Franklin, & Patience, 1996), use of
support braces or products, and/or, in severe cases, surgical intervention (Mayo
Clinic.com, 2007). Sixty percent of the population in the United States does not exercise
(Winters, Morley, & Spurlock, 2003), and others that do exercise may encounter back
pain regardless (Mortimer, Pernold, & Wiktorin, 2006). There are various types of
structural support products on the market. They range from extremely rigid to flexible.
Based on our market analysis, the majority of postural support structures are rigid, made
of heavy plastic, and incorporate metal parts and/or metal or plastic stays (built in strips).
Existing rigid support products designed to correct improper posture may restrict natural
movement and thereby limit activities of daily living, resulting in decreased quality of life
(Pham, Houlliez, Carpentier, Herbaux, Schill, & Thevenon, 2008). Semi-rigid or soft
structural support products may have advantages as compared to rigid products, but no
studies were found indicating that any of these products have been evaluated for postural
alignment effectiveness or comfort. Products that are perceived as comfortable may
encourage better compliance with this form of treatment based on the symbiotic
relationship between comfort and wearer acceptability (Huck & Kim, 1997; Rutherford-
Black & Khan, 1995; Watkins; 1995; & Barker, 2007). A soft structural support garment
that can provide comfort and postural alignment for the thoracic area merits further
investigation.
2

Purpose of the Study
This study focused on developing and testing a prototype for a soft structural
support garment for the thoracic area of the spine to improve postural alignment.
Therefore, the purpose of my study was to design and assess the wearer acceptability,
comfort aspects and postural alignment effectiveness of a prototype soft structural
thoracic support garment as compared to two commercially available thoracic support
garments.
Objectives
The following objectives were developed based on the literature review to address the
purpose of the study.
Development Objective
To develop a prototype soft structural support garment for the thoracic spine based on
preliminary work.
Testing Objectives
1. To compare postural effectiveness of the prototype to two commercially available
support products
2. To assess and compare wearer acceptability for the prototype and the two
commercially available support products.
3. To assess and compare thermal comfort of the prototype and the two commercially
available support products.
4. To assess comparative fit and fit satisfaction of the prototype and the two existing
commercially available support products.
5. To assess and compare mobility of users while wearing the prototype and the two
commercially available support products.
6. To assess the psychosocial comfort of the prototype and the two commercially
available support products.
Hypotheses
The hypotheses were based on the literature review that follows. The rationale for
each hypothesis is provided in Chapter 3.
3

H1a: The prototype will exhibit equivalent postural alignment effectiveness as compared
to two commercially available support systems (ComA and ComB) as determined using a
method developed in this study that employs a 3-dimensional body scanner.
H1b: The prototype will exhibit equivalent postural alignment effectiveness as compared
to ComA and ComB as determined through an assessment of photographs of subjects
wearing the treatments.
H2: There will be an increase in wearer acceptability of the prototype support garment as
compared to ComA and ComB.
H3: The prototype will exhibit equivalent thermal comfort as compared to ComA and
ComB as measured by skin temperature of the upper arm using a laser thermometer both
initially and after the final stage of the wear protocol, or as measured by the McGinnis
Thermal Scale after the final stage of the wear protocol.
H4a: There will be a significant difference in static tight-to-loose fit of the prototype as
compared to ComA and ComB as measured by the Model Fit Evaluation Scale.
H4b: There will be a significant increase in overall static fit satisfaction of the prototype
as compared to ComA and ComB as measured by the Model Fit Evaluation Scale.
H4c: There will be a significant difference in dynamic tight-to-loose fit of the prototype
as compared to ComA and ComB as measured by the Model Fit Evaluation Scale.
H4d: There will be a significant increase in dynamic fit satisfaction of the prototype as
compared to ComA and ComB as measured by the Model Fit Evaluation Scale.
H5a: There will be no significant difference in the range of motion of subjects while
wearing the prototype as compared to ComA and ComB as measured by a goniometer.
4

H5b: There will be significant improvement in the user satisfaction with mobility or
perceived ease of movement while wearing the prototype as compared to ComA and
ComB as measured by the Movement Assessment Scale after the wear protocol.
Research Questions
Questions were deemed appropriate in addressing objective 6 because there is
very limited literature available regarding psychosocial comfort of functional garments
and insufficient previous findings on which to base a hypothesis.
6a. What psychosocial comfort issues will be expressed by participants as concerns
related to wearing the garment to work?
6b. What psychosocial issues related to the design of the prototypes will be identified
by participants?
6c. What other psychosocial aspects of the support garments will be addressed by
participants in response to an open-ended question inviting comments related to clothing
attributes including aesthetics, style, fashionability, appropriateness, design, color,
texture, and body emphasis?
Assumptions
1. The performance of a soft structural support garment can be assessed subjectively and
objectively within a period of two hours.
2. Subjects responded in an honest and accurate way to the self-report scales.
3. Subjects were not suffering from physical or emotional problems that could be
ascertained at the time of the study.
Limitations
1. A small, non-random, purposive sample of 15 female subjects was selected for
participation in this study restricting the generalizability to the population.
2. The prototypes were limited to a selected range of sizes (medium to extra large).
5

3. Commercial support products containing metal cannot be compared in the study due
to the body scanning procedure that is being employed.
Definitions
Comfort – “a mental state of ease or well-being, a state of balance or equilibrium that
exists between a person and his or her environment,” (Maher & Sontag, 1986, p. 2).
Fit – “the relationship of the garment to the body,” (Watkins, 1995, p. 264).
Posture – “the relative arrangement of the parts of the body,” (Kendall, McCreary,
Provance, Rodgers, & Romani, 2005, p. 51).
Good posture – “is that state of muscular and skeletal balance which protects the
supporting structures of the body against injury or progressive deformity, irrespective
of the attitude (erect, lying, squatting, or stooping) in which these structures are
working or resting.” ,(Kendall et al. 2005, p. 51).
Postural alignment - is determined by the vertical positioning of the vertebrae (Rhodes,
1996), in these five areas of the spine (cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacral, and
coccygeal) and relationships between the areas, which form curves (Western, Rhodes,
& Stevenson, 2002).
Structural support product (also referred to as “orthotic” and “brace”) – a product or
device providing physical reinforcement for the alignment of the spine (original to
this study).
Soft structural support garment – a structural support product that can be worn as a
garment, is produced from fabric components, and does not employ metal or plastic
stays (original to this study).
Thermal Comfort – “that condition of mind which expresses satisfaction with the thermal
environment” (ASHRAE, 1981, p. 8.19).
Thoracic – refers to a portion of the spine located between the cervical and lumbar areas
of the spine consisting of 12 vertebrae (Rhodes, 1996; Werrell, 2000).
6

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This exploratory, experimental study applied the DeJonge (1984) functional
design process to develop and test a soft structural support garment intended to assist
women aged 40 to 65 years, with maintaining proper postural alignment. The review of
literature summarizes pertinent aspects of the body of knowledge related to the functional
design process, postural alignment, wearer acceptability, comfort judgments, thermal
comfort, fit, mobility, and psychosocial comfort.
Functional Design Process
The fundamental elements of DeJonge’s (1984) functional design process include
reflective examination of the end use requirements of the garment, creative analysis of
the methods of development, and application of the required criteria. A systematic
method has been incorporated in the development of functional clothing research (for
example see, Fowler, 2003; Mitchka, Black, Heitmeyer, & Cloud, 2008).
DeJonge’s (1984) functional design process was developed to address most types
of specialized clothing. The process provides a systematic approach for the development
of functional clothing from initial idea through evaluation, and reduces reliance on
intuitive (black box) approaches while maintaining the creative input of the designer.
Table 1 outlines the seven stages of the DeJonge functional design process and provides
examples of studies that have employed the general techniques she described, including
studies that were not based on her framework. DeJonge’s description of the process
indicates that these steps may be reiterative with the designer revisiting earlier stages as
the process continues, or that stages may occur simultaneously.
Stage 1 of the DeJonge process begins with a general request. At this stage, a
broad problem or design challenge is determined and expressed by the user, the designer
or other interested parties. For example, Mitchka et al. (2008) indicated that the study of
dance practice wear emanated from one of the authors’ years of participation as an
amateur dancer and problems encountered in the performance of existing garments
designed for the dance studio. In the design situation explored stage (stage 2) interviews
7

Table 1
Stages of DeJonge (1984) Design Process and Example Studies Employing Aspects of the
Stages.
DeJonge (1984) design process Activities Included
Example Studies
Stages
Stage 1
Request made
Personal experience
Stage 2
Design situation explored
Stage 3
Problem structure perceived
Stage 4
Specifications described
Stage 5
Design criteria established
Stage 6
Prototype developed
Stage 7
Design evaluation
Observation
Third party request
Review of literature
User interviews
Brainstorming
Observation analysis
Market analysis
Literature search
Isolate critical factors
Narrow the perspective
Define the problem
Visual analysis
Activity assessment
Movement assessment
Impact assessment
Thermal assessment
Social-psychological
Assessment
Check specifications
against objectives
Reassess critical factors
Charting
Ranking and weighing
Prioritizing
Materials testing
Technique evaluation
Solutions weighed
against criteria
Materials selection
Pattern development
Construction methods
Finishing techniques
User & wearer acceptability
Fit Evaluation
Movement Assessment
Thermal Assessment
Aesthetic Attribute Preferences
Functional effectiveness
Mitchka, Black, Heitmeyer, &
Cloud (2008)
Black, Grise, & Fowler (2003)
Peksoz,, Branson, & Farr (2005)
Cho (2006)
Carroll (2001)
Kim & Farrell-Beck (2003)
Starr, Branson, Ricord, & Peksoz.
(2006)
Fratto, Cassill, & Jones (2004)
Krenzer, Starr, & Branson (2005)
Barker & Black (2004)
Lawson & Lorentzen (1990)
Lyman-Clarke, Ashdown, Loker,
Lewis, & Schoenfelder (2005)
Huck, Maganga, & Kim (1997)
Horridge, Caddel, & Simonton
(2002)
Mitchka et al. (2008)
Bergen, Capjack, McConnan, &
Richards (1996)
Fowler (2003)
Starr, Branson, Shehab, Farr,
Ownbey, & Swinney (2005)
Bye & Hakala (2005)
Krenzer, Starr, & Branson (2005)
Cho, Takatera, Okada, Inui, &
Shimizu (2005)
McRoberts (2005)
Rutherford-Black & Khan (1995)
Takabu, Takahashi, &
Matsumoto (2005)
Huck & Kim (1997)
Maher & Sontag (1986)
Chae, Black, & Heitmeyer (2005)
8

and or observations along with brainstorming sessions, market analyses, and literature
searches may be conducted to elucidate all possible issues and perspectives. This stage
of the process is characterized by divergence where the designer seeks all relevant
information. In Starr, Branson, Ricord, and Peksoz (2006), observations in the natural
setting were conducted of a young child in order to uncover all possible issues for
consideration in the development of a support garment for a large protruding hernia-like
birth defect.
In the third stage, problem structure perceived, the approach becomes convergent
with the designer focusing the study onto the most significant or relevant issues and
defining the specific problem(s) to be addressed. At this stage, activities similar to those
in stage 2 are formalized and directed toward the specific problem definition. Critical
issues are determined and the perspective is narrowed. Based on a literature search,
Krenzer, Starr, and Branson (2005) set out to develop a sports bra specifically targeted at
large-busted women for the reduction of breast discomfort during exercise.
In stage 4, garment specifications are described. Assessments of the critical
factors identified in stage 3 may be conducted through structured analysis of movement,
impact, thermal load, psychosocial aspects and/or other relevant assessments. Charting,
ranking and weighting, including prioritizing of these specifications leads to the
establishment of the design criteria in stage 5. In her study of body armor for police,
Fowler (2003) conducted movement, thermal, and fit assessments, then used the data to
assess critical factors for establishing design criteria for improving these protective
garments.
Prototype development based on the design criteria ensues in stage 6. At this
stage, materials for the prototype will be selected, patterns will be developed,
construction methods will be explored and any needed finishing techniques will be
applied. Horridge, Caddel, and Simonton (2002) describe the methods used to create
prototype uniforms of cotton/wool blend for police officers. In stage (7) the prototype is
evaluated according to the objectives of the process and the final design criteria are
established and/or revised. Evaluations of user satisfaction and garment performance
provide feedback regarding the solution and may illuminate additional issues, which
could re-initiate the design process. For example, this process was beneficial in the
9

development of sustainable garments by Chen and Lewis (2005). Original garment
designs were redesigned into four styles for each of five life styles in an attempt to
provide a wardrobe that limited the amount of clothing kept.
In Chapter 3 of this dissertation, the steps taken in this study to apply the DeJonge
functional design process to develop a soft structural thoracic support prototype will be
described. The following review of literature related to postural alignment, wearer
acceptability and comfort was conducted as part of that process.
Postural Alignment
A search of the literature related to postural alignment revealed several topics to
be considered. This section of the literature review will provide an understanding of the
importance of proper postural alignment, a definition of postural alignment, adverse
effects of improper postural alignment, the current corrective approaches for improper
posture, and the need for thoracic support research.
Cervical
7 vertebrae
Cervical
7 vertebrae
Thoracic
12 vertebrae
Thoracic
12 vertebrae
Lumbar
5 vertebrae
Lumbar
5 vertebrae
Figure 1. Three views of the human spinal column - Front (left), side facing to the right (middle), back
(right). Photograph: McRoberts, W. (2008).
10

Importance of Proper Postural Alignment
Proper postural alignment is critical for the preservation of a healthy back, and
prevention of back pain, strain, and damage. Rhodes (1996) stressed the importance of
proper vertical alignment of the spine in regard to enhanced athletic ability, increased
energy efficiency, and maximized performance. Additionally, proper postural alignment
is responsible for the equilibrium of the body and free movement (p. 44).
Definition of Postural Alignment
The functions of the spinal column are to supply support for the head and internal
organs; the foundation for ligaments, bones, extremity muscles, rib cage, and pelvis; a
connection between the upper and lower extremities; the mobility of the trunk; and a
safeguard of the spinal cord. The configuration or arrangement of the spinal column
comprises five areas: the cervical area (neck), thoracic area (upper back), lumbar area
(lower back), sacral area (pelvis), and coccygeal (tailbone). Postural alignment of the
spine is determined by the vertical positioning of vertebrae, in these five areas and
relationships between the areas, which form curves (Rhodes, 1996; Werrell, 2000).
Proper alignment of the natural curves takes place when the ears, shoulders and hips form
a straight line (Werrell, 2000). “Each curve is interdependent on each other so that
movement of one curve above or below another acts to balance the head” (Western,
Rhodes, & Stevenson, 2002, p. 36).
Postural alignment when viewed from the side comprises four mutually
dependent, unique curves: the thoracic and sacral areas are maintained as fundamental
posterior convex curves, while skeletal accommodation results in secondary anterior
concave curves in the cervical and lumbar areas (Rhodes, 1996; Western et al. 2002).
Proper postural alignment results in an ability to balance the head through compensation
of one vertebra by other vertebrae. Additionally, the connective cartilage of the vertebral
joints, in the vertebral column, provides vigor and protection against weight bearing
activities (Western et al. 2002).
11

Adverse Effects of Improper Postural Alignment.
Although most individuals are born with proper postural alignment, after age two,
many stop using proper postural alignment for various reasons including “underuse and
misuse of the muscles meant to hold the body in balance” (Rhodes, 1996, p. 44.). Lack
of proper posture such as craning the neck forward, leaning, reaching, and slouching
result in strains on the lower back (Werrell, 2000), as well as decreasing blood flow
(Rhodes, 1996). Also, the function of the internal organs can be impaired when improper
postural alignment decreases necessary space for proper function (Rhodes, 1996).
Another adverse effect of improper postural alignment is insufficient protection
against weight bearing during standing, lifting, or carrying, which may cause bulging
discs and subsequently lead to pinched spinal nerve roots at the departure from the
vertebral column. The results of these bulging discs include pain, possible muscle spasm,
and weakness (Western et al. 2002).
The primary importance of proper postural alignment is the prevention of
prolonged improper postural alignment, which may lead to possible decreased blood
flow, decreased space between the vertebrae for proper function, inhibited breathing and
oxygen transfer, impaired internal organ function, increased headaches and mood
alterations, increased tension and muscle tightness resulting in back pain, as well as
damage to the back or spine (Posture and Back Health, 2005). Women aged forty to
sixty-five years are susceptible to developing spinal curvatures associated with
osteoporosis (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2002a). This thoracic spinal
curvature called kyphosis, has been “associated with poor self-esteem, reduced quality of
life, functional limitations, increased hospitalizations and mortality resulting from
pulmonary compromise, cardiovascular disease or cancer” (Hinman, 2004, p. 415).
A relationship between posture and back or shoulder or wrist musculoskeletal
disorders, as well as an association between posture and problems in the neck, shoulder,
arms, hips, and knees were identified by Vieira and Kumar (2004), who conducted a
review of literature of working postures. Back pain attributed to improper postural
alignment is common (Lawrence et al. 1998). Of the working population, 42.6% of
workers experience back pain. In 1999, 16.5% (6.8 million) of the adult domestic
12

population with disabilities had back or spine problems accounting for the second highest
health problem associated with disabilities (Centers for Disease Control, 1999). Health
issues among workers aged 40 to 65 years cost domestic employers approximately $7.4
billion annually, with back pain exacerbations accounting for 71.6% of the cost (Ricci et
al. 2006).
Current Corrective Approaches for Improper Posture.
A factor contributing towards a healthy back is muscle strengthening, which aides
in prevention of back damage resulting from performing vigorous work (Werrell, 2000).
As a result, therapists and trainers have integrated exercises for the improvement of
proper postural alignment into therapeutic regimes. Rhodes (1996) provided various
Pilates exercises designed to promote and enhance proper postural alignment, but
emphasized that over-strengthening one muscle group without working opposing muscle
groups might result in discomfort. Werrell (2002) made suggestions for the maintenance
of spine wellness including warm-up activities, stretching, strengthening, and critical
components of lifting. Warm-up activities consisted of arm circles, brisk walking,
jumping jacks, and standing knee lifts. Stretching the muscles after warming-up extends
and prepares muscles for work. Strengthening thigh and back muscles aides in lifting,
increases efficiency, and decreases the possibility of injury. Critical components of
lifting help maintain curves and alignment, utilize strong leg muscles, and produce safer
lifts (Werrell, 2002).
Another corrective approach for improper posture is the use of support products.
Structural support products have been found to provide comfortable stability based on
customized designs for other parts of the body such as ankle braces (for example, see
Kitaoka et al. 2006).
A market analysis, conducted as part of this study and described in Chapter 3,
revealed three types of structural support products: rigid, semi-rigid, and non-rigid. The
majority of the support products is rigid, made of heavy plastic, and incorporated metal,
and/or metal or plastic stays (built in strips). Some of the support products for the
thoracic area of the spine also provide support to an additional area. For instance, a
thoracolumbasacral support product gives support to the thoracic area and provides
13

support to the lumbar and sacral area of the spine (Katz, Richards, Browne, & Herring,
1997). For patients in need of thoracic area support only, this additional support may
result in unnecessary immobilization, and discomfort.
Examples of some of the more rigid structural support products include the
Boston brace, the Charleston bending brace, and the Milwaukee brace which are used for
the treatment of scoliosis (Scoliosis.com, 2007). The Boston brace is a thoraco-lumbosacral-orthosis
for the treatment of low–back, or mid- to low-back alignment. The
Milwaukee brace is a cervico-thoraco-lumbo-sacral-orthosis for the treatment of high
thoracic mid-back alignment. The Charleston bending brace is curved and molded
towards the opposite side of the body as the curvature. It is also known as the “part-time”
brace because it is worn only at night during sleep.
Katz et al., (1997) conducted a comparison of the Boston brace and Charleston
brace. Results indicated the Boston brace performed better than the Charleston brace
which showed a 5° progression in spinal curvature as compared to the Boston brace.
However, in a comparison study of 3 rigid structural support products (the Aspen
thoracolumbascaral orthosis, Boston Body Jacket, and CAMP thoracolumbascaral
orthosis ), differences in motion restriction went undetected, but one product was found
to provide significantly increased comfort levels as compared to the other two products
(Cholewicki, Alvi, Silfies, & Bartolomei, 2003). Additionally, the study’s authors
concluded that “rigid custom orthosis design may not be important for restricting the
spine motion and providing passive trunk stiffness, or there may be other measures that
reflect better the function of orthoses” (p. 461.).
Other products identified in our market analysis were grouped as semi-rigid or
non-rigid (soft) structural support products. Semi-rigid support products are made of
fabric, but contain hard metal or plastic stays. Non-rigid support products are made of
fabric, and do not contain any plastic or metal stays, providing optimal flexibility. These
types of structural support products have likely achieved marketability due to their ability
to allow more flexibility than rigid structures. No studies were identified that established
the comfort or postural alignment effectiveness of these products.
14

Need for Thoracic Support Research
The literature review indicated a prevalence of lumbar and cervical studies, with
thoracic studies fewer in number (Theodoridis & Ruston, 2002). For instance, a search
for the keyword, lumbar, resulted in 162,000 articles, and a search for the keyword,
cervical, yielded 126,000 articles. A search for the keyword, thoracic, resulted in 70,000
articles, but the following research suggests a link between alignment of the thoracic
spine and various back disorders.
In 1997, Bernard conducted a critical literature review of 600 articles on
musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Bernard (1997) found strong evidence of awkward or
extreme postures as key risk factors for MSDs, as well as, posture as a key risk factor for
the neck and neck/shoulder regions. Improper posture was also found to be a risk factor
for the shoulder, and hand/wrist tendonitis. However, the author indicated the results
were inconclusive for elbow and carpal tunnel syndrome. Vieira and Kumar (2004)
further supported a relationship between posture and musculoskeletal disorders in the
neck, shoulder, arms, hips, and knees. Additionally, the National Institute of
Neurological Disorders and Stroke indicates that incorrect posture is a cause of repetitive
motion disorders (2007).
Baldwin and Butler (2006) demonstrated a twenty-year rise in workers’
compensation caseloads attributed to “cumulative trauma disorders (CTD) of the upper
extremities” (p. 303). An association was also made between CTDs and repetitive
motion tasks affecting the fingers, hands, wrists, elbows, and/or shoulders (Allen, 1993).
In 2000, upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders were the foremost domestic disability
source in the workplace including computer workers under age 25. Younger computer
workers were found to be at a doubled risk if they type more than 4 hours per day (Katz
et al. 2000). Feuerstein and Harrington (2006) suggest there remains a great need for the
development of effective interventions for work-related upper extremity disorder.
Kebaetse, McClure, and Pratt (1999) found that thoracic spinal alignment
influenced scapular position, and the two, together, influence overall shoulder girdle
function. The authors further indicated these relationships were attributed to two factors:
“numerous muscular connections between the spine, scapula, clavicle, and humerus” and
“a known pattern of integrated movement at the glenohumeral” and “scapulothoracic
15

joints (commonly called scapulohumeral rhythm)” (p.945). Additionally, thoracic spine
flexion (kyphosis) as seen in some repetitive work tasks caused decreased range of
motion and also decreased the amount of force generated by the muscles (Kebaetse,
McClure, & Pratt, 1999). Kyphotic changes in posture can occur with age based on
structural and mechanical changes in connective tissue and muscle weakness (Hinman,
2004). Thoracic kyphosis is indicative of painful thoracic vertebral compression
fractures (Hinman, 2004; Keller, Colloca, Harrison, Harrison, & Janik, 2005). Postural
stiffness results in an inability to decrease the thoracic kyphosis. “Accentuated kyphosis
is perhaps the most noticeable postural change, particularly in postmenopausal women,
who frequently experience a concurrent collapse of the vertebral bodies resulting from
low bone density” (Hinman, 2004, p. 415.).
Wearer Acceptability
Wear testing has been conducted using several methods including wearer
acceptability questionnaires (Fowler, 2003; Horridge, Caddel, & Simonton, 2002; Huck
& Kim, 1997), needs assessments (Bergen, Capjack, McConnan, & Richards, 1996;
Chae, 2002; Rutherford-Black & Khan, 1995; Turk and Black, 2003; Yoo, 1996),
exercise protocols (Fowler, 2003; Huck et al. 1997), range of motion measurements
(Adams & Keyserling, 1996; Fowler, 2003; Huck & Kim, 1997; Huck et al. 1997;
Watkins, 1977), and film studies of subjects (Lawson & Lorentzen, 1990; Watkins,
1977).
In 1995, Rutherford-Black and Khan, wear tested police bicycle patrol uniforms
using a questionnaire for satisfaction with their uniforms. The questionnaire included 18
bi-polar word pairings of physical aspects of the uniforms. The results of the study
indicated that the information gathered was useful in assessing wear satisfaction levels
for the uniforms.
In Huck and Kim’s (1997) study, coveralls for fighting grass fires were improved
based on specific considerations included sizing, fit, comfort, mobility, and improved
functionality of the garment. The Wearer Acceptability Scale incorporated 12 bi-polar
word pairings. Results of the questionnaire indicated that the prototype was favored in
every measure verifying that the design process yielded an improved garment design.
16

Black, Grise, and Fowler (2003) utilized DeJonge’s design process for the
comparison of a prototype and existing design of hip support systems. One of the
primary specifications for the prototype was wearability. Measures conducted included a
movement analysis and a wearer acceptability scale containing 21 bi-polar word pairings.
Results of the wear study indicated that the wearer acceptability of the new prototype was
improved in comfort aspects and freedom of movement as compared to the previous
support system. Each of the above articles represents different types of functional
garment development and demonstrates the usefulness of assessing wearer acceptability.
Horridge et al. (2002) used Branson and Sweeney’s physical dimension triad as
their framework. Their purpose was to wear test trooper uniforms to analyze “the effects
of cotton/wool fabrics on comfort and wear” (p. 350). Results indicated that the person
attributes had more impact on the level of comfort experienced by the troopers during a
work shift than the environment attributes or fiber content. Additionally, wearer
acceptability has been correlated with garment properties such as fiber content (Horridge
et al. 2002) and garment design.
Comfort
Branson and Sweeney (1991) developed the clothing comfort model incorporating
parts of and changes to other existing models. Their model clarifies key concepts,
terminology and measurement, provides a framework for demonstrating both the whole
and contributing parts of comfort, and illustrates the constantly changing characteristic of
comfort judgments.
Markee and Pederson (1991) indicate that defining clothing comfort is difficult
because testing of the different operational definitions could produce different research
results. However, it may be possible to define what comfort is not, describing what is
uncomfortable, in order to uncover what is comfortable. Furthermore, regardless of
whether or not a garment provides needed function, if the garment is deemed
uncomfortable, it will not be worn (Huck & Kim, 1977). In my research, the majority of
the support products identified in the market analysis contain some form of rigidity
ranging from plastic or metal insert stays to a hard-formed apparatus.
17

Based on initial investigations of the need for a postural support garment, four
sub-concepts of comfort have been identified: thermal comfort, fit, mobility, and
psychosocial comfort. Each of these areas of comfort assessment will be reviewed.
Thermal comfort
Thermal comfort is defined as “that condition of mind which expresses
satisfaction with the thermal environment” (ASHRAE, 1981, p. 8.19). Thermal factors
can be assessed either subjectively or objectively preferably in a controlled environment
(Watkins, 1995).
Fowler’s 2003 study compared two ballistic vests and measured thermal
acceptability. Ten officers served as the subjects for the data collection through surveys,
interviews, movement analysis, fit analysis, and wear testing. Officers indicated that
thermal comfort due to their ballistic vest was of main concern.
Black, Grise, and Fowler (2003) compared two designs of hip support products to
assess comfort and wearability to resolve complaints including those associated with
insufficient thermal comfort. While the researchers were able to produce a prototype that
provided improved wearability over the previous support product, thermal comfort
remains to be achieved.
Fit
Watkins (1995) defined fit as being “the relationship of the garment to body” (p.
264). Krenzer et al. (2005) indicated that fit was one of the most significant
characteristics in determining female satisfaction with sports bras. Likewise, Black,
Chae, and Heitmeyer (2005), surveyed subjects that purchased tennis wear regarding
satisfaction, and found the most important attributes were comfort, fit, and quality.
In 1995, Ashdown and DeLong, reported that fit variances could be perceived at
varying levels of the body, and that subjects had varying tolerance levels at different parts
of the body. In an earlier study, Delong, Ashdown, Butterfield, and Turnbladh, (1993)
reported that clothing from differing categories would vary in the necessitated amounts of
ease based on the mobility requirements. Therefore, during the selection of the
18

appropriate amount of ease, both the end use and required movement by a garment
should be considered.
A study of petite women, introduced a self-report Model Fit Evaluation Scale that
measured tight-to-loose fit (McRoberts, 2005). The scale consisted of 7 Liker-type, tightto-loose,
static and dynamic fit assessments of the subject, and one fit satisfaction
assessment. The tight-to-loose fit assessment had a range of 1 equal to extremely tight,
and 5 equal to extremely loose, with 3 equal to neutral. On the scale, desired fit would be
neutral. Static fit refers to fit measured while the subject is still or motionless. Dynamic
fit refers to fit measured during movement. Several studies through the course of
conducting product development have assessed both static and dynamic fit (Bye &
Hakala, 2005; Huck et al. 1997; Huck & Kim, 1997; Lawson & Lorentzen, 1990;
Rutherford-Black & Khan, 1995; Watkins, 1977). This study will need to address static
and dynamic tight-to-loose fit and fit satisfaction individually so as to better understand
the relationship between fit of the prototype and wear acceptability.
Another useful method for determining appropriate amounts of ease consists of a
skin stretch test. These tests can be used to determine the amount of ease or zero ease
necessary for freedom of movement. Zero ease refers to the absence of ease. In dealing
with stretch garments, especially for the purpose of providing support, it may be
necessary to remove ease.
Visual methods of analyzing fit by experts are ideal (Lyman-Clarke, Ashdown,
Locker, Lewis, & Schoenfelder, 2005; McRoberts, 2005). However, due to the zero ease
requirements for support garments, it is necessary to consider participant fit evaluation.
In the McRoberts (2005) study, garments were successfully analyzed on live fit models
by the models (self-report) and judges (objective third party assessment).
Satisfaction with fit is difficult to measure because female consumers have
varying fit preferences based on their body shapes and body cathexis (Alexander &
Connell, 2003). For instance, females with hourglass silhouettes in the Alexander (2000)
study favored extremely fitted garments, while females with inverted triangle silhouettes,
favored very loosely fitted garments. Therefore, feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction
with body shape and body cathexis can affect perception of fit in garments (Alexander,
2000; Alexander, et al. 2003).
19

Fit preference studies have been successfully conducted. For example, a study of
fit satisfaction rankings in women aged 55 years or older, indicated that petite women
were the least satisfied with apparel fit (Shim & Bickle, 1993). In Campbell and Horne,
(2001) another fit preference study compared two similar pairs of pants and found the
newer standards provided improved fit for mature petite women. Additionally,
McRoberts (2005) developed patterns for petite women, and assessed the muslins
developed from the patterns using live models. Results indicated mixed results regarding
fit preference.
Mobility
Mobility is an important component of comfort and relates closely to dynamic fit
issues. It is possible to increase clothing mobility through selecting fabric that is
“stretchy, flexible, light in weight, thin, and slippery” (Watkins, 1995, p. 244). An
important factor in fabric selection is recovery from stretch, because lack of recovery can
increase bulk.
Movement in a garment can be restricted when it is too loose or too tight. If it is
too loose, the clothing can be so bulky that it impedes the movement of the subject thus
resulting in a movement limitation. In order to check for the effectiveness of movement,
range of motion measurements should be assessed using a goniometer (Huck, Maganga,
& Kim, 1997; Huck & Kim, 1999). Additionally, exercise protocols can be used to
measure range of motion movements (Huck et al., 1997). These measurements can
demonstrate whether a garment is causing an impediment. Previous studies (Lawson &
Lorentzen, 1990; Starr, Branson, Shehab, Farr, Ownbey, & Swinney, 2005; Watkins,
1977) videotaped and photographed (Ashdown, 1998; Watkins, 1977) subjects while in
different movements in order to capture and collect data for evaluation.
20

Psychosocial comfort
Four elements of Branson and Sweeney’s (1991) clothing comfort model affect
comfort judgment: the physical dimension triad, social-psychological dimension triad,
physiological/perceptual response, and filter. Both physical dimension triad and socialpsychological
dimension triad are used to compartmentalize variables and provide a
perspective of the measurement techniques.
Psychosocial comfort literature is very limited. The psychosocial aspects of
comfort are influenced by person attributes, clothing attributes and environment attributes
(Branson & Sweeney, 1991). The person attributes include such characteristics as selfconcept,
personality, body image/cathexis, values, attitudes, interests, religious beliefs, or
political beliefs. Clothing attributes influencing psychosocial comfort relate to aesthetics,
style, fashionability, appropriateness for the activity, design, color, texture and body
emphasis or de-emphasis. The environment attributes include occasion or situation to
wear, and expectations of others encountered in the environment. A comfort judgment
can be complicated to determine when there are conflicting attributes. Wear studies
may be conducted in controlled or natural environments. Psychosocial factors may be
fewer and less complex in controlled environments.
LaBat and DeLong (1990) demonstrated a correlation between fit satisfaction and
feelings towards the personal body (body image/cathexis). Likewise, Alexander and
Connell (2000) indicated that body shape and self-image of the individual was directly
related to female fit preference. In 2004, Cash and Szymanski found that body-image
evaluation was related to psychosocial well-being.
More recently, Chattaraman and Rudd have reported that body cathexis and body
image had a negative linear relationship with aesthetic preference and styling
(Chattaraman& Rudd, 2006). The first three components (physical aspects, socialpsychological
aspects, and perceptual response) of the Branson and Sweeney (1991)
clothing comfort model were used as the framework for their study (Chattaraman &
Rudd, 2006). The purpose of that study was to “determine whether women’s aesthetic
response to apparel is related to their body size, body cathexis and body image and if so,
to provide insight into underlying patterns of similarity in their response” (p. 46). It is
21

apparent that psychosocial comfort is an important factor to consider in developing
garments and wear testing them.
Summary
The literature established the significance of the need for the development of a
soft structural support garment for the purpose of aligning the thoracic spine.
Additionally, research studies addressed the components of thermal comfort, fit, mobility,
and psychosocial comfort. Research was limited regarding the fit of a prototype for the
resolution of improper postural alignment. However, Krenzer et al. (2005), can be used
as an example for obtaining the proper fit of other prototypes.
Postural alignment studies demonstrated the importance of proper alignment of
posture for the prevention of potential back injury. The research also showed the
consequences and adverse effects of improper postural alignment. Structural support
products are one of the recommended corrective measures. Despite varying degrees of
prevalent problems associated with improper postural alignment, the literature revealed
few studies of the effectiveness of soft structural support products.
Current measures for proper postural alignment include exercise, yoga, or Pilates;
however, compliance is low. Previous orthopedic prosthetic devices have been primarily
rigid (based on the market scan). At present, there are support products produced
primarily for the lower back, followed by the neck. As a result of poor comfort, rigidity
and limited mobility, many consumers may refuse to wear the support products.
Comfort studies established the definitions, significance and attributes associated
with the different types of comfort. Additionally, the results provided various methods of
assessing and measuring comfort. Branson and Sweeney’s (1991) Comfort Clothing
Model will be used for assessing the comfort of subjects in this study. Given that a
prototype will not be worn if it is uncomfortable (Huck & Kim, 1997), comfort will be a
key factor in the design and development of this prototype.
22

CHAPTER 3
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND PRELIMINARY WORK
This section is arranged in the following composition: functional design process,
preliminary work, construction of prototypes, hypotheses, and research questions.
Functional Design Process
The DeJonge (1984) design process was chosen for the conceptual framework of
this study for a variety of reasons. First, DeJonge provides a systematic and detailed
approach to the functionality of a garment, resulting in consistency for replication. Also,
the time and attention to detail in the early stages increases accuracy in problem
identification, reducing the likelihood of intuitive approaches and resulting garment
redesigns. Additionally, the design specifications established during the DeJonge design
process can be used for assessing the prototype.
This study focused on developing and testing a prototype for a soft structural
support garment for the thoracic area of the spine to improve postural alignment.
Therefore, the purpose of my study was to design and assess the postural alignment
effectiveness, wearer acceptability, and comfort aspects of a prototype soft structural
thoracic support garment as compared to two commercially available thoracic support
products. In the application of DeJonge’s initial stage of the design process, request
made, a general objective was determined through the preliminary work in this study
regarding a postural alignment garment based on my personal experience (see Table 2).
The second stage of DeJonge’s design process, design situation explored, included
brainstorming all possible solutions without limitation to remove intuitive solutions and
promote creativity in the design approach. User interviews were conducted with two
female administrative assistants, one female volunteer with osteoporosis, and a renowned
physician. Beneficial information from the administrative assistants was gathered
regarding types of movements and repetition. Aesthetic and expressive information was
gained from the interview with the osteoporosis patient. The physician provided
invaluable information regarding posture, postural alignment, and pertinent journals.
23

Table 2
Functional Design Process for Soft Structural Support Garment for Posture Alignment
GENERAL REQUEST
Soft Structural Support Garment for Posture Alignment
Personal experience
DESIGN SITUATION EXPLORED
Overall objective Review of Literature Problem Definition
• Support systems
• Fabrication
• Physical comfort
• Thermal comfort
• Range of motion related to
tasks
• Functional Design
Process
• Posture
• Fit
• Comfort
• Orthotics
• Input from physicians,
medical experts &
trainers
• Visual observation of
individuals performing
different tasks
PROBLEM STRUCTURE PERCEIVED
Literature Search User Input Market Analysis Identification of Critical
Factors
• Support systems
• Fabrication
• Physical comfort
• Thermal comfort
• Range of motion
related to tasks
• Personal
discussions
• Interviews
• Consultations
with Physicians &
nurses
• Analyzed
commercially
available support
systems and support
systems
• Postural Alignment
• Mobility
• Ease of movement
• Comfort (physical &
thermal)
• Fabrication
• Fit
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Postural Alignment Comfort Movement
• Identification of
• Fit
• Range of Motion
correct posture
• Mobility
• Ease of Movement
• Orthotics
• Thermal comfort
DESIGN CRITERIA ESTABLISHED
Interaction matrix
PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT
DESIGN EVALUATION
Objective Analysis
• Range of motion measurement
• Movement assessment
• Thermal assessment
• Body scanning/physical assessment
Note. Preliminary work steps italicized.
Subjective Analysis
• Wearer acceptability scale
• McGinnis Scale (Thermal comfort)
24

Further brainstorming identified the factors to be considered in the functional
design process, such as posture, thermal comfort and fit, as well as further definition of
the problem. It was determined that the problem was a lack of comfortable, nonrigid, soft
structural support systems for improving and maintaining posture for women involved in
occupations where repetitive motion may be likely. An observational analysis of workers
performing repetitive motion tasks such as typing, filing, and answering the telephone
was conducted. Then a market analysis was conducted via the Internet to determine what
support systems were currently available, their design specifications, advantages and
disadvantages. Another literature search was conducted to identify current research
related to support products and orthotic development and evaluation.
The third stage, problem structure perceived, resulted in narrowing the focus to
critical design criteria, and led to the fourth stage of DeJonge’s (1984) design process,
specifications described. In this stage, the critical design criteria were organized into a
matrix for interaction analysis across the specifications. Each criterion was compared to
each other criterion to determine if the two were in conflict, symbiotic or unrelated. The
resulting matrix provided a guide for prioritizing and addressing further development of
required design specifications for the prototype. A preliminary prototype was produced
and evaluated following DeJonge’s sixth and seventh stages of the design process. The
preliminary prototype was subjected to a fit analysis and an informal movement
assessment consisting of extending, abducting, flexing, and raising of the arms. The
movement assessment indicated that the front armholes of the prototype needed to be cut
in more. Results from this informal evaluation of the preliminary prototype led to
revisiting the third and following stages of the process until the prototype to be used in
this study was developed.
25

Preliminary Work
Market Analysis
As a part of DeJonge’s (1984) second stage of the functional design process,
design situation explored, a market analysis was conducted by scanning the Internet for
back braces, orthoses and support products related to posture. The scan revealed three
types of support products: rigid, semi-rigid, and non-rigid. The rigid support products
were made of heavy inflexible plastic with metal or plastic stays incorporated within
them (built in strips). Semi-rigid support products were primarily made of thick fabrics,
with metal or plastic stays. Non-rigid support products were made of flexible fabric
without any stays incorporated in them.
The results of the market scan indicated a variety of rigid cervicothoracic
stabilizers that are made using hard plastic or metal with loop and hook tape Velcro®
closures. A few soft structural support products were also found, but none that would
qualify as a garment. Example support products intended for correcting posture are
illustrated, and their advantages and disadvantages discussed.
Rigid Support Products.
Figure 2. Rigid support:
Miami J® Collar by Ossur
Sketch: Barona (2008)
The Miami J® Collar by Ossur (see Figure 2)
provides total immobilization for the rehabilitation of
adults (http://www.ossur.com/?PageID=2853). It is
advertised as being latex-free and provides protection to
the skin for long-term use. This support system was
designed to restrict mobility completely and is very rigid.
In addition, it provides bracing to the cervical area of the
spine (the neck), which is not required for the correction
of posture. The advantage of this support system is that
it provides complete immobilization; however, the main
disadvantage is that it totally restricts movement of the
supported regions, and appears to trap heat, creating the
potential for poor thermal comfort.
26

Figure 3. Semi-rigid support:
Original Cincher Support System by
DocOrtho. Sketch: Barona (2008)
Semi-rigid support products.
The Original Cincher support product by
DocOrtho (see Figure 3) was designed with a longlined
torso and features wide bands and vertical spiral
steel stays. According to the website, this support
product provides postural alignment through
abdominal and lumbar compression (http://www.
docortho.com/braces-and-supports/backsupport/
original-cincher.html). This support product is made
of high density power mesh, and has elastic bands.
Additionally, this support product provides postural
support through the use of steel stays. The advantage
to this support product is that the fabric in the areas
not covered by the elastic bands appears breathable. A disadvantage is failure to provide
specific shoulder support. Also this semi-rigid structure may interact with
undergarments, and the mandatory abdominal and lumbar support may be more confining
and less comfortable than other support products revealed in the scan.
The Soft Form® Posture Brace from
DocOrtho (see Figure 4) is designed with two
flexible plastic stays and adjustable shoulder straps.
It is a long support product extending from
shoulders to upper hipline. The website indicates
the support system cover is made from Soft Form®
latex free fabric (http://www.docortho.com/
Figure 4. Semi-rigid support: The Soft
Form® Posture Brace from DocOrtho
Photograph: McRoberts, L. (2007)
braces-and-supports/soft-form-posture-controlbrace.html).
The advantage of this support product
is that it is designed to draw back the shoulders into
correct posture alignment and maintain the position.
Additionally, this product provides circumferential
support to the abdomen and lower back, but results
in limited shoulder movement in the forward and
27

downward directions as indicated by the company advertisement. It would appear that
the product restricts range of motion in the trunk, and the inconvenient lowered
placement of the bottom of the support product could also cause interaction with
undergarments. The product may result in restriction across the abdomen while sitting
down, and adds bulkiness in the entire torso area.
Non-rigid (soft) support products:
The Upper Back Support (ComA) from Orthobionics made by Bird & Cronin (see
Figure 5) is designed with hooks at center front on the waist, but contains no other metal
or plastic. This product was designed to provide proper posture by pulling back the
shoulders and aligning the trunk. The website indicates the support product is made of
79% Nylon and 21% Lycra © Spandex powernet (http://supports4less.com/birdcronin/
backsupports/upperbacksupport/bc-upperback-support.htm). The support product is more
flexible and less bulky than the rigid or semi-rigid braces, and, because it ends at the
natural waistline, may provide less interference with undergarments. Another benefit is
that the abdomen is not as confined and compressed as the semi-rigid structures.
However, this support product does not cover the bust and may be prone to pinching or
rolling at the waist due to the lack of stays to hold the product in place. Additionally,
since the bust is not covered, the wearer is likely to need a bra with this support system.
The combination of the support system and the bra may result in increased thermal
discomfort, rubbing, pinching, or pilling of the fabrics.
Figure 5. Non-rigid support: The Upper Back Support from Orthobionics Left: front view, Middle:
side view, Right: back view. Photographs: McRoberts, L. (2008).
Note. The black line is not part of the garment.
28

The Posture Corrector (ComB) by First Street by Mavis Health Care, Inc. (see
Figure 6), designed with Velcro® front closure, is advertised as providing correct posture
while offering support to “reduce back strain” (p. 1). According to the website, this
support product gently pulls, aligns and holds shoulders back minimizing stooping and
slouching (http://www.nulifemedical.com/pc-23-33-dmi-posture-corrector-unisex.aspx).
The fabric is 85% nylon/15% Lycra® spandex and is latex free. The main advantage of
this support system is that it has adjustable shoulder straps and waistband that provide
opportunity for custom fitting of varying body sizes. The disadvantage of this model is
the lack of coverage across the bust and the shoulders. The design of the upper back
portion of the product may not provide enough support to the thoracic region for postural
alignment effectiveness.
A few clavicle support products were revealed during the market analysis. These
products are like small harnesses that cross the upper part of the shoulders only. They
measure about 4 inches in height. They were not considered for use in this study as they
appeared to provide insufficient support for effective postural alignment of the thoracic
region.
The commercially available support products most similar to a soft structural
support garment were the two non-rigid products: ComA and ComB. Both of them were
designed to improve posture of the upper (thoracic) back specifically, could be worn
beneath clothing, and ended at the waist or above. According to company telephone
interviews, ComA and ComB had never been tested; their inclusion for comparison to the
prototype provided an important contribution to the body of knowledge.
Figure 6. Non-rigid support: The Posture Corrector by First Street. Left: front view, Middle: side view,
Right: back view. Photographs: McRoberts, L. (2008).
Note. The black line is not part of the garment.
29

Informal Interviews
Early informal discussions were held with two administrative personnel whose
work tasks primarily involved repetitive typing, answering the telephone, reaching and
stretching, filing papers, stooping down to pick things up, and static sitting position.
Both of the women were able to indicate where they felt muscle fatigue (the upper back,
shoulders and neck), and efforts they made to prevent muscle fatigue onset.
Another informal interview was conducted over the telephone with a female,
diagnosed with severe osteoporosis. Informal interviews were also held with medical
experts. Of particular interest was an interview with an orthopedic surgeon specializing
in spine and disc replacement surgeries. He discussed the mechanics of posture and the
spine. He agreed that a soft structure support garment for postural alignment might
provide thoracic spine support.
Table 3
Functional Design Interaction Matrix of Garment Specifications of Prototype.
Garment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Specifications
1. Back - 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 2
Support
2. Fabric - - 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2
3. Comfort – - - - 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2
Physical
4. Comfort – - - - - 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Thermal
5. Body - - - - - 1 1 2 2 1 1 2
Coverage
6. Mobility - - - - - - 1 2 1 1 1 2
7. Range of - - - - - - - 2 2 2 1 2
motion
8. Ease of - - - - - - - - 2 2 1 2
movement
9. Production - - - - - - - - - 2 2 2
10. Fit - - - - - - - - - - 1 2
11. Interaction - - - - - - - - - - - 2
with clothing
12. Style - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 = Conflict, 1 = Accommodation, 2 = No Conflict
30

Preliminary Prototype Development and Evaluation
Following DeJonge’s functional design process (1984), a preliminary soft structural
support prototype garment was developed to aid in postural alignment of the thoracic area
of the spine, because there was a lack of investigation and solution with regard to this
region of the back. The preliminary prototype was created to be similar to a sports bra or
fitted tank. Using a computer-aided-design system and a standard Misses’ size 8 block,
the pattern for the preliminary prototype was designed and printed. The preliminary
prototype was assembled from a polyester/spandex knit fabric and evaluated through an
informal fitting and movement assessment (trial run). Design criteria were identified and
placed into a specifications matrix (see Table 3). The specification matrix indicates which
pairs of design criteria may cause a potential conflict in design decisions (designated with
a “0” in the chart), those that can be accommodated (“1”) and those where no conflict
exists (“2”). The prototype was redesigned based on results of the trial run, the
specification matrix and features identified in products found through the market
analysis.
-Polyester 90/Spandex10
-Polyester 90/Spandex10
-Nylon 79/ Lycra© spandex 21
-Nylon 79/ Lycra© spandex 21
High Density Power Mesh
Figure 7. Prototype Top: Original, Bottom: Redesign
Prototype
Sketch: McRoberts (2007).
Fabrics
The stretch fabrics chosen for
the preliminary prototype consisted
of polyester/spandex blends in two
colors, light blue and navy blue (see
Figure 7). For the redesigned
prototype, I used a 79% nylon/ 21%
Lycra © spandex and a nylon/Lycra ©
spandex high density power mesh
fabric for support across the
shoulder blades. The power mesh
provides less stretch and more
elasticity, partially due to its own
properties and partially due to being
layered on top of the base stretch
31

fabric. Neutral beige was selected as the color of the redesigned prototype based on the
trial run results and the problems encountered with the use of the dark navy fabric in the
body scanner which interfered with the accuracy of data collection.
The cotton/polyester seam tape binding used to finish the fabric edges at the arm,
neck and garment bottom was found to be too bulky and restrictive for movement (when
arms were raised forward above the head and arms were raised at the sides). Therefore, a
replacement trim fabric that is narrower and had a finished edge was used to eliminate
bulk.
Informal Postural Support Analysis
The preliminary prototype was developed based on the idea that support could be
achieved by using stretchier fabric in the front and more stability in the back (see Figure
8). The preliminary prototype design was based on providing horizontal stability across
each blade. However, analysis of the preliminary prototype indicated that the back
support would be more effective with reinforced vertical/diagonal support across the
blades. Therefore the
design of the back
support was changed. to
provide vertical rigidity
to flatten the scapula
(shoulder blade) area, to
increase stability, and
pull back the shoulders.
Figure 8. The Preliminary Prototype. Left: front view Right: back view.
.Photograph: McRoberts, L. (2007)
Preliminary Fit Assessment
The preliminary soft structural prototype was fit both on a mannequin and a live
model. The fitting on the Misses’ size 8 Wolf Dress Form demonstrated proper fit, ease,
and balance. Evaluation of both fit and comfort on the live fit model were good.
However, the mobility of the live model resulted in slight binding along the shoulder
seams and underarm, with forward arm motion along the horizontal plane. Therefore, I
32

cut the armholes of the redesigned prototype deeper (at a 45° as measured from the side
seam), and cut the neckline deeper for mobility and versatility of wearing the prototype
beneath clothing. The redesigned prototype was then ready for inclusion in the study at
hand.
Construction of Prototypes
For the purpose of providing structural support, zero or negative fitting ease was
used dependent upon the region of the prototype. For instance, the front of the prototype
used zero ease with a high stretch fabric. However, the back shoulder blade region
included a very stable fabric or less stretchy fabric to remove ease for the support
necessary for aligning the posture. Preliminary fitting was accomplished through the
implementation of a modification of the skin stretch test in which the preliminary
prototype was placed on a live model and a series of 1inch squares drawn on the
prototype. As the model moved in the preliminary prototype, the change in size of each
square was noted and the information used for determining the need for movement
accommodation or rigidity across the shoulder blades for providing support to the
thoracic area of the spine. The redesigned prototype was adjusted to take these
movement needs into account.
Hypotheses
Based on information gained in the review of literature and preliminary work, the
following hypotheses were proposed.
H1a: The prototype will exhibit equivalent postural alignment effectiveness as compared
to two commercially available support systems (ComA and ComB) as determined by
using a method developed in this study that employs a 3-dimensional body scanner.
H1b: The prototype will exhibit equivalent postural alignment effectiveness as compared
to ComA and ComB as determined through an assessment of photographs of subjects
wearing the treatments.
33

Rationale: The prototype is expected to be equally effective in supporting proper
postural alignment as the two commercially available support products. No previous
studies of the commercially available products has been reported, thereby making it
difficult to propose levels of postural alignment effectiveness. The diagonal
reinforcement of the power mesh across the shoulders was expected to provide postural
alignment. Two methods of measurement are being used to determine the potential for
use of body scanning in assessing posture. No previous studies were found which used
the body scanner for the purpose of assessing posture. The traditional method for
assessing posture applies a set of standards by observing a person placed in front of a grid
and measuring the orientation of body parts to a reference line. Body scanning may have
the potential to ultimately reduce time involved in collecting this information, but the
method needs to be assessed in comparison to a commonly used method.
H2: There will be an increase in wearer acceptability with the prototype soft structural
support garment as compared to ComA and ComB.
Rationale: The prototype was expected to provide improved wearer acceptability because
it was developed with stretch fabric in a color based on the results of the trial run.
Krenzer, Starr & Branson (2000) used similar stretch fabric for a sports bra developed for
large-busted women which compared favorably to two commercially existing sports bras.
It was also expected that changes to the design would improve the garments in specific
ways as tested by other hypotheses and that these improvements would affect the overall
wearer acceptability.
H3: The prototype will exhibit equivalent thermal comfort as compared to ComA and
ComB as measured by skin temperature of the upper arm using a laser thermometer both
initially and after the final stage of the wear protocol, or as measured by the McGinnis
Thermal Scale after the final stage of the wear protocol.
Rationale: The prototype was expected to have similar thermal comfort as the two
commercial support systems because the fabric used for the prototype is similar to the
34

commercially available support products. Although the prototype does not have the thick
Velcro® or elastic bands of the two commercial products, it covers the bust and this
additional coverage may be sufficient to off-set improvements in thermal comfort in areas
where the fabric is not as thick.
H4a: There will be a significant difference in static tight-to-loose fit of the prototype as
compared to ComA and ComB as measured by the Model Fit Evaluation Scale.
H4b: There will be a significant increase in overall static fit satisfaction of the prototype
as compared to ComA and ComB as measured by the Model Fit Evaluation Scale.
H4c: There will be a significant difference in dynamic tight-to-loose fit of the prototype
as compared to ComA and ComB as measured by the Model Fit Evaluation Scale.
H4d: There will be a significant increase in dynamic fit satisfaction of the prototype as
compared to ComA and ComB as measured by the Model Fit Evaluation Scale.
Rationale: The prototype was expected to provide improved fit based on the design
changes incorporated in the prototype after the trial run. The increased depth of the
armhole was expected to provide increased mobility.
H5a: There will be no significant difference in the range of motion of subjects while
wearing the prototype as compared to ComA and ComB as measured by goniometer.
Rationale: The prototype is expected to provide equivalent mobility based on the use of
similar fabric and the fact that the arms are not restricted in any of the products being
tested.
H5b: There will be significant improvement in the user satisfaction with mobility and
ease of movement while wearing the prototype as compared to ComA and ComB as
measured by the Movement Assessment Scale after the wear protocol.
35

Rationale: The prototype armholes were cut more deeply to address issues with
movement of the arm at the shoulder. It is expected that these changes may provide an
advantage of the prototype in mobility assessments.
Research Questions for Psychosocial Comfort
6a. What psychosocial comfort issues will be expressed by participants as concerns
related to wearing the garment to work?
6b. What psychosocial issues related to the design of the prototypes will be identified
by participants?
6c. What other psychosocial aspects of the support garments will be addressed by
participants in response to an open-ended question inviting comments related to clothing
attributes including aesthetics, style, fashionability, appropriateness, design, color,
texture, and body emphasis?
Rationale: Branson and Sweeney’s (1991) clothing comfort model includes the aspect of
psychosocial comfort which comprised person attributes, clothing attributes and
environment attributes. Therefore, it is necessary to address psychosocial comfort in the
wear testing of the prototype. Methods of measuring psychosocial comfort are limited
based on the literature. In order to explore psychosocial comfort, open-ended research
questions were presented to the participants. The study did not address person attributes
specifically, but the comments of participants will be influenced by their individual
psychosocial attributes. Although the testing was conducted in a controlled environment,
the first question asks the wearer to consider their work environment in answering the
question.
36

CHAPTER 4
METHODS
This chapter describes the methods applied in stage seven of the DeJonge process
to evaluate the redesigned prototype. It is arranged as follows: Design of the Study,
Participant Selection, Treatments: Support Products, Sizes, Wear Protocol, Pilot Study,
and Data Analysis.
Design of the Study
The evaluation of the prototype was conducted as an exploratory, experimental
study involving human subjects. Institutional Review Board approvals may be found in
Appendices A, B and C. Volunteer participants engaged in a controlled wear protocol
after donning each of four treatments. Effects of treatments were compared for the
following dependent variables: postural alignment effectiveness, wearer acceptability,
thermal comfort, fit (static and dynamic tight-to-loose fit and fit satisfaction), mobility
(range of motion, ease of movement), and psychosocial comfort. Dependent variables
were measured at various points during the wear protocol (stage 1, 2, or 3) or
immediately after the wear protocol. The experimental design was a within subjects
design with two factors (wearer acceptability and thermal comfort) measured multiple
times, while the other three factors were measured once during each wear session.
Participant Selection
Based on the literature search and a statistical analysis of the research
design, 15 participants were recruited via mass e-mailings to the staff of two universities
in a metropolitan area in the southeastern United States. The functional design studies
reviewed for this research have used 4 to10 subjects. Since we were analyzing multiple
variables, we increased the target sample size to 15. Potential participants were offered a
body shape analysis as an incentive for their participation. The e-mails solicited premenopausal
female participants between the ages of 40 and 55 years who regularly
performed repetitive-motion activities. Respondents were excluded who were: unable to
commit for four weeks; males; women age 39 and under, or 56 and over; women who
37

had hysterectomies; women that were postmenopausal; and women with spinal problems
other than posture. Twenty-six individuals who responded to the e-mail were provided
with additional information, then telephoned to confirm that they met the
inclusion/exclusion criteria and to schedule the orientation and initial session for those
who were eligible. Subject selection ended when the 15 th eligible person was identified
and scheduled. One subject dropped out of the study after the initial session (control
treatment) and was replaced by the next eligible person. These 15 subjects completed all
phases of the study.
At the orientation, subjects signed the consent form (see Appendices D and E) and
submitted a questionnaire that indicated basic demographic information (age, height,
weight, occupation, length of occupation), participation in repetitive motion, availability
for participation, history of back or spine problems or claustrophobia, and willingness to
participate in body scanning. Subjects who consented to participate and met the
inclusion/exclusion criteria, were then measured by a fit expert who took circumferential
measurements of the bust, waist, and hips, and vertical measurements (bust to waist,
waist to hips).
Treatments: Support Products
Treatment is an independent variable with 4 levels: control, prototype, ComA, and
ComB (see Figure 9). The control, a sports bra, is designed to provide bust support
during dynamic movement. In this study the control represents the absence of back
support. It is comprised of 97% nylon/3% Lycra © spandex. The prototype is a soft
structural support garment designed to provide postural alignment with increased wearer
acceptability, and makes other clothing optional. Both commercial support product A
(ComA) and commercial support product B (ComB) are soft structural supports designed
to be worn either under or over clothing.
38

Figure 9. Top Row: Control (sports bra): Left: front view, Center: side view, Right: back view.
Second Row: Prototype: Left: front view, Center: side view, Right: back view.
Third Row: Commercial support product A (ComA): Left: front view, Right: back view.
Bottom Row: Commercial support product B (ComB): Left: front view, Right: back view.
Photographs: McRoberts, L. (2008). Note. The black line is not part of the garment.
39

Sizes
Prior to subject selection, sixteen ComA and ComB support products were
purchased for the study. Sizes of the commercial support systems were compared prior to
the purchase to coordinate the sizes of ComA and ComB. ComA sizes are based on waist
measurements, while the sizes for ComB are based on chest measurements. Three sizes
of ComA (Medium, Medium/Large, and Large) and four sizes of ComB (Medium,
Medium/Large, Large, and X-Large) were selected as the range of sizes to be used in
the study. Control garments covering the same range of bust sizes as ComB were used.
Five sizes were needed to cover the range. The measurements of the prototype were
developed based on a combination of the measurements of ComA and ComB, using five
sizes corresponding with sizes of the control. Table 4 lists the size information for all
treatments in the study and indicates how many participants wore each size of the
treatment. During the screening process, participants provided bra sizes, clothing sizes
(both shirt and pants), and measurements if known. Control garments (sports bras) were
purchased based on the screening results.
During the orientation session, participants’ circumferential and vertical
measurements were taken for the purpose of selecting the most appropriately sized
treatments for all of the subjects in the study prior to allocation. All of the participant
measurements were compared for the most suitable allocation of treatments. Each
participant was assigned and allocated specific sized treatments that were marked with
their corresponding identification number and stored in their individual bags. Each
support product was worn once by a single participant for a two-hour wear protocol. All
15 subjects wore each of the support products.
40

Table 4
Treatment Sizing Chart
Medium Med/Large Large X-Large XX-Large
Control Bust = 36” Bust = 38” Bust = 40” Bust = 42” Bust = 44”
n = 6 n = 4 n = 0 n = 2 n = 3
Prototype Bust = 36” Bust = 38” Bust = 40” Bust = 42” Bust = 44”
Waist = 30” Waist = 32” Waist = 33” Waist = 34” Waist = 35”
n = 6 n = 4 n = 0 n = 2 n = 3
ComA Waist = Waist = Waist =
27”– 29” 30”– 32” 33”– 35”
n = 5 n = 4 n = 6
ComB Chest = Chest = Chest = Chest =
34”– 36” 38”– 40” 42”– 44” 46”– 48”
n = 6 n = 4 n = 4 n = 1
Order of Treatments
Each volunteer agreed to participate in four wear tests, one for each of the four
treatments. It was determined that the first treatment would be the control (A), for each
participant for several reasons.
1. If there were any problems during the first phase of the study that needed to be
corrected, everyone would have received the same treatment and been at the same phase
of the study.
2. If a subject dropped out after the first session, we would not have to throw out any of
the costly treatments (structural support products).
3. All of the subjects would have an opportunity to acclimate to the environment and the
procedures involved in the wear protocol prior to testing the structural support products.
4. The control treatment provided a baseline for the evaluation of the three support
treatments.
41

For the remaining three sessions, participants were randomly assigned to a
treatment sequence that allowed an equal number of participants to wear each of the
treatments at the second, third, or fourth session. The treatment order assignments are
provided in Table 5.
Table 5
Random Assignment Chart for Order of Treatments
Participant 1 st Treatment 2 nd Treatment 3 rd Treatment 4 th Treatment
A-1 A B C D
B-2 A C D B
C-3 A D B C
D-4 A C D B
E-5 A D B C
F-6 A D B C
G-7 A C D B
H-8 A B C D
I-9 A B C D
J-10 A C D B
K-11 A C D B
L-12 A B C D
M-13 A C D B
N-14 A C D B
O-15 A D B C
Note. A= Control; B=Prototype; C=ComA; D=ComB
42

Wear Protocol
The wear protocol consisted of an acclimation period, a set of sedentary activities,
a movement protocol, a body scan, and photographs. The movement protocol was
developed based on previous wear tests (Huck & Kim, 1997; Krenzer, Starr, & Branson,
2005; and Horridge, Caddel, & Simonton, 2002) using movements related to
administrative office tasks based on the guidelines in ASTM 1154-88, 1988. A
Participant Instruction Booklet was created as both a procedural guide and compilation of
the instruments used for self report assessments. Instruments included in the booklet
were as follows: the Wearer Acceptability Scale, Model Fit Evaluation Index, Movement
Assessment, McGinnis Thermal Assessment, and the Psychosocial Questions. The 15
page study instruction booklet is shown in Appendix I.
To begin the protocol, each participant entered the dressing room and donned a
set of issued clothing (a white cotton control sports bra and/or support treatment, heather
grey cotton knit t-shirt, grip socks, and hair holders), and put their hair up off their neck.
Participants wore their own lower body garments. Each participant spent an hour
performing the activity and movement assessment based on administrative work tasks.
After the completion of the activity assessment, each participant was
photographed from the front, back and both side views against a 1” by 1” grid.
Additionally, they were photographed facing front, with their arms raised to their sides,
and then, with their arms raised over their heads. These last two photographs were used
for the range-of-motion assessment. Next, each participant removed their pants and
donned a pair of heather grey cotton knit biker shorts for the body scans and photographs.
The participant was positioned in the body scanning booth and instructed to hold the
handlebars and stand very still. The angle of the participants’ arms was measured using a
goniometer so as to maintain the same position throughout the data collection. After the
completion of the session, the subject changed into their clothing or began a second
session. After all testing was completed, the clothing that subjects wore was given to
them, along with an individual body shape analysis.
43

Postural Alignment Effectiveness
Postural alignment effectiveness, as used in this study, refers to the extent to
which a soft structural support product provides physical reinforcement to vertically
position the vertebrae in the alignment required for good posture as defined by the New
York Posture Rating Chart (Howley & Franks, 1992). Postural alignment was measured
using a method developed in this study that employs a 3-dimensional body scanner and
using an existing method modified for use with photographs. Both posture measures
occurred at the end of the wear protocol.
The body scanner used in this study is located at Southern University in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. The purpose of body scanning is to collect 3-dimensional images of
participants. The body scanner selected for the data collection in this study is a white
light-based scanner with non-moving scan heads. The output is translated using the
proprietary measurement extraction software from [TC] 2 (Cary, North Carolina). This
type of body scanner has been validated by the federal government for military uses
(http://www.tc2.com/news/news_seated.html). The body scanning procedure takes less
than 2 minutes. The data output from the body scanner provides three-dimensional
images that can be rotated in every plane. It also has the capability of extracting the scan
into a software program that provides for the placement of a grid on the scan, as was done
in this study.
Both the body scans and the photographs
were assessed using the 100 point New York
Posture Rating Chart modified by Howley and
Franks (1992) from the original version published
in 1958 (see Appendix G). The rating scale was
developed to evaluate posture as one component
of physical fitness in boys and girls, grades 4
through 12. The chart provides figure drawings
illustrating the alignment of the human body from
13 views and providing examples of good (10
points), fair (5 points) or poor (0) alignment for
Figure 10. Body scan: Prototype that view of the body with a possible range
Scan taken by: McRoberts, L. (2007).
44

etween 0 and 100 (perfect posture). In 2004, Briedenhann used the New York Posture
Rating Scale to assess posture, indicating its continued use for this measure. The
procedure for use of the scale was modified to use grided scans or photographs instead of
performing a live assessment for recording the data. The photographs taken were full
front view, full side view and full back view including head and feet. Each participant
was positioned in front of a 1 inch by 1 inch grid, based on the testing procedures in
Dwyer & Davis, 2008. The camera, a digital Canon Powershot S500, was situated on a
tripod 10 feet from the grid where the observer would be positioned (Ostrow, 1958). A
transparent ruler with red gridlines was placed on the photographs, with its center vertical
gridline placed along the center of the body in place of the plumb line (weighted string
hung from the ceiling to the floor).
Body scans were evaluated by three medical professionals applying the New York
Posture Rating chart to score the posture on a scale from 0 (“poor” posture) to 100
(“good” posture). The medical professionals each had a specialization in orthopedics,
one with an emphasis in spinal disorders. Each was given a copy of the New York
Posture Rating Chart modified by Howley and Franks (1992), the New York Posture
Rating Chart instructions by Ostrow (1958), and an article on testing range of motion
(Dwyer & Davis, 2008). The primary medical professional demonstrated the evaluation
method on a sample scan and photograph for the other medical professionals. Then each
of the three evaluated the scans and photographs independently.
Printouts of the body scans were overlaid by a transparent grid with a center line
positioned over the scans, and matched to the gridlines on the scans, with the thicker red
vertical line of the ruler specifically aligned with the line on the scans, from the floor to
the crotch height (balance line) which is the standard measuring point for the scanner
software projected onto the scanned image. From this point the images were compared to
the illustrations in the New York Posture Rating chart where scores were determined for
each of the three treatments and the control garment.
The Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the New York Posture Rating Scale for
body scans in this study was = 0.86. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the New York
Posture Rating Scale for photographs in this study was = 0.84. According to Peterson
(1994), acceptable alpha coefficients for basic research require reliabilities of 0.80.
45

Wearer Acceptability
The 9-point Wearer Acceptability Scale (WAS) was based on the scale from
Huck, Maganga and Kim (1997) with slight wording modifications. The instrument
comprises 16 pairs of bipolar descriptive adjectives regarding the participant’s perception
of various aspects of the treatment (garment or product) performance. The instrument
was designed to elicit various aspects influencing acceptability including comfort,
mobility and fit. Previous studies employing this scale have not reported reliability of the
scale. A factor analysis was conducted and the results indicated that the WAS represents
a single factor. Therefore, the 16 items were averaged to create a single wearer
acceptability score. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the Wearer Acceptability Scale in
this study was = 0.84. A copy of the WAS may be found in Appendix I.
Thermal Comfort
Thermal comfort was measured through skin temperature and the McGinnis
Thermal Scale. Methods for each test are described.
Skin Temperature
The skin temperature test was conducted with a laser-based, Extech mini IR
Thermometer from Radio Shack, which has been indicated to have the same reliability as
a thermal sensor (Foto, Brasseaux, & Birke, 2007). The thermometer is designed for use
by consumers to take human skin temperatures and therefore has an appropriate range for
this study. Skin temperature was measured on the forehead, chest, both wrists, and upper
arms using the laser thermometer. The skin temperature test was conducted at each of the
three stages (initial, stage 2 after typing, and stage 3 after the activity protocol). The
temperatures from the three stages were averaged across stages for hypothesis testing.
McGinnis Thermal Scale
A subjective and simple linear scale for assessing thermal comfort was developed
by John McGinnis in the Army Natick Laboratory (Hollies, 1971). This assessment tool
was found to be appropriate for both thermal assessment of participants that are
46

subjected to stress and to check the safety of participants in severe climates (Hollies,
1971). Given that the participants in this study will participate in an activity assessment
and movement assessment that is not necessarily rigorous, this instrument will be used
along with a skin test. Refer to the McGinnis Thermal Scale in Appendix I.
Fit: Model Fit Evaluation Index
The fit instrument, Model Fit Evaluation Index, by McRoberts (2005), was
originally developed for the purpose of evaluation of fit on live fit models, and was based
on the fit criteria in Amaden-Crawford, (1996, p. 48) and Betzina (2001, pp. 6-7). For
this study, the scale was modified to be self-reported by participants. The scale was also
reconceptualized to address static and dynamic fit satisfaction separately. Static fit
questions (tight-to-loose and satisfaction) were assessed at stage three of the study after
the wear protocol. Dynamic fit (tight-to-loose and satisfaction) was assessed for each
movement of the movement protocol immediately following the movement. These four
sections were reported separately: static tight-to-loose fit, static fit satisfaction, dynamic
tight-to-loose fit, and dynamic fit satisfaction. “Static tight-to-loose fit” refers to the fit
experienced while motionless, ranked on a five point scale from “extremely tight” to
“extremely loose” with the center being “neutral”. “Static fit satisfaction” refers to the
satisfaction with fit experienced while motionless after the completion of the wear
protocol. “Dynamic tight-to-loose fit” refers to the fit experienced while in motion,
ranked on a nine point scale from “extremely tight” to “extremely loose” with the center
being “neutral”. “Dynamic fit satisfaction” refers to the satisfaction with fit experienced
while in motion.
Scale reliability for the Model Fit Evaluation Index was not reported in the
previous study. I assessed the reliability of the scale after data collection for internal
consistency using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Results indicated a Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha for static tight-to-loose fit = 0.93. Dynamic tight-to-loose fit resulted in
a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha = 0.68. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient alpha for static fit
satisfaction = 0.88, while Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for dynamic fit satisfaction =
0.97.
47

Mobility
Range of Motion
Photographs of each participant were taken against a 1” grid upon the initial
donning of the treatment at the beginning of each session, and after the completion of the
movement assessment. The participants faced forward for the first photographs and
raised their arms at their sides, and then raised their arms over their head for the second
photographs. After the completion of the study, three medical professionals assessed the
range of motion of each participant in each treatment using a goniometer (Dwyer &
Davis, 2008).
Movement Assessment Scale
Participants rated the ease associated with movements while wearing each of the
treatments. A 9-point Likert-type ease of movement scale was developed based on the
exercise protocol (movement assessment) from Huck and Kim (1997), which, in turn,
was based on the American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Practices for
Qualitatively Evaluating the Comfort, Fit, Function and Integrity of Chemical-Protective
Suit Ensembles, ASTM F1154-88 (1988). Huck and Kim (1997) selected movements for
testing that best represented those movements required by the particular work
environment and movements that would create the most strain on the garment. Similarly,
this instrument was modified to demonstrate those movements most required in the
typical clerical work environment taking into consideration the most strain impacting the
treatments during the scope of the required movements. For the purposes of this study,
the movement assessment was modified such that each assessment was made
immediately following each movement. This instrument was assessed for internal
consistency using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Results indicated a Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha for individual movements = 0.97.
Psychosocial Questions
The questions for the assessment of psychosocial comfort were based on Branson
and Sweeney’s (1991) Clothing Comfort Model. Three open-ended questions were used
48

to capture perceptions of psychosocial clothing attributes of the support garments
(aesthetics, style, fashionability, appropriateness, design, color, texture, and body
emphasis). The questions were answered at the end of the wear protocol.
6a. What would be some of your concerns about wearing this support system to work?
6b. If you could change something about the design, what would it be?
6c. Please provide any other information you would like to regarding the clothing
attributes of this support system (aesthetics, style, fashionability, appropriateness, design,
color, texture, and body emphasis).
Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted by two subjects prior to the initiation of this study.
These subjects received the same incentives as the participants in the study. The two
subjects went through one complete session and were scanned while wearing each of four
intended treatments; the sports bra control, the prototype, one commercial soft structural
support product, and one commercial semi-rigid support product. The commercial, semirigid
treatment did not scan well due to the metal stays and did not provide proper fit in
the upper back. Based on these problems, the semi-rigid support product was replaced by
a second soft structural support product. The replacement soft structural support product
was also pilot tested in the body scanner.
Based on the pilot study, minor changes were made to the study booklet for
clarification. The subjects used in the pilot study were not included in the final sample.
Data Analysis
Independent and Dependent variables
The active and categorical independent variable was treatment, which comprised
four levels: the control, the prototype, ComA, and ComB. The six continuous dependent
variables were: postural alignment effectiveness, overall wearer acceptability, fit,
49

mobility, thermal comfort, and psychosocial comfort. Table 6 indicates the
operationalization of the variables.
Table 6
Independent and Dependent Variables as Operationalized
IV DV Operationalization
Control Postural alignment New York Posture Rating Scale
effectiveness TC 2 Body scan measurement
Prototype Postural alignment New York Posture Rating Scale
effectiveness TC 2 Body scan measurement
ComA Postural alignment New York Posture Rating Scale
effectiveness TC 2 Body scan measurement
ComB Postural alignment New York Posture Rating Scale
effectiveness TC 2 Body scan measurement
IV DV Operationalization
Control
Wearer Acceptability Wearer Acceptability Scale
Prototype
Wearer Acceptability Wearer Acceptability Scale
ComA
ComB
Wearer Acceptability Wearer Acceptability Scale
Wearer Acceptability Wearer Acceptability Scale
IV DV Operationalization
Control Fit Model Fit Evaluation Scale –
Static & Dynamic
Prototype Fit Model Fit Evaluation Scale –
Static & Dynamic
ComA Fit Model Fit Evaluation Scale –
Static & Dynamic
ComB Fit Model Fit Evaluation Scale –
Static & Dynamic
50

IV DV Operationalization
Control Mobility ROM measurements
Ease of Movement Scale
Prototype Mobility ROM measurements
Ease of Movement Scale
ComA Mobility ROM measurements
Ease of Movement Scale
ComB Mobility ROM measurements
Ease of Movement Scale
IV DV Operationalization
Control Thermal Comfort Laser Thermometer – skin temp.
McGinnis Thermal Scale
Prototype Thermal Comfort Laser Thermometer – skin temp.
McGinnis Thermal Scale
ComA Thermal Comfort Laser Thermometer – skin temp.
McGinnis Thermal Scale
ComB Thermal Comfort Laser Thermometer – skin temp.
McGinnis Thermal Scale
IV DV Operationalization
Control Psychosocial Open-ended Questions
Comfort
Prototype Psychosocial Open-ended Questions
Comfort
ComA Psychosocial Open-ended Questions
Comfort
ComB Psychosocial Open-ended Questions
Comfort
51

Statistical Analysis
The demographic questionnaires and surveys were evaluated using descriptive
statistics including means, standard deviations, and frequencies. Hypothesis testing was
conducted using the mixed model analysis of variance with the mixed-model procedure
of the Statistical Analysis Software (SAS). The experimental design was a within
participants design with two factors receiving multiple measures, while the other four
factors are not repeated. The two factors receiving multiple measures, were not true
repeated-measures designs because the repetition of the measures for the Wearer
Acceptability Scale (WAS) and the Thermal Skin Testing were not conducted under the
same conditions. In order to perform a true repeated-measures design, participants must
undergo the same conditions.
In this experimental design, participants read a magazine for twenty minutes as a
baseline in stage 1. This was performed to establish a baseline and provide acclimation
time to the treatment and the environment. The second stage, consisted of the participant
typing for thirty minutes. Participants were reassessed at this stage to see if there was
any thermal comfort change. Then, the third stage was a twenty minute movement
assessment activity. The participants were measured for WAS and skin temperature three
times under different conditions. Specific contrasts were performed after each significant
ANOVA finding, based on the corresponding hypothesis.
The experimental design consisted of one categorical independent variable with
four levels: the control, the prototype, ComA, and ComB. There were six dependent
variables: postural alignment effectiveness, wearer acceptability, fit, mobility, thermal
comfort, and psychosocial comfort. Each of the dependent variables were tested
separately resulting in the output for ANOVA tests. The purpose was to aide in the
interpretation of the data. Given that the F-test statistic of ANOVA is only capable of
establishing relationships within groups, if the overall F was significant, a priori contrasts
were performed to define the individual relationships, if any between the prototype and
the commercially available support systems.
Another consideration during data analysis was that the participants all received
the control as the first treatment. Thereafter, the treatments were randomly assigned. In
52

order to account for the possibility of carryover effects based on the initial sequence of
the treatment allocation, carryover effects were investigated with no significant findings.
The last dependent variable, psychosocial comfort, was treated as a research
question, and explored using open-ended questions and a content analysis to explore any
suggestions for improving the prototype for production.
Content Analysis
A directed content analysis method was used to analyze answers to the openended
questions and extract trends in the responses. Three coders independently
evaluated the responses and categorized them according to Lamb & Kallal’s (1992)
Functional Expressive Aesthetic (FEA) consumer needs model.
Responses were color-coded based on the three categories of the FEA model
(functional = red, expressive = blue, or aesthetic = yellow). Where there was a conflict in
categorization, the most frequently selected was assigned.
Next, we conducted a conventional content analysis using only the aesthetic and
expressive responses. Coders independently grouped similar or related responses,
reading through the comments several times. Color-coding was used to mark similar
items and identify trends. For instance, all of the responses that were related to breast
support were grouped together by marking with a pink highlighter. The Coders then met
as a group and negotiated differences in groupings. The number of responses in various
groups or trends was recorded for each treatment.
Next, a second directed content analysis was conducted using the Branson and
Sweeney model psychosocial attribute categories included in the question as prompts.
Additionally, each response was coded as either positive (+), for a favorable comment, or
negative (-), for a complaint or concern regarding the treatment. The frequency of
positive and negative responses was recorded for each treatment.
53

CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The purpose of the study was to design and assess the postural alignment
effectiveness, wearer acceptability, and comfort aspects of a prototype soft structural
thoracic support garment as compared to two commercially available thoracic support
garments. In this chapter the results of the study are presented and analyzed for
satisfaction of the proposed objectives. Descriptive analyses of the sample demographics
are provided. Results of hypotheses testing and content analysis of the psychosocial
research questions are presented and discussed.
Sample
Volunteers were recruited via mass e-mailings from two universities in a
metropolitan area in Louisiana. The sample was comprised of 15 pre-menopausal
females between the ages of 41 and 55 with a mean age of 47 years. Racial distribution
of the sample was 40.0% Caucasian, 33.3% African-American, and 26.7% Hispanic.
According to the American Community Survey, the Louisiana population is 64.4%
Caucasian, 31.6% African-American, and 2.9% Hispanic (U. S. Census Bureau, 2006).
Our sample was more diverse than the general population and this diversity was
welcomed in terms of providing the potential for diverse physical and perceptual
characteristics of users. Table 7 lists the participants by age, race, and employment
status.
The majority of the participants, 73.3%, were employed. This was high compared
to the national average for employed females of 59.4% (U. S. Census Bureau, Census
2000), but was expected due to recruitment through two university staff mailings.
Participants indicated that they regularly participated in repetitive motion tasks, a
criterion for inclusion in this study. The participants ranged in height from 5’1” to 5’9”
with an average height of 5’5”, and ranged in weight from 117 to 235 pounds, with an
average weight of 156 pounds.
55

Table 7
Self-Reported Age, Race, and Employment Status of the Fifteen Participants
Age Race Employment Status
41 Hispanic Graduate Student
42 African American Employed
42 Caucasian Employed
43 African American Employed
43 Caucasian Employed
43 Hispanic Employed
46 Caucasian Employed
46 Caucasian Housewife
47 African American Employed
50 African American Employed
50 Caucasian Housewife
52 Hispanic Employed
53 Caucasian Employed
55 Hispanic Housewife
Subtotals
Subtotals
African American 5 Employed 11
Caucasian 6 Housewife 3
Hispanic 4 Grad. Student 1
Mean 46.9 .9 .9
Std. Dev. 4.5 .9 .5
Note. The values for race ranged from 0 to 2, with 0 = Caucasian, 1 = Hispanic, and 2 = African-American.
Values for employment ranged from 0 to 2, with 0 = Housewife, 1 = Employed, and 2 = Graduate Student.
56

Table 8
Height, Weight, Circumferential and Vertical Dimensions for Participants
Height 1 Weight 1 Bust Waist Hips Torso Waist-
Feet/inches pounds inches inches inches inches to-Hips
inches
5.1 120 34.38 28.63 38.45 14.50 7.00
5.1 128 36.00 30.25 39.13 16.00 8.00
5.1 134 37.75 30.75 41.00 17.00 8.50
5.2 144 37.75 31.50 42.25 17.50 8.00
5.3 117 32.63 27.63 36.00 14.00 8.38
5.4 120 34.50 28.63 37.25 15.50 8.00
5.4 150 37.25 29.86 42.25 15.00 9.00
5.5 150 35.50 29.00 44.00 14.00 9.00
5.5 175 43.00 39.50 45.50 17.50 8.50
5.6 150 37.38 31.25 42.00 17.00 9.00
5.6 NA 2 47.00 40.00 51.00 17.50 8.00
5.7 NA 45.00 37.00 45.25 17.50 7.00
5.8 155 38.25 31.00 40.38 15.00 9.00
5.8 213 42.38 37.50 51.88 17.50 9.00
5.9 235 44.38 39.50 49.25 18.00 9.00
Means 5.47 155.8 38.85 32.80 43.00 16.23 8.35
Std. Dev. .29 35.78 4.38 4.51 4.84 1.44 .69
1
Self-reported
2 NA=not available. Participant did not provide weight.
Circumferential measurements ranged from 32.63” to 47.00” for the bust, 27.63”
to 40.00” for the waist, and 36.00” to 51.88” for the hip. Vertical length measurements
57

anged from 14.50” to 18.00” for neck to waist length and 7.00” to 9.00” for waist-to-hip
length. The participant pool was well distributed in terms of body sizes.
Table 9
Means for Height, Weight, Circumferential and Vertical Dimensions by Race
Height 1 Weight 1 Bust Waist Hips Torso Waist-
Feet/ pounds inches inches inches inches to-Hips
inches
inches
African-American
Means 5.5 170 40.78 35.17 44.03 16.90 8.10
Std. Dev. .3 48.8 4.72 4.98 4.13 1.39 1.02
Caucasian
Means 5.6 162.5 38.82 32.50 44.21 15.50 8.72
Std. Dev. .3 33.9 5.13 5.13 6.21 1.61 .45
Hispanic
Means 5.3 131.5 36.50 30.28 39.91 16.5 8.13
Std. Dev. .2 10.1 1.57 1.23 2.19 .91 .25
1
Self-reported
2 NA=not available. Participant did not provide weight.
African-American participants weighed more, and had larger bust and waist
circumferential measurements and torso height. Caucasian participants were slightly
taller (.07) than African-American participants, in the middle for bust and waist
circumferential measurements, largest in the hips, tallest in the waist to hips height, and
shortest in torso height. Hispanic participants were shortest in height, and smallest in the
bust, waist, and hip circumferential measurements, in the middle for torso height, and the
same as African-American participants in waist to hips height.
58

Hypotheses Testing
Mixed-Model ANOVAs were run using the mixed-model procedure of the
Statistical Analysis Software (SAS). The experimental design comprised one
independent variable with four levels, two dependent variables with multiple measures,
and four dependent variables tested only once. Specific a priori contrasts were performed
after each significant ANOVA finding, based on the corresponding hypothesis.
Postural Alignment Effectiveness
Hypothesis 1 was addressed using two Mixed-Model ANOVAs to compare
postural alignment effectiveness as captured in body scans and photographs by treatment
(control, prototype, ComA, and ComB). Sequence (order of treatments) was included in
the model to determine any order or carryover effects. One analysis was conducted using
the body scanner to measure postural alignment while the other used photographs. Both
body scans and photographs were evaluated by medical experts that applied the New
York Posture Rating chart to scans and photographs of participants for scoring.
Body Scans
The following null hypothesis was tested.
H1a 0 : There will be no significant difference in the postural alignment effectiveness of
the prototype as compared to ComA and ComB as determined using a method developed
in this study that employs a 3-dimensional body scanner.
Results of the ANOVA for postural alignment effectiveness as measured by body
scans are given in Table 10. The covariance parameter estimate residuals are equal to
21.5783 (estimate error), accounting for 100% of the population estimate for sequence
and 100% of the population estimate for treatment. Omega-squared values are provided
as an indicator of the strength of association for a given F value. Cohen (1977) indicates
that effect sizes for omega-squared values can be roughly interpreted as follows: small
effect=0.01, medium effect=0.06 and large effect =0.14. Based on these approximate
values, sequence and treatment had small effects.
59

The analysis revealed no significant difference by sequence (order of treatment)
[F(2, 12.5)=0.07, p=.936]. This result indicated that there were no carryover effects
based on the order that the participants wore the different treatments in the study and
allows consideration of the main effects and interactions without adjusting for sequence
effects. Treatment was not significant [F(3, 39)=1.35, p=.273]. Table 11 shows the
mean postural alignment by scan scores for each treatment at stage 3, after the wear
protocol.
Table 10
Analysis of Variance for Postural Alignment Effectiveness by Treatment as Captured by
Body Scans
Source Num df Den df F ω 2 p
Sequence 2 12.5 0.07 0.032 .936
Treatment 3 39 0.98 0.017 .273
error (21.5783)
Note. The value in parentheses represents residual estimate from the covariance parameter estimates.
ω 2 = omega-squared values - tell the strength of association for the F tests. An example of a small
effect=0.01, medium effect=0.06 and large effect =0.14 (Cohen, 1977).
Table 11
Mean Postural Alignment Scores of Body Scans by Treatments after the Wear Protocol
Treatment 1 Postural Alignment Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
Control 74.0 11.83 55 90
Prototype 76.0 12.17 55 90
ComA 78.2 11.46 60 100
ComB 75.2 13.84 45 95
Note. Scan scores range from 0 – 100, with 100 representing ideal posture. Postural alignment scores
assessed using the New York Posture Rating Chart (Ostrow, 1958; Howley & Franks, 1992).
1 n = 15 for each treatment
Means scores ranged from 74.0 to 78.2, on a possible range of 0 (“poor” posture)
to 100 (“good” posture), with 50 representing “fair” posture. These mean scan scores and
60

the lack of a significant ANOVA suggest that all treatments were equivalent in postural
alignment effectiveness
Photographs
H1b 0 : There will be no significant difference in the postural alignment effectiveness of
the prototype as compared to ComA and ComB as determined through an assessment of
photographs of subjects wearing the treatments.
Results of the ANOVA for postural alignment effectiveness as captured in
photographs are given in Table 12. The covariance parameter estimate residuals are
equal to 33.0794 (estimate error), accounting for 100% of the population estimate for
sequence and 100% of the population estimate for treatment. Based on omega-squared
values, sequence and treatment had medium effects.
The analysis indicates no significant difference by sequence (order of treatment)
[F(2, 14.2)=0.67, p=.526]. This result indicated that there were no carryover effects
based on the order that the participants wore the treatments in the study and allows
consideration of the main effects and interactions without adjusting for sequence effects.
Treatment significantly [F(3, 39)=2.85, p=.049] influenced postural alignment as
measured by expert observation/evaluation of photographs. Table 13 shows the mean
postural alignment scores for each treatment as captured in photographs taken after the
wear protocol.
Table 12
Analysis of Variance for Postural Alignment Effectiveness as Captured in Photographs
Source Num df Den df F ω 2 p
Sequence 2 14.2 0.67 -0.066 .526
Treatment 3 39 2.85 0.085 .049*
error (33.0794)
Note. The value in parentheses represents residual estimate from the covariance parameter estimates.
ω 2 = omega-squared values - tell the strength of association for the F tests. An example of a small
effect=0.01, medium effect=0.06 and large effect =0.14. (Cohen, 1977)
*p≤.05.
61

Table 13
Mean Postural Alignment Scores of Photographs by Treatments after the Wear Protocol
Treatment 1 Postural Alignment Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
Control 71.4 10.15 55 90
Prototype 78.3 8.96 60 90
ComA 77.0 11.98 55 95
ComB 72.5 7.75 65 90
Note. Scores range from 0 – 100, with 100 representing ideal posture. Postural Alignment scores assessed
using the New York Posture Rating Chart (Ostrow, 1958; Howley & Franks, 1992)
1 n = 15 for each treatment
A priori contrasts. Based on the hypothesis, a priori contrasts were run to
determine whether differences between the control, prototype and commercial support
products were meaningful (see Table 14). Contrast analysis for postural alignment by
photographs scores between the control and prototype yielded significant results [F(1,
39)=4.53, p=.040], indicating that participants wearing the prototype had significantly
better postural alignment than when they were wearing the control. Contrast analysis for
postural alignment effectiveness by photographs scores between the prototype and both
ComA and ComB yielded non-significant results [F(1, 39)=0.08, p=.782 and F(1,
39)=1.72, p=.197, respectively], indicating that the prototype was similar in postural
alignment effectiveness to ComA or ComB. Therefore, we failed to reject the null
hypothesis for the prototype as compared to ComA and ComB. As desired, the prototype
garment provided better postural alignment effectiveness than the control and at least as
much postural alignment effectiveness as both ComA and Com B when measured using
the photograph method.
62

Table 14
A Priori Contrasts for Postural Alignment Effectiveness by Treatments
Treatments Stage Num df Den df F p
Prototype vs. Control 3 1 39 4.53 .040*
Prototype vs. ComA 3 1 39 1.28 .782
Prototype vs. ComB 3 1 39 4.45 .197
Note. Stage 3 = final after wear protocol.
*p≤ .05.
Discussion. The prototype was expected to be equally effective in supporting
proper postural alignment as compared to both ComA and ComB. The prototype did
provide similar postural alignment as compared to both ComA and ComB as captured in
body scans and photographs. However, the photographs revealed a significant difference
in supporting proper postural alignment between the prototype and the control.
The body scan method has not been used previously. This method is in
development and its use in this study was instructive. Postural alignment scores using the
body scans did not provide the same results as those using photographs. This difference
can be attributed to the difficulty in locating body landmarks on the scans. We believe
that markers placed at the ear (external meatus) and ankle will help pinpoint landmarks
and facilitate evaluation of the body scans.
The research hypothesis proposed no difference in postural alignment between the
prototype and the commercial product, because our intention was to create a soft
structural support garment that would provide postural alignment at least as good as the
commercial support products. The finding that the prototype was significantly different
from the control, was desirable as it shows that it is improving postural alignment and
that we are getting effectiveness.
63

Wearer Acceptability
Hypothesis 2 was addressed using a mixed-model ANOVA to compare wearer
acceptability ratings by treatment (control, prototype, ComA, and ComB), stage (initial,
intermediate and final), and interaction between treatment and stage. Sequence (order of
treatments) was included in the model to determine any order or carryover effects. The
following null hypothesis was tested.
H2 0 : There will be no significant difference in wearer acceptability with the prototype
support garment as compared to ComA and ComB.
Results of the ANOVA are given in Table 15. The covariance parameter estimate
residuals are equal to 0.1533 (estimate error), accounting for 86% of the population
estimate for sequence, 69% of the population estimate for treatment, 75% of the
population estimate for stage, and 84% of the population estimate for treatment/stage
interaction. Omega-squared values are provided as an indicator of the strength of
association for a given F value. Based on these values, sequence and treatment/stage
interaction had small effects in this ANOVA, while treatment and stage had medium
effects.
The analysis indicates no significant difference by sequence (order of treatment)
[F(2, 17)=3.24, p=.064]. Interaction of treatment and stage was not significant [F(6,
112)=1.90, p=.087] indicating that the main effects of treatment (control, prototype,
ComA, and ComB) and stage (initial, intermediate, and final) have independent effects
on wearer acceptability. Both treatment [F(3, 39)=5.43, p=.003] and stage [F(2,
112)=5.81, p=.004] were significantly associated with wearer acceptability. Table 16
shows the mean wearer acceptability rating for each treatment at each stage of the study
and the overall means by treatment and by stage.
64

Table 15
Analysis of Variance for Wearer Acceptability
Source Num df Den df F ω 2 p
Sequence 2 17 3.24 0.024 .064
Treatment 3 39 5.43 0.069 .003**
Stage 2 112 5.81 0.051 .004**
Treatment*Stage 6 112 1.90 0.029 .087
error (0.1533)
Note. The value in parentheses represents residual estimate from the covariance parameter estimates.
ω 2 = omega-squared values - tell the strength of association for the F tests. An example of a small
effect=0.01, medium effect=0.06 and large effect =0.14 (Cohen, 1977).
**p≤ .01.
Table 16
Mean Wearer Acceptability by Treatment and Stage
Treatment 1 Stage Stage Stage Overall by Std. Min Max
1 2 3 Treatment Dev.
Control 7.4 7.1 7.4 7.3 1.06 1.50 5.68
Prototype 7.3 7.1 6.9 7.1 0.84 1.50 5.31
ComA 6.2 6.3 6.1 6.2 1.72 1.19 7.19
ComB 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.4 1.66 1.56 7.19
Overall by Stage 6.6 6.5 6.4
Std. Dev. 1.44 1.48 1.70
Minimum 1.19 1.50 1.50
Maximum 7.19 7.19 7.19
Note. The values represent the wearer acceptability ratings of the treatment. Scale = 1-9, with 1 =
“Extremely Unacceptable”, to 9 = “Extremely acceptable”, with 5 = “Neutral”.
1 n = 15 for each treatment
65

A priori contrasts. Based on the hypothesis, a priori contrasts were run to
determine whether differences between the prototype and the commercial support
products were meaningful (see Table 17). Contrast analyses between the prototype and
control were non-significant both initially (stage 1), [F(1, 42.4) =0.01, p=0.927], and
after wear protocol (stage 3) [F(1, 42.4) =0.51, p=0.478], indicating that the prototype
and control were perceived as having similar wearer acceptability. Contrast analysis
between the control and ComA was significant both at Stage 1 [F(1, 43.5) =5.05,
p=0.030] and Stage 3 [F(1, 43.5) =6.32, p=0.016] indicating that the control was
perceived as more acceptable than ComA. Contrast analysis between the control and
ComB was also significant both at Stage 1 [F(1, 42.4) =9.22, p=0.004] and Stage 3 [F(1,
42.4) =14.39, p=0.0005] indicating that the control was perceived as more acceptable
than ComB.
Contrast analysis between the prototype and ComA yielded non-significant results
both initially [F(1, 40.9)=2.04, p=.161], and after the wear protocol (stage 3) [F(1,
40.9)=1.28, p=.265], indicating that wearer acceptability for the prototype and ComA
was similar. Therefore, we failed to reject the null hypothesis and the research hypothesis
was not supported for ComA. The prototype garment was not perceived as more
acceptable than ComA.
Contrast analysis between the prototype and ComB was approaching significance
at stage 1 [F(1, 40.5) =4.07, p=0.0503] and indicated a significant [F(1, 40.5) =4.45,
p=0.04] difference in wearer acceptability ratings between the two treatments at Stage 3.
Therefore the null hypothesis was rejected for the comparison of the prototype and ComB
and the research hypothesis was supported. The prototype garment was perceived as
more acceptable than ComB.
Discussion. The prototype performed similarly to the control in wearer
acceptability. This finding is positive because the control represents a garment designed
without postural support. At the same time, the control provided significantly better
wearer acceptability than both ComA and ComB. It was expected that differences in the
design of the support products would result in different levels of wearer acceptability.
The prototype and ComA may have behaved more similarly than expected because of the
similarities of the nylon/spandex fabric. The prototype was constructed from a
66

nylon/spandex knit and nylon/spandex power mesh fabric that was intended to provide
increased stretch for mobility as compared to the spandex fabric in ComB. Additionally,
the design of the prototype provided greater body coverage with a higher percentage
(21%) of spandex in the fabric blend than ComB (15%) which used 2” wide elastic trim
and closures that would be more stiff and insulative. Because wearer acceptability is an
overall measure, other analyses will provide greater insight as to what aspects of the
prototype performance may be contributing to similar wearer acceptability as ComA and
higher wearer acceptability than ComB.
Table 17
A Priori Contrasts for Wearer Acceptability of Treatments by Stage
Treatments Stage Num df Den df F p
Control vs. Prototype 1 1 42.4 0.01 .927
Control vs. Prototype 3 1 42.4 0.51 .478
Control vs. ComA 1 1 43.5 5.05 .030*
Control vs. ComA 3 1 43.5 6.32 .016*
Control vs. ComB 1 1 42.4 9.22 .004*
Control vs. ComB 3 1 42.4 14.39 .000***
Prototype vs. ComA 1 1 40.9 2.04 .161
Prototype vs. ComA 3 1 40.9 1.28 .265
Prototype vs. ComB 1 1 40.5 4.07 .050*
Prototype vs. ComB 3 1 40.5 4.45 .041*
Note. Stage 1 = initial and Stage 3 = final after wear protocol
*p≤ .05, ***p≤ .0005.
67

Thermal Comfort
Hypothesis 3 was addressed using two mixed-model ANOVAs. The first mixedmodel
ANOVA was conducted to compare average skin temperature by treatment
(control, prototype, ComA or ComB), stage (initial and final), and interaction between
treatment and stage. Sequence (order of treatments) was included in the model to
determine any order or carryover effects.
The second mixed-model ANOVA was conducted to compare McGinnis thermal
comfort test results by treatment (control, prototype, ComA or ComB) at the final stage
of the wear protocol. Sequence (order of treatments) was included in the model to
determine any order or carryover effects. The above two analyses were used to test the
following null hypothesis.
H3 0 : There will be no significant difference in thermal comfort of the prototype as
compared to ComA and ComB as measured by skin temperature of the upper arm using
a laser thermometer both initially and after the final stage of the wear protocol, or as
measured by the McGinnis Thermal Scale after the final stage of the wear protocol.
Skin Temperature
Results of the ANOVA for skin temperature are given in Table 18. The
covariance parameter estimate residuals are equal to 1.1111 (estimate error), accounting
for 100% of the population estimate for sequence, 100% of the population estimate for
treatment, 77% of the population estimate for stage, and 99% of the population estimate
for treatment/stage interaction. Based on omega-squared values, sequence, treatment, and
treatment/stage interaction had small effects in this ANOVA, while stage had a large
effect.
The analysis indicates no significant difference by sequence (order of treatment)
[F(2, 21.4)=0.78, p=.472]. Interaction of treatment and stage was not significant [F(6,
112)=0.63, p=.707] indicating that the main effects of treatment (control, prototype,
ComA, and ComB) and stage (initial, intermediate, and final) are independent for skin
temperature. Treatment [F(3, 39)=0.98, p=.410] was not a significant factor. Stage [F(2,
112)=46.05, p≤.0001] was significantly associated with skin temperature. Table 19
68

shows mean skin temperatures for each treatment at each stage of the study and the
overall means by treatment and by stage.
Table 18
Analysis of Variance for Thermal Skin Test
Source Num df Den df F ω 2 p
Sequence 2 21.4 0.78 0.001 .475
Treatment 3 39 0.98 -0.000 .413
Stage 2 112 46.05 0.334 .000***
Treatment*Stage 6 112 0.63 -0.012 .707
error (1.1111)
Note. The value in parentheses represents residual estimate from the covariance parameter estimates.
ω 2 = omega-squared values - tell the strength of association for the F tests. An example of a small
effect=0.01, medium effect=0.06 and large effect =0.14 (Cohen, 1977).
***p≤.0001.
Table 19
Mean Thermal Skin Tests for Treatments and Stages
Treatment 1 Stage Stage Stage Overall by Std. Min Max
1 2 3 Treatment Dev.
Control 80.8 80.7 79.2 80.2 1.59 66.7 73.1
Prototype 81.7 81.1 80.0 80.9 1.30 67.4 72.8
ComA 81.7 81.1 79.5 80.8 1.60 66.4 72.3
ComB 81.4 81.4 79.9 80.9 1.44 67.3 72.3
Overall by Stage 81.4 81.1 79.7
Std. Dev. 1.41 1.36 1.27
Minimum 67.7 67.4 66.4
Maximum 73.0 73.1 72.2
Note. Thermal Skin Temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit.
1 n = 15 for each treatment
69

A priori contrasts. Based on the hypothesis, a priori contrasts were run to
determine whether differences between the prototype and the commercial support
products were meaningful (see Table 20). Contrast analysis for skin temperature between
the prototype and ComA yielded non-significant results both initially [F(1, 48.4)=0.00,
p=.979], and after the wear protocol (stage 3), [F(1, 48.4)=0.31, p=.582]. Likewise,
contrast analysis between the prototype and ComB yielded non-significant results both
initially [F(1, 46.5) =0.09, p=0.766], and after the wear protocol, [F(1, 46.5) =0.02,
p=0.889] indicating that average skin temperature for participants when wearing the
prototype was similar in skin temperature when wearing ComA or ComB at either stage
of the study. Therefore, we failed to reject the null hypothesis and did not find support for
the research hypothesis. The prototype garment did not provide more thermal comfort
than ComA or Com B as measured by skin temperature.
Discussion. Temperature measurements were made on exposed skin and
participants wore the treatments in an air-conditioned environment. Expected differences
in thermal comfort may have been masked by these conditions. However, Table 21
values suggest that the prototype and the commercial support products produced
consistently higher skin temperatures than the control garment. Therefore, on the basis of
the contrasts analysis for skin temperature, changes in design and fabrication of the
prototype as compared to the commercial support products neither improved nor was
detrimental to thermal comfort as measured by skin temperature.
70

Table 20
A Priori Contrasts for Skin Temperature by Treatments at Two Stages of the Wear
Protocol
Treatments Stage Num df Den df F p
Prototype vs. ComA 1 1 48.4 0.00 .979
Prototype vs. ComA 3 1 48.4 0.31 .582
Prototype vs. ComB 1 1 46.5 0.09 .769
Prototype vs. ComB 3 1 46.5 0.02 .889
Note. Stage 1 = initial and Stage 3 = final after wear protocol
McGinnis Thermal Scale
The McGinnis Thermal Scale was administered to the subjects one time after the
wear protocol. Results of the ANOVA are given in Table 21. The covariance parameter
estimate residuals are equal to 0.5195 (estimate error), accounting for 100% of the
population estimate for sequence and 100% of the population estimate for treatment.
Omega-squared values indicate sequence and treatment had small effects in this
ANOVA.
The analysis revealed no significant difference in McGinnis Thermal ratings by
sequence (order of treatment) [F(2, 13.7)=3.30, p=.068], indicating that there were no
carryover effects based on the order that the subjects wore the treatments in the study.
Treatment was not significant [F(3, 39)=0.64, p=.594]. Therefore the null hypothesis
failed to be rejected. Table 22 shows mean McGinnis Thermal ratings by treatment at
stage 3.
71

Table 21
Analysis of Variance for McGinnis Thermal Scale Ratings
Source Num df Den df F ω 2 p
Sequence 2 13.7 3.30 0.007 .068
Treatment 3 39 0.64 -0.018 .594
error (0.5195)
Note. The value in parentheses represents residual estimate from the covariance parameter estimates. ω 2 =
omega-squared values - tell the strength of association for the F tests. An example of a small effect=0.01,
medium effect=0.06 and large effect =0.14 (Cohen, 1977).
*p≤.05, **p≤ .01, ***p≤.0001.
Table 22
Mean McGinnis Thermal Scale Ratings by Treatment at Stage 3
Treatments 1 McGinnis Rating Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
Control 4.5 1.25 3 6
Prototype 4.6 1.41 2 7
ComA 5.0 1.41 3 7
ComB 4.4 1.45 2 7
Note. Scale = 1-13, with 1 = “So cold I am helpless”, to 13 = “So hot I am sick and nauseated”.
1 n = 15 for each treatment.
Discussion. Mean results ranged from 4 (“Cold”) to 5 (“Uncomfortably Cool”).
These ratings suggest that the cool temperature of the environment prevented detection of
any differences in thermal comfort between the prototype and the commercial support
products. The room temperature during testing was not under the control of the
researchers and was maintained by the facilities management between 68 and 71 degrees.
Subjects were wearing only short-sleeved cotton knit shirts over the support treatments
during the testing. While the environmental temperature may be typical of a work
environment, the respondents would likely wear more clothing in an environment that
72

cool. Differences in thermal comfort may have been detectable in a warmer
environment.
Fit
Hypothesis 4 was addressed using 4 mixed-model ANOVAs to compare static
tight-to-loose fit, static fit satisfaction, dynamic tight-to-loose fit, and dynamic fit
satisfaction by treatment (control, prototype, ComA or ComB) during the wear protocol.
Sequence (order of treatments) was included in the model to determine any order or
carryover effects. The research hypothesis was tested using four null sub-hypotheses.
The analysis of each sub-hypothesis follows.
Static Tight-to-Loose Fit
H4a 0 : There will be no significant difference in static tight-to-loose fit of the prototype
as compared to ComA and ComB as measured by the Model Fit Evaluation Scale.
“Static tight-to-loose fit” refers to the fit experienced while sitting motionless at
the end of the wear protocol, rated on a five point scale from “extremely tight” to
“extremely loose”. Participants rated the fit of the treatment in 6 body areas: bust, below
the bust, neck, across the shoulders, under the arms, in the armhole, and from the top of
the shoulders to the bottom of the support treatment. These ratings were averaged by
participant to produce a single assessment of static tight-to-loose fit for each treatment.
Results of the ANOVA for static tight-to-loose fit are given in Table 23. The covariance
parameter estimate residuals are equal to 0.2541 (estimate error), accounting for 100% of
the population estimate for sequence and 50% of the population estimate for treatment.
Based on omega squared values, sequence had a small effect in this ANOVA, while
treatment had a large effect.
The analysis indicated no significant difference by sequence (order of treatment)
[F(2, 15)=0.98, p=.399]. Treatment significantly [F(3, 39)=8.00, p=.0003] influenced
static tight-to-loose fit ratings. Table 24 shows the mean static tight-to-loose fit
assessment for each treatment after the wear protocol.
73

Table 23
Analysis of Variance for Static Tight-to-Loose Fit Assessments
Treatments Num df Den df F ω 2 p
Sequence 2 15 0.98 -0.000 .399
Treatment 3 39 8.00 0.259 .0003***
error (0.2541)
Note. The value in parentheses represents residual estimate from the covariance parameter estimates. ω 2 =
omega-squared values - tell the strength of association for the F tests. An example of a small effect=0.01,
medium effect=0.06 and large effect =0.14 (Cohen, 1977).
***p≤.001.
Table 24
Mean Static Tight-to-Loose Fit Assessments by Treatment
Treatment 1 Fit Assessment Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
Control 3.0 .90 2.0 5.0
Prototype 3.6 .61 3.0 5.0
ComA 2.2 .65 1.6 4.3
ComB 2.1 .60 1.3 3.7
Note. Scale = 1-5, with 1 = “Extremely tight”, to 5 = “Extremely loose”, with 3 = “Neutral”.
1 n = 15 for each treatment.
A priori contrasts. Based on the hypothesis, a priori contrasts were run to
determine whether differences between the prototype and the commercial support
products were meaningful (see Table 25). Contrast analysis between the prototype and
ComA indicated significant [F(1, 39)=13.81, p=.0006] difference in static tight-to-loose fit
assessments for the prototype and ComA. Therefore the null hypothesis was rejected for the
comparison of the prototype and ComA. The prototype garment, with a static tight-to-loose
fit assessment of 3.6, was rated more loosely-fitted than ComA, which received an average
assessment of 2.2 on the five point scale.
74

Table 25
A Priori Contrasts for Static Tight-to-Loose Fit Assessments by Treatment
Treatments Num df Den df F p
Prototype vs. ComA 1 39 13.81 .0006***
Prototype vs. ComB 1 39 12.56 .0010***
***p≤ .001.
Contrast analysis between the prototype and ComB indicated a significant [F(1,
39) =12.56, p=0.001] difference in static tight-to-loose fit assessment between the two
treatments. Therefore the null hypothesis was also rejected for the comparison of the
prototype and ComB. The prototype garment, with an average static tight-to-loose fit
assessment of 3.6, was rated more loosely-fitted than ComB which received an average
assessment of 2.1 on the five point scale.
Discussion. The perceptions of a looser fit for the prototype garment likely relate
to differences in the designs of the prototype and the two commercial products. ComA
had no bust coverage, requiring reinforced fabric around the armholes and some tightness
across the abdomen for hook and eye closures. Additionally, ComA was longer in the
torso, ending at the natural waistline while the prototype ended just under the bustline.
ComB had 2” wide elastic bands around the armholes and stiff Velcro closures along the
shoulders and across the abdomen.
Static Fit Satisfaction
H4b 0 : There will be no significant difference in overall static fit satisfaction of the
prototype as compared to ComA and ComB as measured by the Model Fit Evaluation
Scale.
“Static fit satisfaction” refers to the overall satisfaction-with-fit rating provided by
the participant in that same motionless position after the wear protocol, rated on a five
point scale from “extremely satisfied” to “extremely dissatisfied.” Participants rated
75

overall satisfaction with static fit of the treatment once, immediately after completing the
static tight-to-loose fit ratings. This single rating indicates overall static fit satisfaction
for each support treatment. Results of the ANOVA for overall static fit satisfaction are
given in Table 26. The covariance parameter estimate residuals are equal to 1.6470
(estimate error), accounting for 99% of the population estimate for sequence and 95% of
the population estimate for treatment. Based on omega squared values, sequence had a
small effect in this ANOVA, while treatment had a medium effect.
The analysis indicated no significant difference by sequence (order of treatment)
[F(2, 30.1)=1.41, p=.260]. Treatment was approaching significance [F(3, 39)=2.79,
p=.053] for static fit satisfaction, but did not meet the predetermined confidence level of
p≤.05. Therefore, no contrasts were run. Table 27 shows the overall static fit satisfaction
rating for each treatment.
Table 26
Analysis of Variance for Overall Static Fit Satisfaction
Treatments Num df Den df F ω 2 p
Sequence 2 30.1 1.41 0.013 .260
Treatment 3 39 2.79 0.082 .053
error (1.6470)
Note. The value in parentheses represents residual estimate from the covariance parameter estimates. ω 2 =
omega-squared values - tell the strength of association for the F tests. An example of a small effect=0.01,
medium effect=0.06 and large effect =0.14 (Cohen, 1977).
*p≤ .05.
76

Table 27
Mean Overall Static Fit Satisfaction by Treatment
Treatment 1 Satisfaction Ratings Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
Control 3.7 1.39 1 5
Prototype 3.3 1.16 1 4
ComA 4.3 1.46 1 5
ComB 2.1 1.51 1 5
Note. Scale = 1-5, with 1 = “Extremely Dissatisfied”, to 5 = “Extremely Satisfied”, with 3 = “Neutral”.
1 n = 15 for each treatment.
Discussion. Although the mean satisfaction values were quite varied, the
differences by treatment were not meaningful statistically, suggesting that the variability
within these ratings is large. Minimum and maximum values indicate that at least one
subject rated each treatment on each end of the satisfaction scale, further reflecting the
variability of this measure. Satisfaction with fit is difficult to measure. Previous research
indicates that female consumers have varying fit preferences based on their body shapes
and body cathexis (Alexander and Connell, 2003). For instance, females with hourglass
silhouettes in the Alexander (2000) study favored extremely fitted garments, while
females with inverted triangle silhouettes, favored very loosely fitted garments. Fit
satisfaction for the prototype may have been affected by the participants’ feelings of
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their body shape and body cathexis (Alexander, 2000;
Alexander et al. 2003), or just personal preference. It was beyond the scope of this study
to measure these factors.
Dynamic Tight-to-Loose Fit
H4c 0 : There will be no significant difference in dynamic tight-to-loose fit of the
prototype as compared to ComA and ComB as measured by the Model Fit Evaluation
Scale.
77

“Dynamic tight-to-loose fit” refers to the fit experienced while performing
specified movements during the wear protocol, rated on a nine point scale from
“extremely tight” to “extremely loose”. Participants rated the fit of the treatments during:
sitting down, reaching forward, rising from sitting, walking, turning the torso from side to
side while sitting, bending the torso backwards and forwards while standing, bending the
torso from side to side while standing, and raising arms in front of body and spreading
arms open, raising arms overhead. These ratings were averaged by participant to produce
a single assessment of dynamic tight-to-loose fit for each support treatment. Results of
the ANOVA for dynamic tight-to loose fit are given in Table 28. The covariance
parameter estimate residuals are equal to 0.7824 (estimate error), accounting for 98% of
the population estimate for sequence and 64% of the population estimate for treatment.
Based on omega squared values, sequence had a small effect in this ANOVA, while
treatment had a medium effect.
The analysis indicated no significant difference by sequence (order of treatment)
[F(2, 13.8)=0.50, p=.617]. Treatment was significantly [F(3, 39)=16.53, p=.0001]
associated with dynamic tight-to-loose fit assessments. Table 29 shows the mean
dynamic tight-to-loose fit assessments for each treatment.
Table 28
Analysis of Variance for Dynamic Tight-to-Loose Fit Assessments
Source Num df Den df F ω 2 p
Sequence 2 13.8 0.50 -0.017 .617
Treatment 3 39 16.53 0.437 .000***
error (0.7824)
Note. The value in parentheses represents residual estimate from the covariance parameter estimates. ω 2 =
omega-squared values - tell the strength of association for the F tests. An example of a small effect=0.01,
medium effect=0.06 and large effect =0.14 (Cohen, 1977).
***p≤.001.
78

Table 29
Mean Dynamic Tight-to-Loose Fit Assessments by Treatment
Treatment 1 Fit Assessment Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
Control 4.9 1.52 3 8.8
Prototype 7.3 1.06 5 9
ComA 3.7 1.44 1.2 7.4
ComB 2.6 1.66 1 7.8
Note. Scale = 1-9, with 1 = “Extremely tight”, to 9 = “Extremely loose”, with 5 = “Neutral”.
1 n = 15 for each treatment
.A priori contrasts. Based on the hypothesis, a priori contrasts were run to
determine whether differences between the prototype and the commercial support
products were meaningful (see Table 30). Contrast analysis between the prototype and
ComA indicated significant [F(1, 39)=30.98, p=.0001] difference in the dynamic tightto-loose
fit assessments for the prototype and ComA. Therefore the null hypothesis was
rejected for the comparison of dynamic tight-to-loose fit assessments between the
prototype and ComA. The prototype garment, with a dynamic tight-to-loose fit
assessment of 7.3 on a 9 point scale, was rated more loosely-fitted than ComA which
received an assessment of 3.7.
Table 30
A Priori Contrasts for Dynamic Tight-to-Loose Fit Assessments by Treatment
Treatments Num df Den df F p
Prototype vs. ComA 1 39 30.98 .000***
Prototype vs. ComB 1 39 41.15 .000***
***p≤ .001.
79

Contrast analysis between the prototype and ComB indicated a significant [F(1,
39) =41.15, p=0.0001] difference in dynamic Tight-to-Loose fit assessments between the
two products. Therefore the null hypothesis was also rejected for the comparison of the
prototype and ComB. The prototype garment, with a dynamic tight-to-loose fit
assessment of 7.3, was rated more loosely-fitted than ComB which received an
assessment of 2.6 on the nine point scale.
Discussion. The results for dynamic tight-to loose fit reflect those for static tightto-loose
fit and may result from the same differences in garment and product design as
previously discussed. Garments or product that fit more tightly in a motionless position
are likely to apply additional stress to body parts when moving.
Dynamic Fit Satisfaction
H4d 0 : There will be no significant difference in dynamic fit satisfaction of the prototype
as compared to ComA and ComB as measured by the Model Fit Evaluation Scale.
“Dynamic fit satisfaction” refers to the satisfaction-with-fit ratings provided by
the participant while performing specified movements during the wear protocol, reported
on a scale from “extremely satisfied” to “extremely dissatisfied.” Participants rated
satisfaction with dynamic fit of the treatment once immediately following each of 12
movements. These ratings of the various movements were averaged to produce a single
assessment of dynamic fit satisfaction by participant for each support treatment. Results
of the ANOVA for dynamic fit satisfaction are given in Table 31. The covariance
parameter estimate residuals are equal to 0.2541 (estimate error), accounting for 99% of
the population estimate for sequence and 96% of the population estimate for treatment.
Based on omega squared values, sequence had a small effect in this ANOVA, while
treatment had a large effect.
The analysis indicated no significant difference by sequence (order of treatment)
[F(2, 19)=2.07, p=.153]. Treatment was significantly [F(3, 39)=3.95, p=.015] associated
with dynamic fit satisfaction assessments. Table 32 shows the mean dynamic fit
satisfaction assessments for each treatment.
80

Table 31
Analysis of Variance for Dynamic Fit Satisfaction Assessments
Source Num df Den df F ω 2 p
Sequence 2 19 2.07 0.034 .153
Treatment 3 39 3.95 0.129 .015*
error (3.2962)
Note. The value in parentheses represents residual estimate from the covariance parameter estimates.
ω 2 = omega-squared values - tell the strength of association for the F tests. An example of a small
effect=0.01, medium effect=0.06 and large effect =0.14 (Cohen, 1977).
*p≤ .05.
Table 32
Mean Dynamic Fit Satisfaction Assessments by Treatment
Treatment 1 Satisfaction Rating Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
Control 7.5 1.45 1 5.6
Prototype 6.5 1.80 1 6.6
ComA 6.5 2.61 1.2 8.6
ComB 4.4 2.69 1.6 9.0
Note. Scale = 1-9, with 1 = “Extremely Dissatisfied”, to 9 = “Extremely Satisfied”, with 5 = “Neutral”.
1 n = 15 for each treatment
A priori contrasts. Based on the hypothesis, a priori contrasts were run to
determine whether differences between the prototype and the commercial support
products were meaningful (see Table 33). Contrast analysis between the prototype and
ComA yielded non-significant results [F(1, 39)=0.00, p=.969] indicating that dynamic fit
satisfaction assessments for the prototype and ComA were similar. Therefore, we failed
to reject the null hypothesis. The prototype garment was not perceived as having more
satisfactory dynamic fit than ComA.
81

Table 33
A Priori Contrasts for Dynamic Fit Satisfaction
Treatments Stage Num df Den df F p
Prototype vs. ComA 3 1 39 0.00 .969
Prototype vs. ComB 3 1 39 2.06 .159
.*p≤ .05.
Likewise, contrast analysis between the prototype and ComB yielded nonsignificant
results [F(1, 39) =2.06, p=0.159], indicating that dynamic fit satisfaction
assessments for the prototype and ComB were also similar. Therefore, we failed to reject
the null hypothesis. The prototype garment was not perceived as more satisfactory in fit
than ComB. The research hypothesis for dynamic fit was not supported.
Discussion. The results for dynamic fit satisfaction may have resulted from
similar issues as the results for overall static fit satisfaction. Those issues consist of
varying female fit preferences and participants’ feelings about their own body shape and
cathexis (Alexander & Connell, 2003).
Mobility
Hypothesis 5 was addressed using two mixed-model ANOVAs for range of
motion movements of abduction and overhead, and 14 mixed-model ANOVAs to
compare overall mobility and ease of movement for 12 individual movements by
treatment (control, prototype, ComA or ComB) during the movement protocol.
Range of motion analysis was conducted to compare range of motion movement for
abduction by treatment (control, prototype, ComA or ComB), and interaction between
treatment and stage. The research hypothesis was tested using two null sub-hypotheses.
The analysis of each sub-hypothesis follows.
82

Range of Motion
H5a 0 : There will be no significant difference in the range of motion of subjects while
wearing the prototype as compared to ComA and ComB as measured by a goniometer.
Range of motion refers to the degree of movement possible in a given joint as
captured by photographs against a 1” grid, and measured using a goniometer. Two
measures were taken: the first with arms abducted to a 90° angle from the body, and the
second with arms raised overhead to a 180° angle from the body. Movement was
(abduction and overhead) was included in the model to determine the degree of range of
motion. Results of the ANOVA for range of motion are given in Table 34. The
covariance parameter estimate residuals are equal to 1.4858 (estimate error), accounting
for 98% of the population estimate for sequence and 93% of the population estimate for
treatment. Based on omega-squared values, sequence had a small effect in this ANOVA,
while treatment had a large effect.
Interaction of treatment and movement was not significant [F(3,106)=0.140, p
=.94] indicating that the main effects of treatment and movement (arms raised to the sides
and arms raised overhead) have independent effects on range of motion. Treatment was
not a significant [F(3,106)=0.55, p =.65] factor in range of motion. Movement was a
significant [F(1,106)=3570, p =.000] factor in range of motion as would be expected.
Table 34
Analysis of Variance for Range of Motion of Movement by Treatment
Source Num df Den df F ω 2 p
Movement 3 106 3570 0.99 .000***
Treatment 3 106 0.55 -0.02 .065
Movement*Treatment 3 106 0.14 -0.04 .94
error (4526.58)
Note. The value in parentheses represents residual estimate from the covariance parameter estimates.
ω 2 = omega-squared values - tell the strength of association for the F tests. An example of a small
effect=0.01, medium effect=0.06 and large effect =0.14 (Cohen, 1977).
***p≤0001.
83

Discussion. Range of motion for arm abduction (arms moved away from the
midline of the body, or raised to the sides) ranged from 70° to 104°. Range of motion for
arms raised overhead ranged from 8° to 33°. The lack of significance for the treatment
by movement interaction and for the treatment alone indicated that the range of motion
for the various treatments was similar. This was what we expected and no contrasts were
necessary. The significant difference by movement was expected as the angles of these
two movements are quite different.
Ease of Movement
H5b 0 : There will be no significant difference in user ratings of overall mobility or
perceived ease of movement while wearing the prototype as compared to ComA and
ComB as measured by the Movement Assessment Scale after the wear protocol.
Overall Mobility. Results of the ANOVA for overall mobility are given in Table
35. The covariance parameter estimate residuals are equal to 1.4858 (estimate error),
accounting for 98% of the population estimate for sequence and 93% of the population
estimate for treatment. Based on omega-squared values, sequence had a small effect in
this ANOVA, while treatment had a large effect.
The analysis indicated no significant carryover effects based on the order of wear
[F(2, 17.1)=0.03, p=.970]. Treatment was a significant [F(3, 39)=3.44, p=.026] factor in
ease of movement for overall mobility. Table 36 shows the mean ratings for overall
mobility for each treatment.
84

Table 35
Analysis of Variance for Overall Mobility
Source Num df Den df F ω 2 p
Sequence 2 17.1 0.03 -0.033 .970
Treatment 3 39 3.44 0.109 .026*
error (1.4858)
Note. The value in parentheses represents residual estimate from the covariance parameter estimates.
ω 2 = omega-squared values - tell the strength of association for the F tests. An example of a small
effect=0.01, medium effect=0.06 and large effect =0.14 (Cohen, 1977).
*p≤.05.
Table 36
Mean Overall Mobility by Treatment
Treatment 1 Ease of Movement Rating Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
Control 1.4 .44 1 2.3
Prototype 1.5 .33 1 2.0
ComA 2.6 1.81 1 7.2
ComB 3.2 2.13 1.1 6.8
Note. Results are based on the nine point Movement Assessment Scale , with 1 = “Easy to do”, 5 =
“Neutral, ” and 9 = “Hard to do.”
1 n = 15 for each treatment
A priori contrasts. Based on the hypothesis, a priori contrasts were run to
determine whether differences between the prototype and the commercial support
products were meaningful (see Table 37). Contrast analysis between the prototype and
ComA yielded non-significant results [F(1, 39)=1.28, p=.266], indicating that overall
mobility for the prototype and ComA was similar. Therefore, we failed to reject the null
hypothesis for overall mobility. The prototype garment was perceived as providing
similar overall mobility as compared to ComA.
85

Table 37
A Priori Contrasts for Treatments
Treatments Num df Den df F p
Prototype vs. ComA 1 39 1.28 .266
Prototype vs. ComB 1 39 2.55 .119
Likewise contrast analysis between the prototype and ComB yielded nonsignificant
results [F(1, 39) =2.55, p=.119], indicating that overall mobility for the
prototype and ComB was similar. Therefore, we failed to reject the null hypothesis. The
prototype garment was perceived as providing similar overall mobility as compared to
ComB. Although overall mobility was similar between the soft support treatments,
further analyses were conducted to determine possible differences in specific aspects of
mobility.
Ease of Individual Movements. Results of the six significant ANOVAs for ease of
individual movements are given in Table 38. The covariance parameters are also listed.
Based on the omega values, sequence had a large effect in the typing movement, and a
small to medium effect in the other individual movements in the ANOVAs. Treatment
had a medium to large effect in all of the ANOVAs. The analyses of ease of individual
movements indicated no significant difference by sequence (order of treatment) for any
of the significant movements. Treatment was significantly associated with the following
movements: typing, reaching, raising arms, turning the torso, spreading arms, and raising
arms overhead. Table 39 shows the mean ease of individual movements for each
treatment.
86

Table 38
Analyses of Variance with Significant Outcomes for Ease of Movement with Mobility for
Individual Movements
Source Num df Den df F ω 2 p
Type: Sequence 2 19.2 3.47 0.076 .052
Treatment 3 39 3.80 0.123 .017*
error (2.0283)
Reach: Sequence 2 18.7 0.65 -0.012 .535
Treatment 3 39 3.84 0.124 .017*
error (2.6332)
Raise arms: Sequence 2 18.6 0.06 -0.032 .939
Treatment 3 39 3.34 0.105 .029*
error (2.5892)
Turn torso: Sequence 2 17.1 0.27 -0.025 .768
Treatment 3 39 3.07 0.094 .039*
error (1.5401)
Spread arms: Sequence 2 16.6 0.10 -0.031 .908
Treatment 3 39 3.85 0.125 .017*
error (2.1224)
Overhead: Sequence 2 17.8 0.18 -0.028 .840
Treatment 3 39 4.45 0.147 .009*
error (2.8579)
Note. The values in parentheses represent residual estimates from the covariance parameter estimates.
ω 2 = omega-squared values - tell the strength of association for the F tests. An example of a small
effect=0.01, medium effect=0.06 and large effect =0.14 (Cohen, 1977).
*p≤ .05.
87

Table 39
Mean Ease of Movement for Six Movements by Treatment
Source 1 Control Prototype ComA ComB
Typing: 2.3 0.4 2.2 4.4
Reaching forward: 1.6 1.4 2.8 4.4
Raising arms: 1.3 2.2 2.5 3.6
Turning the torso: 1.3 1.8 2.4 3.0
Spreading arms: 1.3 1.9 3.0 3.0
Overhead reaching: 1.3 2.2 3.2 3.7
Note. Results are based on the nine point Movement Assessment Scale, , with 1 = “Easy to do”, 5 =
“Neutral, ” and 9 = “Hard to do.”
1 n = 15 for each treatment
A priori contrasts – typing movement. Based on the hypothesis, a priori contrasts
were run to determine whether differences between the prototype and the commercial
support products were meaningful (see Table 40). Contrast analysis between the control
and the prototype was significant [F(1, 39) =5.89, p=0.02] indicating that the prototype
provided increased ease of movement for the typing movement as compared to the
control. Contrast analysis between the control and ComA was non-significant [F(1, 39)
=0.02, p=0.898] indicating that the ease of movement for typing movement when
wearing the control provided similar ease of movement for mobility as compared to
ComA. Contrast analysis between the control and ComB was significant [F(1, 39) =6.53,
p=0.015] indicating that the control provided more ease of movement for mobility for the
typing movement than ComB.
Contrast analysis for the typing movement between the prototype and ComA
yielded non-significant results [F(1, 39)=3.07, p=.088], however, contrast analysis
between the prototype and ComB indicated a significant [F(1, 39) =11.39, p=0.002]
difference in ease of the typing movement. Therefore the null hypothesis was rejected for
the comparison of the prototype and ComB. The prototype garment provided similar
88

mobility ease of movement as ComA, but more satisfactory mobility during the typing
movement than ComB.
Table 40
A Priori Contrasts for Ease of Movement for Mobility for the Typing Movement
Treatments Num df Den df F p
Control vs. Prototype 1 39 5.89 .020*
Control vs. ComA 1 39 0.02 .898
Control vs. ComB 1 39 6.53 .015*
Prototype vs. ComA 1 39 3.07 .088
Prototype vs. ComB 1 39 11.39 .002**
*p=.05, **p=.005.
A priori contrasts – reaching forward movement. Based on the hypothesis, a
priori contrasts were run to determine whether differences between the prototype and the
commercial support products were meaningful (see Table 41). Contrast analysis between
the control and the prototype was significant [F(1, 39) =0.02, p=0.898] indicating that the
prototype provided increased ease of movement for the reaching forward movement as
compared to the control. Contrast analysis between the control and ComA was nonsignificant
[F(1, 39) =2.13, p=0.152] indicating that the ease of reaching forward when
wearing the control was similar to ComA. Contrast analysis between the control and
ComB was significant [F(1, 39) =9.41, p=0.004] indicating that the control provided
more ease of mobility for the typing movement than ComB.
Contrast analysis between the prototype and ComA for the reaching forward
movement yielded non-significant results [F(1, 39)=1.36, p=.2507], indicating that ease
of reaching forward for the prototype and ComA was similar. Therefore, we failed to
89

eject the null hypothesis. The prototype garment was not perceived as providing more
ease of mobility for the reaching forward movement than ComA.
Table 41
A Priori Contrasts for Ease of Movement when Reaching Forward
Treatments Num df Den df F p
Control vs. Prototype 1 39 0.08 .785
Control vs. ComA 1 39 2.13 .152
Control vs. ComB 1 39 9.41 .003*
Prototype vs. ComA 1 39 1.36 .251
Prototype vs. ComB 1 39 5.13 .029*
*p=.05.
Contrast analysis between the prototype and ComB indicated a significant [F(1,
39) =5.13, p=0.029] difference in the reaching forward movement ratings between the
two treatments. Therefore the null hypothesis was rejected for the comparison of the
prototype and ComB. The prototype garment was perceived as having more ease of
mobility during the reaching forward movement than ComB.
A priori contrasts – raising arms to sides movement (abduction). Based on the
hypothesis, a priori contrasts were run to determine whether differences between the
prototype and the commercial support products were meaningful (see Table 42).
Contrast analysis was non-significant between the control and both the prototype [F(1,
39) =0.96, p=0.333] and ComA [F(1, 39) =2.31, p=0.137] indicating that the ease of
lifting the arms when wearing the control was similar as compared to ComA. Contrast
analysis between the control and ComB was significant [F(1, 39) =6.27, p=0.017]
90

indicating that the control provided more ease of mobility for the raising arms to sides
movement than ComB.
Contrast analysis for the raising arms to side movement between the prototype
and ComA yielded non-significant results [F(1, 39)=0.07, p=.799]. Likewise, contrast
analysis between the prototype and ComB yielded non-significant results [F(1, 39) =1.07,
p=0.308] after the wear protocol, indicating that the ease of mobility for the raising arms
to side movement for participants when wearing the prototype was similar when wearing
ComA or ComB after the wear protocol. Therefore, we failed to reject the null
hypothesis. The prototype garment provided similar ease of movement for raising the
arms to the side as ComA or Com B as measured by the movement assessment scale.
Table 42
A Priori Contrasts for Ease of Movement for Mobility for the Raising Arms Movement
Treatments Num df Den df F p
Control vs. Prototype 1 39 0.96 .333
Control vs. ComA 1 39 2.31 .137
Control vs. ComB 1 39 6.27 .017*
Prototype vs. ComA 1 39 0.07 .799
Prototype vs. ComB 1 39 1.07 .308
*p≤ .05..
A priori contrasts –turning torso movement. Based on the hypothesis, a priori
contrasts were run to determine whether differences between the prototype and the
commercial support products were meaningful (see Table 43). Contrast analysis for the
turning torso movement between the prototype and ComA yielded non-significant results
[F(1, 39)=0.35, p=.556]. Likewise, contrast analysis between the prototype and ComB
91

yielded non-significant results [F(1, 39) =1.24, p=0.273] after the wear protocol,
indicating that the ease of turning the torso t for participants when wearing the prototype
was similar when wearing ComA or ComB after the wear protocol. Therefore, we failed
to reject the null hypothesis. The prototype garment provided similar ease of mobility for
turning the torso as ComA or Com B as measured by the movement assessment scale.
Table 43
A Priori Contrasts for Ease of Movement for Mobility for the Turn Torso Movement
Treatments Num df Den df F p
Control vs. Prototype 1 39 0.49 .488
Control vs. ComA 1 39 2.92 .095
Control vs. ComB 1 39 5.49 .024*
Prototype vs. ComA 1 39 0.35 .556
Prototype vs. ComB 1 39 1.24 .273
*p≤ .05.
A priori contrasts –spreading arms. Based on the hypothesis, a priori contrasts
were run to determine whether differences between the prototype and the commercial
support products were meaningful (see Table 44). Contrast analysis between the control
and the prototype yielded non-significant results [F(1, 39)=0.49, p=.488], indicating that
the prototype performed similar to the control. Contrast analysis between the control and
ComA was significant [F(1, 39) =5.88, p=0.020] indicating that the ease of raising the
arms in front and spreading them open when wearing the control was better than ComA.
Contrast analysis between the control and ComB was significant [F(1, 39) =4.73,
p=0.036] indicating that the control provided more ease of mobility for the spreading
arms movement than ComB.
92

Contrast analysis for the spreading arms movement between the prototype and
ComA yielded non-significant results [F(1, 39)=1.00, p=.325] after the wear protocol
(stage 3). Likewise, contrast analysis between the prototype and ComB yielded nonsignificant
results [F(1, 39) =0.88, p=0.353] after the wear protocol, indicating that the
ease of spreading the arms for participants when wearing the prototype was similar when
wearing ComA or ComB after the wear protocol. Therefore, we failed to reject the null
hypothesis. The prototype garment provided similar ease of mobility for spreading the
arms as ComA or Com B as measured by the movement assessment scale.
Table 44
A Priori Contrasts for Ease of Spreading the Arms
Treatments Num df Den df F p
Control vs. Prototype 1 39 0.62 .437
Control vs. ComA 1 39 5.88 .020*
Control vs. ComB 1 39 4.73 .036*
Prototype vs. ComA 1 39 1.00 .325
Prototype vs. ComB 1 39 0.88 .353
*p≤ .05.
A priori contrasts – raising arms overhead. Based on the hypothesis, a priori
contrasts were run to determine whether differences between the prototype and the
commercial support products were meaningful (see Table 45). Contrast analysis between
the control and the prototype was non-significant [F(1, 39) =0.96, p=0.333] indicating
that both the control and prototype provided similar ease of movement for raising the
arms overhead. Contrast analysis between the control and ComA was significant [F(1,
39) =5.55, p=0.024] indicating that the ease of raising the arms overhead when wearing
93

the control was better than ComA. Contrast analysis between the control and ComB was
significant [F(1, 39) =6.30, p=0.016] indicating that the control provided more ease of
mobility when raising the arms overhead as compared to ComB.
Contrast analysis for raising arms overhead movement between the prototype and
ComA yielded non-significant results [F(1, 39)=0.62, p=.437]. Likewise, contrast
analysis between the prototype and ComB yielded non-significant results [F(1, 39) =1.04,
p=0.314] indicating that the participant ease of raising arms overhead when wearing the
prototype was similar to ComA or ComB after the wear protocol. Therefore, we failed to
reject the null hypothesis. The prototype garment provided similar ease of mobility for
raising the arms overhead as ComA or Com B as measured by the movement assessment
scale.
Table 45
A Priori Contrasts for Ease with Mobility for the Raising Arms Overhead Movement
Treatments Num df Den df F p
Control vs. Prototype 1 39 1.01 .321
Control vs. ComA 1 39 5.55 .024*
Control vs. ComB 1 39 6.30 .016*
Prototype vs. ComA 1 39 0.62 .437
Prototype vs. ComB 1 39 1.04 .314
*p≤ .05.
Discussion. Of the six significant ANOVAs for ease of individual movements,
only two resulted in significant contrast analyses between the prototype and the
commercially-available support products. The improvement in the movements required
for reaching forward and typing was probably due to the redesign of the prototype which
94

provided deeper cut, larger armscyes than both ComA and ComB. Additionally, the
fabric selection of nylon/spandex for the prototype was less restrictive than the 2” wide
elastic straps situated around the armhole of ComB. The ease of mobility provided by the
prototype was generally similar to ComA and ComB and was improved as compared to
ComB with regard to reaching forward and typing movements.
Research Questions: Psychosocial Comfort
1. What psychosocial comfort issues will be expressed by participants as concerns
related to wearing the garment to work?
2. What psychosocial issues related to the design of the prototypes will be identified
by participants?
3. What other psychosocial aspects of the support garments will be addressed by
participants in response to an open-ended question inviting comments related to clothing
attributes including aesthetics, style, fashionability, appropriateness, design, color,
texture, and body emphasis?
Results are provided for the three open-ended questions designed to elicit
responses regarding psychosocial aspects of comfort. The first question addressed issues
related to how the respondent would feel about wearing the garment to work. The second
question was concerned with design issues that might be identified. The third question
was based on a list of attributes identified by Branson and Sweeney as possible influences
on psychosocial comfort.
Responses to the open ended questions were analyzed using a stepwise approach
to content analysis. The first step was to use a directed content analysis approach to sort
the items by the three areas identified in the Lamb and Kallal FEA (Functional,
Expressive, & Aesthetic) model (1992). Three coders assessed the responses and
negotiated differences. Responses were separated and independently categorized into
functional, expressive, or aesthetic categories. The subjects provided 168 functional, 111
aesthetic, and 19 expressive comments.
95

In the second step, conventional content analysis was applied to comments
identified as expressive or aesthetic to sort them by themes. Two themes emerged for the
aesthetic comments. The first theme comprised comments related to design principles,
while the second was concerned with body garment relationships. Expressive comments
were identified by coders as relating to appropriateness or the degree to which subjects
liked the garments.
The third step involved a second directed content analysis using Psychosocial
Attribute categories identified in the Branson and Sweeney model and included in the
question as prompts. The results of the directed content analysis using the Branson and
Sweeney attributes provided feedback from the respondents for each of the categories.
Appendix I shows the attributes that had several comments.
Finally, each frequency response was coded as either positive (+), for a
constructive comment, or negative (-), for a complaint or concern regarding the
treatment. Responses were both positive and negative for each of the aspects with the
prototype the most positive towards the aesthetic aspect (style) and most negative
towards the aesthetic aspect (bust shape). One of the main issues of the respondents was
that the prototype needed a built in bra. However, respondents indicated three times as
many negative responses for the control (sports bra) as the prototype towards the
aesthetic aspect (bust shape).
Question 1
Question 1, explored psychosocial comfort issues expressed by participants,
concerning wearing the garment to work. Both ComA and ComB had one respondent
each that indicated they would never wear the treatments to work. Additionally, all of the
participants stated a concern with the shape of the bust or lack of bust support for the
control (sports bra). This may play a factor in the decision to wear or not wear the
treatment to work. Five participants commented on this issue for the prototype, three
commented on it for ComA, and two commented on it for ComB. However, both
commercial support products were worn over the control, and that might have lowered
the amount of concern reported about lack of breast support. It is also possible that the
participants thought that it would be redundant to complain about the lack of breast
96

support if they had previously complained for the control given that they were wearing it
under the commercially available support products. Based on the actual responses, 2
participants indicated “concerns in wearing the treatments to work” for ComA and ComB
only.
To gain a better understanding of the respondents’ concerns with bust shape for
the prototype, reflection upon the participants’ body shape was examined. Participants
were either pear-shaped (n = 8), meaning that their bust was 4” smaller (or more than 4”
smaller) than the circumferential measurement of the hips, or had a bust larger than 4”
smaller than the circumference of the hips (n = 7). Results indicate that 4 of these 5
respondents weighed 120 pounds or less, and were 5 feet 4 inches tall or under, meaning
that they were petite. The fifth respondent weighed 155 pounds and was 5 feet 8 inches
tall. More interestingly, all of the respondents with concerns about the prototype bust
shape were larger busted than the pear-shaped participants in proportion to their hips
circumference (Appendix M). Therefore, the issue of providing breast support needs to
be further investigated.
Question 2
Question 2 focused on psychosocial issues related to the design of the garments.
An issue raised by one participant for the prototype related to design, was the lowering of
the neckline to prevent it from showing under clothing. Three participants indicated a
need for improving the general clothing interaction of the sports bra. Five of the
participants stated that ComA needed various design changes including bulk reduction
and waist stabilization to prevent the hemline from rolling. While 10 participants
indicated a need for design changes including bulk reduction and Velcro elimination of
ComB. Participant photographs indicated some redness on the shoulders upon the
removal of ComB, as well as some minor redness associated with the armholes of ComB.
The prototype had one indicated design change, to decrease the width of the strap.
Participants demonstrated design change for reduction of bulk in both ComA and ComB.
Additionally, respondents suggested the elimination of Velcro closures for ComB.
97

Question 3
Question 3 invited comments related to clothing attributes including aesthetics,
style, fashionability, appropriateness, design, color, texture, and body emphasis.
Favorable style responses emerged from the conventional analysis for the prototype with
3 participants (representative of 20%) indicating that there were no concerns with the
style. Six participants (40%) indicated they disliked or wanted to change the strap style
line of ComB.
Body de-emphasis also yielded notable negative results. The control had 7
participants indicating that changes were necessary. Those changes included lowering
the neckline (front and back), lengthening the bust, and hemline. The prototype had 5
participants indicating a desire to lower the neckline to prevent the treatment from
showing from beneath clothing, and lower the armhole. ComA also had 5 participants
indicating lengthening the hemline, shortening the hemline, and lowering the armholes.
ComB had 3 participants indicating lowering the armholes.
Overall, the prototype performed similarly to the other treatments. However,
respondents reported 3 times the number of concerns with the shape of the bust of the
control (15) as compared to the prototype (5). More respondents provided negative
responses for ComA and ComB than the prototype with regard to the clothing attributes
of aesthetics, style and design. Aesthetic considerations have been shown to reduce
negative feelings including stress, tension, psychological depression and anger (Cho,
2006).
98

Table 46
Results of Aesthetic Attribute Questions
Coded Trends Coded
Positive
Negative
Aesthetics
Can be worn as bra
Bust shape/Appearance
Add bust form
Separate bust
No concerns/change
Fashionable
Aesthetically pleasing
Velcro convenient
Acceptable fit with clothing
General clothing interaction
Like color
Great materials
Style
Appropriateness
Design
Reduce bulk
Color
Texture
Dislike – change
Change strap style line
Not fashionable
Would never wear to work
Change/eliminate Velcro
Narrow strap width
Change neckline – flatten
Waist – rolls
Shoulders, waist, underarm,
and Velcro
Dislike/change trim color
Change materials
.
Body Emphasis/De-emphasis
Lower Neckline (front and
back)
Lengthen bust and hemline
Shorten hemline
Lower armholes
99

Summary
The prototype was successful in providing similar postural alignment as both
ComA and ComB. The prototype also provided significantly more supportive postural
alignment than the control. This was an indication of postural alignment effectiveness.
The prototype provided similar wearer acceptability as ComA due to the similar fabrics
used. However, the prototype provided better wearer acceptability than ComB as
expected. The prototype provided equivalent thermal comfort as both the commercially
available support products.
The prototype provided looser fitted support for both static and dynamic tight-toloose
fit as compared to both ComA and ComB. Dynamic mean satisfaction overall was
significantly improved by the prototype. Static fit satisfaction of the prototype may have
been affected by the participants’ body cathexis and varying perceptions of fit. As
expected the prototype performed equally effective to ComA and ComB in overall
mobility. The prototype showed improved mobility in the individual movements of
typing and reaching forward.
The prototype performed similar to the other treatments for psychosocial comfort.
However, the prototype had more favorable responses for aesthetics, style, and design
than the other treatments. A majority of the participants requested bust shaping and
padding for the control. Five respondents requested bust shaping for the prototype, and 5
more for both ComA and ComB. This could at least partially explain why the
participants felt that the prototype was more loose-fitted.
100

CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary
Proper alignment of posture can serve as a preventative measure against back
pain, strain, and damage to the entire body. However, there is a lack of research on the
thoracic region of the spine and the possible role of soft structural support garments.
The development of a prototype soft structural support garment for postural
alignment effectiveness applied DeJonge’s 7-stage functional design process. This study
evaluated the prototype and compared it to two commercially available support systems
(ComA and ComB). One independent variable with 4 levels (treatment) and 5 dependent
variables, two with multiple measures (wearer acceptability and skin temperature) and 3
with one measure (fit, thermal comfort, and mobility) were evaluated. Additionally,
research questions regarding psychosocial comfort were explored.
The following research objectives were investigated:
Development Objective
To develop a prototype soft structural support garment for the thoracic spine
based on preliminary work.
Testing Objectives
1. To compare postural effectiveness of the prototype to two commercially
available support products
2. To assess and compare wearer acceptability for the prototype and the two
commercially available support products.
3. To assess and compare thermal comfort of the prototype and the two
commercially available support products.
4. To assess comparative fit and fit satisfaction of the prototype and the two
existing commercially available support products.
5. To assess and compare mobility of users while wearing the prototype and the
two commercially available support products.
102

6. To assess the psychosocial comfort of the prototype and the two commercially
available support products.
A wear protocol was conducted in a laboratory setting. Four treatments (control,
prototype, ComA and ComB) were evaluated for postural alignment effectiveness, wearer
acceptability, thermal comfort, fit satisfaction, and mobility. Psychosocial comfort was
also explored using both a directive and conventional content analysis. Fifteen premenopausal
female participants between age 40 and 55 volunteered.
Mixed-model Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were run using the mixed-model
procedure of the Statistical Analysis Software (SAS). The experimental design was a
within subjects design. The prototype was consistently found to provide similar
properties as the commercially available support systems, or in some cases improvement.
The prototype provided significantly better postural alignment effectiveness than the
control as scored by photographs. As expected, the prototype provided similar postural
alignment as both ComA and ComB by body scans and photographs. The wearer
acceptability ratings for the prototype were significantly better than ComB, both initially
and after the wear protocol. Thermal comfort measures may have been affected by the
cool environment in the laboratory. Regardless, the prototype performed similar to both
ComA and ComB with respect to thermal comfort.
Both the static and dynamic tight-to-loose fit were significantly improved for the
prototype as compared to the ComA and ComB. Although, fit satisfaction was not
significantly different, it may have been affected by individual fit preferences and body
self concept. Posture was not significantly different with respect to overall mobility, but
it was significantly different than ComB for the individual movements of typing and
reaching forward, movements required in daily office work. Subject responses to the
psychosocial questions provided suggestions for improvement of the prototype, including
integration of a built-in bra.
Conclusions
All of the objectives in this study were met. The prototype created is successful
in providing postural alignment using soft structural thoracic support without the feeling
103

of tightness or restriction, and is actually preferred during typing movements. Given the
technological advances of today, most of the domestic population uses computers that
require typing. The prototype can be beneficial to many. More importantly, the
prototype is a garment that can be worn independently as opposed to the soft structural
products that do not cover the bust, or lend themselves to being worn as traditional
exterior clothing.
The prototype was the only treatment in this study that demonstrated postural
alignment effectiveness as compared to the control. Additionally, it performed at least
equivalently to the commercially available support products in every respect (ComA and
ComB). Results of the study support further development of the prototype for the
applicability to a variety of repetitive motion tasks beneficial or even indispensable to
computer users, sewing machine operators, hair dressers, massage therapists, surgeons,
artists, or anyone that partakes in repetitive motion tasks regularly. Another reason for
further development is the refinement of the body scanning technique for measuring
posture, and exploration in using markers for certain body landmarks that were difficult
to locate with great precision.
Recommendations for Prototype Improvements
The psychosocial question responses requesting bust shaping in the prototype for
one-third of the sample, led to exploration of the demographics. Further investigation to
establish a relationship between the participants requesting the incorporation of bust
shaping is warranted, as they varied largely by height, weight and body shape, as well as
race. This relationship may help improve the wearer acceptability of the prototype. It
would support the development of an optional prototype with a built in bra.
Arrangements have already been made to team up with another researcher specialized in
bra development, to develop an alternative prototype for females that prefer an integrated
bra. Then the two prototypes can be wear tested and compared to determine their
effectiveness based on postural alignment, wear acceptability and aspects of comfort.
Thermal comfort may be increased through the introduction of a wicking fabric
and a higher fiber content of Lycra ©. spandex. Additional considerations include the
facilitation of donning and doffing, experimentation with finishing techniques, lowering
104

of the neckline, narrowing of the shoulder straps, and the incorporation of a wider, colorcoordinated
bias trim.
Implications
This study is important because there were limited studies in the literature
regarding support of the thoracic area of the spine. Of the articles that addressed
structural support of the thoracic area, the majority of them included simultaneous
structural support of another portion of the spine as well. Previous testing of structural
support products also considered multiple parts of the spine as opposed to focusing on the
thoracic region. Additionally, there were no soft structural support garments for the
purpose of providing postural alignment.
The body scanner technique had not been previously used to assess posture.
During the course of this study, a method of scoring postural alignment for body scans
was developed. This method needs to be further developed as it did not pick up
differences as well as the photographic method. In the testing of fit, the Model Fit
Evaluation Index (McRoberts, 2005) was used for the second time. Through further
development of the scale, we divided out static and dynamic tight-to-loose fit and fit
satisfaction.
Future Studies
Prototype testing included routine movements that are typical of repetitive
motions. The prototype should be tested for its effectiveness in participation of repetitive
motion tasks for extended time periods.
Further work is needed to develop the body scanning technique for measuring
posture. I may explore the possibility of some type of marker for certain body landmarks
that were difficult to locate with great precision.
There were sufficient methods of measuring postural alignment effectiveness in
this study without the Vicon Kinematic System. An area where I plan to conduct
research in the near future will involve use of the Vicon Kinematic System that uses
video capture of body form based on optical markers. A collaboration is in place to use
that equipment to measure posture and compare it to the body scanning and photographic
105

methods. The next direction for this study should be to test the prototype using the Vicon
Kinematic System for comparison of its’ performance against that of the TC 2 Body
Scanner. This would determine its’ effectiveness in diagnosing and assessing postural
alignment effectiveness. Subjects have agreed to participate in the future.
A renown physician with specialization in spine surgery indicated willingness to
collaborate in a wear study with his patients. A clinical study of patients may determine if
there is a compliance advantage for the prototype.
One of the requirements for subject participation in the study was to be premenopausal.
In the future, a follow-up study of the subjects once they have entered the
post-menopausal stage, should be conducted for comparison, and understanding of the
resulting physical changes in posture.
Other considerations for future studies include testing the prototype for its
postural alignment effectiveness during routine exercise, developing prototypes geared
for children and elderly subjects with kyphosis, and conducting longitudinal testing for
osteoporosis. I believe the study of posture and soft structural support garments has great
possibilities, not only for my future research, but also in improving the lives of
individuals who need a support garment of this type. There is much that is yet to be
done.
106

APPENDIX A
Human Subjects Application - Florida State University
107

108

109

APPENDIX B
Human Subjects Application - Louisiana State University
110

111

112

113

APPENDIX C
Human Subjects Application – Southern University at Baton Rouge
114

115

APPENDIX D
Consent Letter
116

Hello, my name is Lisa McRoberts and I am a doctoral student under the direction of
Professors Catherine Black and Rinn Cloud at Florida State University in the College of
Human Sciences. In addition, I am under the direction of Professor Bonnie Belleau at
Louisiana State University in the College of Human Ecology, and Professor Grace
Namwamba at Southern University in the College of Family and Consumer Sciences.
The purpose of the research that I am conducting is to compare posture alignment
effectiveness and comfort of a soft structural garment and two commercially available
support systems.
I am currently conducting a study on the effectiveness and comfort of garments designed
to improve upper body posture. During the course of this study, you will be asked to read
magazines, type, file forms, fill out surveys (The questionnaire is anonymous. The results
of the study may be published but your name will not be known), participate in body
scanning and permit videotaping so as to analyze and compare the posture. The TCTC
body scanner uses approximately regular white lights with six cameras in order to capture
a 3-dimensional body scan. It takes only two minutes to take each scan. However, if you
are sensitive to light or have a tendency to get claustrophobic then you should not
participate. In order to participate in this study, it will be necessary to commit to four 2-
hour sessions during consecutive weeks, to be held on either Thursday afternoon or
Friday during the day. The sessions will be located in the Family and Consumer Science
building on the campus of Southern University. If you have any questions or concerns,
you can contact Lisa Barona McRoberts at (225) 335-2835 or Dr. Grace Namwamba at
(225) 771-4660. Parking permits will be mailed in advance, or can be obtained from the
Police office on campus. During any of the activities during the protocol, if you
experience any anxiety or discomfort, you may ask to stop the activity.
Return of the questionnaire and signature on the consent form will be considered your
consent to participate. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lisa Barona McRoberts
117

APPENDIX E
Consent Form
118

INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Please let this serve as notice that I am a graduate student under the direction of
Professors Catherine Black and Rinn Cloud at Florida State University in the College of
Human Sciences. In addition, I am under the direction of Professor Bonnie Belleau at
Louisiana State University in the College of Human Ecology, and Professor Grace
Namwamba at Southern University in the College of Family and Consumer Sciences.
The title of my research is The Design and Assessment of a Soft Structural Prototype for
Postural Alignment. The purpose of the research that I am conducting is to compare
posture alignment effectiveness and comfort of a soft structural garment and two
commercially available support systems. The study will consist of 15 subjects. Each
subject will receive a signed copy of the consent form for her records.
Your participation will involve 4 two-hour sessions during four consecutive weeks.
Physical activities involved include administrative tasks such as typing, reading,
completing surveys, filing, as well as completing a range of motion test and movement
analysis. While completing these activities, you will be asked to wear back support
systems, and a prototype back support system, and submit to body scanning (which
consists of standing in a booth while hundreds of lights reflect on you to create a 3D scan
of your body). The lights are safe and there is no radiation involved in participation.
Specific body measurements will be taken using 3D body scanning and traditional tailor
tape. 3D body scanning consists of a series of light sensors that extract measurements.
An individual being scanned enters into the scanner’s dressing room, changes into a fitted
outfit, which is provided, then enters into the scanning area. The individual then stands
still while the scanner captures the image and produces a 3D scan of their body within 30
seconds or less. The measurements are stored in the computer and can be uploaded into a
pattern design program and can then be used to generate a customized basic shirt, pant, or
skirt pattern for the individual that was scanned. You will also be asked to fill out a
questionnaire that will rate your level of wearer acceptability of the prototype back
support system. The total time of commitment will be around 10 hours.
You will be photographed and videotaped while completing the activities related to the
study. The purpose of these photographs and videotapes will be to aide the researchers in
further analysis of the back support system. The photographs and videotapes may be used
by us when presenting any findings, but your identity will remain anonymous and all of
the information obtained during the course of this study will remain confidential, to the
extent allowed by law.
Your participation is voluntary. You may choose not to participate or withdraw from this
study at any time without any prejudice, penalty or loss of benefits, to which otherwise
entitled. All of your answers to the questions will be kept confidential to the extent
allowed by law. The results of this research study may be published, but your name will
not appear on any of the results.
There is a possibility of a minimal level of risk if you choose to participate in this study.
You may experience mild discomfort when wearing this prototype back support system.
119

The researchers will be present at all times during this study if any discomfort arises. You
will be able to stop your participation at any time you wish during the study.
Although there may not be any direct benefit to you, your participation will be providing
the researchers will valuable information pertaining to back support systems and making
them more comfortable. This information will be able to help others in the future who
have to wear these types of support systems.
You may contact Lisa McRoberts at lbm05f@fsu.edu, lmcrob1@lsu.edu, 2933 Myrtle
Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70806, (225) 335-2835, Dr. Rinn Cloud at rcloud@fsu.edu,
and Dr. Catherine Black at cblack@mailer.com, Dr. Bonnie Belleau at hcbell@lsu.edu,
or Dr. Grace Namwamba at grace_namwamba@cxs.subr.edu, (225) 771-4660 at any time
regarding any questions you have pertaining to this research or your rights as a
participant.
If you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a participant in this research
study or to report a research-related injury, contact Jimmy D. Lindsey, Ph.D.,
Chairperson, Institutional Research Oversight Committee, Southern University, Baton
Rouge, LA 70813, (v) 225-771-3950, Jimmy_Lindsey@CXS.SUBR.Edu.
If you have any questions as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you have
been placed at risk, you can contact the chair of the Human Subjects Committee
Institutional Review Board through the Vice President for the Office of Research at
Florida State University (850)-644-8633.
Sincerely,
Lisa Barona McRoberts
By signing below, I give my consent to participate in the above study. It is my
understanding that I will be videotaped and photographed by the researcher, and be
required to complete minimal physical activities. All of the photographs and videotapes
will be kept under lock and key for use only by the researcher. The videotapes will be
destroyed by January 30, 2009.
__________________________________ _______________________________
(Subject)
(Date)
120

APPENDIX F
Demographic Subject Information
121

Demographic Subject Information
Name:_______________________________________ __________________________
Age: _______________ Height: _________________ Weight: ___________
Bust: _______________ Waist: __________________ Hips: _____________
Bust to Waist Length: __________________Hips to Waist Length: _________________
Prototype worn: ____ (Session 1) _____ (Session 2) ____ (Session 3) _____ (Session 4)
Occupation: _________________________ How long? _________________________
Do work tasks require repetitive motion?________ If yes, list activities?_____________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prototype Size provided: ____
Are you willing to commit to one day per week, for 4 weeks with 2 hour-long sessions?_
Do you have any back or spine diseases? __________ If so, please explain ___________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Do you get claustrophobic in small rooms? _____________________________________
Would you be willing to have your body scanned given that it is harmless, based on the
use of ordinary white lights from six cameras and takes two minutes per scan or less? ___
Can you be available for sessions on Thursday afternoons or during the day on Friday for
4 consecutive weeks? ________________
Can you be available for sessions for four consecutive days during the week of July 16 th ,
23 rd , or 30 th ? ________________ If so, please rank which weeks would be best by
placing the number 1, 2, 3 or 0 (for not possible): July 16 th ____, July 23 rd ____, July
30 th ____
122

APPENDIX G
New York Posture Rating Chart
123

124

APPENDIX H
Wear Test Protocol
125

Wear Test Protocol
During the orientation, each subject will be briefed about the protocol.
1. Subjects arrive to room 206 at staggered times every 30 minutes and sign in.
2. Issue white cotton control sports bra, heather grey t-shirt, grip socks, hair holders
(ponytail holders for medium to long hair and elastic headbands for short hair), bags for
personal items (opaque hospital bag for clothing and shoes to be locked up and large
colored Ziploc bag for keys and small items), and a clipboard with an instruction booklet.
3. Subject enters dressing room and puts on issued clothing, keeps on personal
underwear and pants, and puts hair up off of neck. Shoes and personal clothing other
than underwear and pants are placed in an opaque personal items bag and locked in
cabinet. Subject maintains possession of large Ziploc bag with keys, etc.)
4. Photograph each subject against a 1” grid with the following views: front view,
side view, back view, front view with arms raised over head, and front view with arms
raised at sides (without t-shirt).
5. Subject enters activity room (room 204), selects a magazine from the front table
labeled “Magazines”.
6. The subject sits at a computer desk marked either “Station A”, “Station B” or
“Station C” in ascending order from arrival.
7. The subject adjusts the chair until the knees are situated so that the thighs and
calves are at a 90° angle to the floor underneath the table, and the elbows are bent to
provide the forearms and upper arms at a 90° angle to the table with the wrists resting on
the wrist pad.
126

8. The subject may move the keyboard to the side in order to place the magazine in
front of them on the table. Subject sets and starts the digital timer for 20 minutes. Subject
reads the selected magazine while facing the front of the room (the computer screen) for
20 minutes (to acclimate to the environment). Subject turns off the timer.
9. Subject surveyed with the wearer acceptability instrument.
10. Subject turns toward the aisle for skin test and remains seated. Researcher
measures the thermal skin temperature of the subjects’ right forearm, right upper arm, left
forearm, left upper arm, chest, and forehead using the laser thermometer.
11. Subject turns back to face the computer screen and rechecks initial alignment of
legs and arms after placing the keyboard back in front of them (the thighs and calves are
at a 90° angle to the floor underneath the table, and the elbows are bent to provide the
forearms and upper arms at a 90° angle to the table with the wrists resting on the wrist
pad).
12. Subject chooses an article they enjoyed, sets and starts the timer for 30 minutes.
The subject types about what they enjoyed, either how it can be applied in their lives, or
how they can relate to the subject. Videotaping from the side of the row continuously
captures activity assessment to determine when posture changed while seated.
13. During typing activity, 20 minutes after starting time, side view photos will be
taken using a quiet camera without flash.
14. After the typing activity, the subject will turn off the timer, and move to the back
of the room to the table labeled “Filing” bringing their personal items Ziploc bag and
clipboard with them.
127

15. Subject will remove two empty cardboard file boxes from an overhead stack of
boxes.
16. Subject will place the box on a table, and place in file folders. Subject will set
and start the timer for 15 minutes and file the letters alphabetically until the timer stops.
17. The subject will remove the file folders and papers, restacking them in individual
stacks, and replace the empty file boxes on top of the box stack.
18. Subject will move away from the “Filing” table to one of the desks marked
“Movement Assessment A” or “Movement Assessment B” and begin the movement
assessment which will require ranking ease with required movements and fit during
movement. For the physical movement other than at the desk, please move into and stay
inside of the taped rectangle area on the floor.
19. While standing, subject will rank the filing movement accordingly in the booklet.
20. Subject will sit down from standing and rank the movement.
21. Subject will rank the fit while sitting.
22. Subject will reach forward while sitting and rank the fit.
23. Subject will type three lines of anything they desire and rank it accordingly.
24. Subject will rise from sitting to standing and rank the movement.
25. Subject will walk to one end of the taped rectangle and walk forward five steps
and turn around and walk five steps back and rank the movement of walking and the fit
during walking.
26. Subject will raise and lower their arms in front of them as if to pump weights
three times slowly (abduction and adduction) and rank the movement.
128

27. Subject will bend torso back and then forward slowly to reach to their toes, and
then straight back up again and rank both the movement and fit during the movement.
28. Subject will bend their torso from side to side slowly three times, and then
straight back up again and rank the movement.
29. Subject will turn torso from left to right at waist and look over each shoulder.
30. Subject will raise arms out in front of them and spread arms open to sides and
then bring them forward again and repeat series slowly three times and rank the
movement.
31. Subject will raise their arms out in front of them and over their head and then
lower their arms completely, repeat the series three times slowly, and rank the movement
and assess the fit accordingly.
32. Each subject will have their thermal skin temperature taken.
33. Subjects will be surveyed using the Model Fit evaluation Scale, the McGinnis
Thermal Scale, and the Wearer Acceptability Scale.
34. Subject will return to dressing room (room 206) and have five photos taken
without the t-shirt on and against a 1” grid (front view, side view, back view, front view
with arms raised over head, and front view with arms raised at sides) for visual
assessment of the posture that will be made based on the New York Posture Rating Scale.
35. Each subject will then go to room 215 (the room with the body scanner in it),
receive biker shorts from the research assistant, and go into the body scanner dressing
room and remove their pants and put on the biker shorts.
129

36. Subject will enter the body scanner and be told to place their feet on the markings,
hold the handlebars with their hands, and hold still until the scanner completes the scan
(which takes about 2 minutes).
37. One of the research assistants will measure the angle of the arms of the subject,
and record the angle in order to maintain the same angle throughout the remainder of the
study during each scan.
38. Subject will be given instructions from the body scanner system and be scanned.
39. Once the scan is checked for accuracy, the subject will either be rescanned if
necessary, or be told to get dressed. Subjects will place all testing materials in the opaque
bag and return it to the research assistant, along with the clipboard and booklet.
40. The protocol will be repeated on either three consecutive days or the following
day, Friday, and Thursday, and Friday of the following week. Each subject will be
randomly assigned each of the additional treatments until they have received each of
them.
41. On the last day, the subjects will be given a body scan analysis. Subjects will also
be given the option to receive a printout of their body scan, and save a copy of their data
if they bring a flash drive.
130

APPENDIX I
Study Instruction Booklet
131

Study Instruction Booklet
Session: 1 2 3 4
Subject: ______
P. 1
132

Enter activity room 204, proceed to the front table labeled “Magazines”, and
select a magazine. Go to an open computer desk marked either “Station A”, “Station B”
or “Station C” in ascending order (A, B, C) from arrival and sit down. Adjust the chair
until your knees are situated so that your thighs and calves are at a 90° angle to the floor
underneath the table, and your elbows are bent with your forearms and upper arms at a
90° angle to the table with your wrists resting on the wrist pad. You may move the
keyboard to the side in order to place the magazine in front of you on the table. Set and
start the digital timer for 20 minutes.
Instructions for Setting Digital Timer:
a. Press “M” button to set minutes and hold down until the correct number of
seconds appear, then release.
b. Press “S” button to set seconds and hold down until the correct number of
minutes appear, then release.
c. Once the timer has been set, press “START”, read the selected magazine while
facing the front of the room (the computer screen) for 20 minutes until timer rings. Once
timer rings, turn off the timer by pressing “STOP”. Press “M” and “S” at the same time
to reset timer.
Fill out the survey on the next page entitled wearer acceptability instrument.
Please mark everything and give the best response that you can. Feel free to add any
comments you have in the booklet at anytime.
Turn Page P. 2
133

Wearer Acceptability Scale
Place an X on the blank line at the location that best describes how you feel with the
middle being neutral in the upper support garment only.
Comfortable ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Uncomfortable
Unacceptable ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Acceptable
Tired ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Rested
Place an X on the blank at the location that best describes only the upper body support
system you are wearing with the middle being neutral.
Flexible ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Stiff
Hard to put on ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Easy to put on
Freedom of ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Restricted
movement of arms
movement of arms
Easy to move in ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Hard to move in
Unsatisfactory fit ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Satisfactory fit
Freedom of ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Restricted
movement of torso
movement of torso
Like ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Dislike
Tight ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Loose
Bulky ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Not Bulky
Cool ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Hot
Lightweight ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Heavyweight
Soft to the skin ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Harsh to the skin
Absorbent ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Nonabsorbent
[Based on Huck & Kim’s (1997) Wearer acceptability scale]
Turn Page P. 3
134

Turn towards the aisle, to face research assistant for skin test and remain seated.
Readjust the chair until your knees are situated so that your thighs and calves are
at a 90° angle to the floor underneath the table, and your elbows are bent with your
forearms and upper arms at a 90° angle to the table with your wrists resting on the wrist
pad. You may move the keyboard to the side in order to place the magazine in front of
you on the table.
Turn back to face the computer screen, placing the keyboard back in front of you,
and recheck the alignment of your legs and arms as you did originally (with your thighs
and calves at a 90° angle to the floor underneath the table, and your elbows bent to
provide your forearms and upper arms at a 90° angle to the table with your wrists resting
on the wrist pad).
Choose an article you enjoyed reading. Then set and start the timer for 30
minutes. Type about what you enjoyed, either how it can be applied in your life, how
you can relate to the subject, or anything at all. The important thing is that you type as
continuously as possible until the time period ends. After the typing activity, turn off the
timer, and reset it.
Read and perform each movement required. Then place an X on the blank at the
location that best describes how you can move in the treatment with the middle being
neutral. Some of the movements will require an evaluation of the fit of the upper body
support garment worn (the sports bra, or support systems).
Rank the movement of typing.
Easy to do _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hard to do
Describe the fit while sitting using the scale below.
Extremely tight _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Extremely loose
Extremely satisfied _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Extremely dissatisfied
Comments:
Turn towards the aisle, to face research assistant for skin test and remain seated.
Fill out the wearer acceptability scale on the next page. Please mark everything
and give the best response that you can. Feel free to add any comments you have in the
booklet.
Turn Page P. 4
135

Wearer Acceptability Scale
Place an X on the blank line at the location that best describes how you feel with the
middle being neutral in the upper support garment only.
Comfortable ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Uncomfortable
Unacceptable ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Acceptable
Tired ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Rested
Place an X on the blank at the location that best describes only the upper body support
system you are wearing with the middle being neutral.
Flexible ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Stiff
Hard to put on ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Easy to put on
Freedom of ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Restricted
movement of arms
movement of arms
Easy to move in ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Hard to move in
Unsatisfactory fit ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Satisfactory fit
Freedom of ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Restricted
movement of torso
movement of torso
Like ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Dislike
Tight ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Loose
Bulky ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Not Bulky
Cool ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Hot
Lightweight ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Heavyweight
Soft to the skin ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Harsh to the skin
Absorbent ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Nonabsorbent
[Based on Huck & Kim’s (1997) Wearer acceptability scale]
Turn Page P. 5
136

Move to the back of the room to the table labeled “Filing” bringing your personal
items bag and clipboard with you.
Place personal items bag and clipboard out of the way to the extreme right hand
side of the table, but in plain view. Remove one empty cardboard file box from the
overhead stack of boxes. Place the box in the middle of the table and place file folders
inside of it. Set and start the timer for 15 minutes and file the papers alphabetically in the
folder until the timer stops.
Turn off timer, reset it, and remove the file folders and papers, restacking them in
individual stacks, and replace the empty file box on top of the box stack. Move away
from the “Filing” table to one of the desks marked “Movement Assessment A” or
“Movement Assessment B” bringing your personal items bag and clipboard with you.
Begin the movement assessment and fit evaluation, which requires ranking ease
with required movements and evaluating fit during required movements. For the physical
movement other than at the desk, please move into and stay inside of the taped rectangle
area on the floor.
Turn Page P. 6
137

Read and perform each movement required. Then place an X on the blank at the
location that best describes how you can move in the treatment with the middle being
neutral. Some of the movements will require an evaluation of the fit of the upper body
support garment worn (the sports bra, or support systems).
1. While standing, rank the previous filing movement of taking the boxes down from the
stack.
Easy to do _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hard to do
2. Sit down from standing and rank the movement.
Easy to do _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hard to do
3. While sitting, reach forward with both arms. Then rank the movement and fit of the
upper body support
system while reaching forward.
Comments:
Easy to do _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hard to do
Extremely tight _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Extremely loose
Extremely satisfied _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Extremely dissatisfied
3. Rise from sitting to standing and rank the movement.
Easy to do _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hard to do
4. Walk to one end of the taped rectangle, walk forward five steps, and turn around and
walk five steps back.
a. Rank the movement of walking.
Easy to do _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hard to do
b. Rank fit during walking.
Extremely tight _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Extremely loose
P. 7
138

Extremely satisfied _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Extremely dissatisfied
5. Raise and lower your arms in front of you with palms facing the ground as if to pump
weights three times slowly and rank the movement.
Easy to do _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hard to do
6. Bend torso back and then forward slowly to reach to your toes, and then straight back
up again.
a. Rank the movement of bending.
Easy to do _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hard to do
b. Rank fit during bending.
Extremely tight _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Extremely loose
Extremely satisfied _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Extremely dissatisfied
7. Bend torso from side to side slowly three times, and then straight back up again. Rank
the movement.
Easy to do _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hard to do
8. Turn torso from left to right at waist and look over each shoulder and rank the
movement.
Easy to do _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hard to do
9. Put your clipboard down and raise your arms out in front of you palms facing the
ground and spread arms open to sides and then bring them forward again and repeat
slowly three times and rank the movement.
Easy to do _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hard to do
P. 8
139

10. Put your clipboard down and raise your arms out in front of you (palms facing down)
and over your head and then lower arms completely, repeat the series three times slowly.
Rank the movement and assess the fit accordingly.
a. Rank the movement of raising arms overhead.
Easy to do _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hard to do
b. Rank fit during raising arms overhead.
Extremely tight _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Extremely loose
Extremely satisfied _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Extremely dissatisfied
[Based on Huck & Kim’s (1997) Wearer acceptability scale and McRoberts’ Model Fit
Evaluation Index (2005)]
Turn Page P. 9
140

Sit down at the desk you used for the movement assessment marked “Movement
Assessment A” or “Movement Assessment B” bringing your personal items bag and
clipboard with you.
Turn towards the aisle, to face research assistant for skin test and remain seated.
Complete the surveys using the Overall Model Fit Evaluation Index, the
McGinnis Thermal Scale, Aesthetic Attribute Questionnaire, and the Wearer
Acceptability Scale.
Turn Page P. 10
141

MODEL FIT EVALUATION INDEX
Please circle the most appropriate response based on the corresponding scale.
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Extremely
Tight Tight Loose Loose
A. Describe the fit of the upper support garment only across the:
1. Across the bust area 1 2 3 4 5
2. Below the bust area 1 2 3 4 5
B. Describe the fit of the upper support garment only in the area between:
3. Around the neck area 1 2 3 4 5
4. Across the shoulder blades in the back 1 2 3 4 5
5. Under the arms 1 2 3 4 5
6. In the armhole area 1 2 3 4 5
7. From the top of the shoulders to the bottom of the
support system 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Extremely
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied
8. Overall, how satisfied are you with the fit of the upper support garment only?
(Based on McRoberts, 2005)
1 2 3 4 5
Turn Page P. 11
142

McGinnis Thermal Scale
I AM:
1. So cold I am helpless
2. Numb with cold
3. Very cold
4. Cold
5. Uncomfortably cool
6. Cool but fairly comfortable
7. Comfortable
8. Warm but fairly comfortable
9. Uncomfortably warm
10. Hot
11. Very hot
12. Almost as hot as I can stand
13. So hot I am sick and nauseated
(Hollies, 1971, p. 112.)
Turn Page P. 12
143

Aesthetic Attribute Questionnaire
1. What would be some of your concerns about wearing this support system to work?
2. If you could change something about the design, what would it be?
3. Please provide any other information you would like to regarding the clothing
attributes of this support system (fabric and clothing system, aesthetics, style,
fashionability, appropriateness, design, color, texture, and body emphasis).
Other Comments:
Turn Page P. 13
144

Wearer Acceptability Scale
Place an X on the blank line at the location that best describes how you feel with the
middle being neutral in the upper support garment only.
Comfortable ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Uncomfortable
Unacceptable ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Acceptable
Tired ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Rested
Place an X on the blank at the location that best describes only the upper body support
system you are wearing with the middle being neutral.
Flexible ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Stiff
Hard to put on ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Easy to put on
Freedom of ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Restricted
movement of arms
movement of arms
Easy to move in ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Hard to move in
Unsatisfactory fit ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Satisfactory fit
Freedom of ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Restricted
movement of torso
movement of torso
Like ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Dislike
Tight ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Loose
Bulky ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Not Bulky
Cool ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Hot
Lightweight ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Heavyweight
Soft to the skin ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Harsh to the skin
Absorbent ⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐___⏐ Nonabsorbent
[Based on Huck & Kim’s (1997) Wearer acceptability scale]
Turn Page P. 14
145

Return to dressing Room 204.
*End of Activity/Movement Session
P. 15
146

APPENDIX J
Analysis of Variance for Individual Mobility Movements
147

Analysis of Variance for Individual Mobility Movements
Source Num df Den df F ω 2 p
Type: Sequence 2 19.2 3.47 0.076 .052
Treatment 3 39 3.80 0.123 .017*
error (2.0283)
Reach: Sequence 2 18.7 0.65 -0.012 .535
Treatment 3 39 3.84 0.124 .017*
error (2.6332)
Raise arms: Sequence 2 18.6 0.06 -0.032 .939
Treatment 3 39 3.34 0.105 .029*
error (2.5892)
Turn torso: Sequence 2 17.1 0.27 -0.025 .768
Treatment 3 39 3.07 0.094 .039*
error (1.5401)
Spread arms: Sequence 2 16.6 0.10 -0.031 .908
Treatment 3 39 3.85 0.125 .017*
error (2.1224)
Overhead: Sequence 2 17.8 0.18 -0.028 .840
Treatment 3 39 4.45 0.147 .009*
error (2.8579)
148

File: Sequence 2 19.2 0.28 4.41 .757
Treatment 3 39 2.47 64.41 .076
error (2.8647)
Sitting: Sequence 2 18.9 0.18 -0.027 .835
Treatment 3 39 2.08 0.051 .119
error (1.6472)
Rise from Sequence 2 21.1 0.11 -0.031 .900
Sitting: Treatment 3 39 0.74 -0.013 .534
error (1.8268)
Walking: Sequence 2 20.2 0.34 -0.022 .716
Treatment 3 39 1.27 0.013 .300
error (1.6478)
Bend back: Sequence 2 17.3 0.08 -0.032 .924
Treatment 3 39 2.37 0.064 .086
error (2.3402)
Bend side: Sequence 2 18.4 0.18 -0.022 .838
Treatment 3 39 2.19 0.013 .104
error (2.1920)
Note. Values in parentheses represent residual estimate from the covariance parameter estimates. ω 2 =
omega-squared values - tell the strength of association for the F tests.
*p< .05.
149

APPENDIX K
Range of Motion Results Table
150

Participant Range of Motion by Treatments
Subject Tx. 1 Tx. 2 Tx. 3 Tx. 4 Tx. 1 Tx. 2 Tx. 3 Tx. 4
Abduct Abduct Abduct Abduct Ovrhd Ovrhd Ovrhd Ovrhd
1 90 94 94 93 18 8 14 14
2 90 * 98 90 9 * 4 12
3 90 104 102 102 27 25 18 27
4 99 80 90 80 14 15 17 15
5 89 * 90 91 26 * 21 33
6 91 91 90 95 12 8 17 14
7 74 75 77 89 14 13 4 10
8 90 90 88 91 10 8 8 8
9 90 84 90 92 16 20 23 18
10 70 74 84 88 23 18 19 19
11 97 90 90 91 17 8 14 18
12 90 91 90 90 12 17 24 18
13 88 90 90 90 21 21 28 21
14 90 101 93 95 15 23 20 17
15 92 91 90 * 16 18 15 *
Note. Results are given in degrees. Abduct = abduction, arms raised to the sides; Ovrhd = overhead,
arms raised overhead.
* = missing data.
151

APPENDIX L
Frequencies of Participant Responses to Psychosocial Questions
152

Frequencies – Results of Psychosocial Questions
Fabric/Clothing Attribute Concern Specified/Comment Tx 1 Tx 2 Tx 3 Tx 4
Aesthetics Bust shape/Appearance -3 -5 -2 -1
Add bust form -12 -1 -1
Separate bust -1
Can be worn as bra +1
Subtotal -15 -5 -3 -2
Style No concerns/change +1 +4 +1
Dislike – change – general -1 -2
Change strap style line -1 -1 -4
Subtotal +1 +3 -1 -6
Fashionability Not fashionable -2 -2 -1
Aesthetically pleasing +1
Subtotal 0 -2 -2 0
Appropriateness Would never wear to work -1 -1
Subtotal 0 0 -1 -1
Design Change/eliminate Velcro -6
Velcro convenient +1
Narrow strap width -1 -1
Acceptable fit with clothing +1
General clothing interaction -3 -1
Change neckline – flatten -1
Waist – rolls -1 -1
153

Reduce bulk – shoulders -1 -1
Reduce bulk – at waist -1
Reduce bulk – underarm -1
Reduce bulk – Velcro -2
Subtotal -3 -1 -5 -10
Color Dislike/change trim color -3 -1
Like color +1 +3
Subtotal +1 0 -1 0
Texture Great materials +1 +2
Change materials -1 -2 -2
Subtotal 0 0 0 -2
Body Emphasis/De-emphasis Lower Neckline (front) -4 -3
Lower Neckline (back) -1
Lengthen bust -1
Lengthen hemline -1 -2
Shorten hemline -2
Lower armholes -2 -1 -3
Subtotal -7 -5 -5 -3
Note. Tx = Treatment. Scale = -15 to +15. With ≥ -1 = Negative (Concern, Less favorable to the wearer),
0 = Neutral, and ≥ +1 = Positive (More favorable to the wearer).
154

APPENDIX M
Analysis of Prototype Bust Concerns for Participants
155

Analysis of Prototype Bust Concerns for Participants by Race, Height, Weight, and
Circumferential Measurements (bust, waist, hips)
Bust Race Height 1 Weight 1 Bust Waist Hips
Concern Feet/inches pounds inches inches inches
No 4 AA 5.1 120 34.38 28.63 38.45
Yes 3 H 5.1 128 36.00 30.25 39.13
Yes 3 H 5.1 134 37.75 30.75 41.00
No 4 H 5.2 144 37.75 31.50 42.25
Yes 3 C 5.3 117 32.63 27.63 36.00
Yes 3 H 5.4 120 34.50 28.63 37.25
No 4 C 5.4 150 37.25 29.86 42.25
No 4 C 5.5 150 35.50 29.00 44.00
No 3 AA 5.5 175 43.00 39.50 45.50
No 4 AA 5.6 150 37.38 31.25 42.00
No 4 C 5.6 NA 2 47.00 40.00 51.00
No 3 AA 5.7 NA 2 45.00 37.00 45.25
Yes 3 C 5.8 155 38.25 31.00 40.38
No 4 C 5.8 213 42.38 37.50 51.88
No 4 AA 5.9 235 44.38 39.50 49.25
1
Self-report.
2 NA=not available. Participant did not provide weight.
3 Bust and hips circumference difference is less than 4 inches (larger busted than pear-shaped individuals).
4 Pear-shaped, Bust is 4 or more inches smaller than hips circumference.
156

REFERENCES
Adams, P. S. & Keyserling, W. M. (1996). Methods for assessing protective clothing
effects on worker mobility. In J. S. Johnson & S. Z. Mansdorf (Eds.),
Performance of protective clothing: 5 th ed., ASTM STP 123, 311-326.
Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
Adams, P. S., Slocum, A. C., and Keyserling, W. M. (1994). A model for protective
clothing effects on performance. International Journal of Clothing Science and
Technology 6(4), 6-16.
Alexander, M. (2000). Understanding the fit preferences of young female consumers
through body cathexis, clothing benefits sought and demographics based on
different body shapes. Auburn University: Thesis, Auburn University Libraries
RBD, Interlibrary Loan, Louisiana State University Library.
Alexander, M. & Connell, L. J. (2003). Fit preferences of college age female consumers.
ITAA Proceedings #60, Res002.
Allen, C. W. (1993). Weight of evidence links obesity, fitness to carpal tunnel syndrome.
Occupational Health & Safety 62(11), 51-52.
Amaden-Crawford, C. (1996). The art of fashion draping (2 nd ed.). New York: Fairchild
Publications.
American Society for Testing and Materials, “Standard practices for qualitatively
evaluating the comfort, fit, function and integrity of chemical-protective suit
ensembles”, ASTM F1154-88, 1988.
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Engineering (1981). ASHRAE handbook,
1981 fundamentals. Atlanta: ASHRAE.
Ashdown, S. P. (1998). An investigation of the structure of sizing systems: a comparison
of three multidimensional optimized sizing systems generated from
anthropometric data with the ASTM standard DD5585-94. International Journal
of Clothing Science and Technology 10(5), 324-341.
Ashdown, S. P. & DeLong, M. (1995). Perception testing of apparel ease variation.
Applied Ergonomics 26(1), 47-54.
Baldwin, M. L. & Butler, R. J. (2006). Upper extremity disorders in the workplace:
Costs and outcomes beyond the first return to work. Journal of Occupational
Rehabilitation 16, 303-323.
Barker, J. & Black, C. (2004). A comparison of comfort: two ballistic vests. ITAA
Proceedings, #61, 2004, Res-17.
157

Barker, J. (2007). Comfort perceptions of police officers toward ballistic vests. Florida
State University: Digital Library and Archives Database. Unpublished
dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida: Digital Library and
Archives Database.
Becker, L. (1998). Effect Size. [Electronic version]. Retrieved February 4, 2008, from
http://web.uccs.edu/lbecker/SPSS/glm_effectsize.htm.
Bergen, M., Capjack, L., McConnan, L., and Richards, E. (1996). Design and evaluation
of clothing for the neonate. Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 14(4), 225-
233.
Bernard, B. (1997). Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors: a critical review
of epidemiological evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the
neck, upper extremity, and low back. DHHS ( NIOSH) Publication 97-141
(Cinncinnati, USA: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health).
[Electronic version]. Retrieved March 9, 2008, from
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/97-141
Betzina, S. (2001). Fast fit: Easy pattern alterations for every figure. Newton, CT.: Jim
Childs.
Black, C., Grise, K., & Fowler, J. (2003). The evaluation of hip braces: a comparison of
comfort. ITAA Proceedings #60, Res008.
Branson, D. H. & Sweeney, M. (1991). Conceptualization and measurement of clothing
comfort: Toward a met theory. In S. Kaiser & M. L. Dam horst (Eds.), Critical
linkages in textiles and clothing: Theory, method and practice (pp. 94 – 105).
Monument, CO: International Textile and Apparel Association.
Briedenhann, D. (2004). Implementation of an off-season training programme to
enhance throwing performance in high school athletes. (Doctoral dissertation,
Tshwane University of Technology). [Electronic version]. Retrieved March 20,
2008, from http://libserv5.tut.ac.za:7780/pls/eres/wpg_docload.download_file?p_
filename=F436930584/briedenhann.pdf
Bye, E., & Hakala, L. (2005). Sailing apparel for women: a design development case
study. Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 23(1), 45-55.
Campbell, L. D. & Horne, L. (2001). Trousers developed from the ASTM D5586 and the
Canada standard sizing for women’s apparel. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, 19(4), 185-193.
158

Carroll, K. E. (2001). Innovations and improvisations: a study in specialized product
development focused on business clothing for women with physical disabilities.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: Digital Library and Archives
Database
Cash, T. F. & Szymanski, M. L. (1995). The development and validation of the bodyimage
ideals questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment 64(3), 466-477.
CDC. Prevalence of disabilities and associated health conditions among adults – United
States, 1999. [Electronic version]. Retrieved February 24, 2008, from
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmrhtm/mm5007a3.htm
Chae, M., Black, C., & Heitmeyer, J. (2006). Pre-Purchase and Post-Purchase
Satisfaction and Fashion Involvement of Females Tennis Wear Consumers.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 30(1), 25-35..
Chattaraman, V. & Rudd, N. A. (2006). Preferences for aesthetic attributes in clothing as
a function of body image. Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 24(46), 46-61.
Chen, C. and Lewis, V. (2005). The life of a piece of cloth: Developing garments into a
sustainable service system. ITAA Proceedings, #62, Res-662.
Cho, K. S. (2006). Redesigning hospital gowns to enhance end users’ satisfaction.
Family and consumer Sciences research Journal 34, 332-349.
Cho, Y., Takatera, M., Okada, N., Inui, S. & Shimizu,Y. (2005). A computerized pattern
making body model for different sizes and postures. ITAA Proceedings, #62,
Res102.
Cholewicki, J., Alvi, K., Silfies, S. P., & Bartolomei, J. (2003). Comparison of Motion
Restriction and Trunk Stiffness Provided by Three Thoracolumbosacral Orthoses
(TLSOs). Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 16(5), 461-468.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. NY: Academic
Press.
DeJonge, J. O. (1984). Foreword: The design process. In Watkins, S. M., Clothing: The
Portable Environment, vii-xi. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
DeLong, M., Ashdown, S., Butterfield, L., & Turnbladh, K. F. (1993). Data
specifications needed for apparel production using computers. Clothing & Textiles
Research Journal 11(3), 1-7.
Dettotri, J., Bullock, S., Sutlive, T., Franklin, R., & Patience, T. (1996). The effects of
spinal flexion and extension exercises and their associated postures in patients
with acute low back pain. Spine 20(21), 2303-2312.
159

Dwyer, G. B.& Davis, S. E. (2008). ACSM’s Health-related Physical Fitness
Assessment Manual (2 nd ed). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Philadelphia, PA,
Eds., 77-95.
Feuerstein, M. & Harrington, C. B. (2006). Secondary prevention of work-related upper
extremity disorders: recommendations from the Annapolis conference. Journal of
Occupational Rehabilitation 16, 401-409.
Foto J. G., Brasseaux D., & Birke J.A. (2007). Essential features of a handheld infrared
thermometer used to guide treatment of neuropathic feet. Journal of the
American Podiatric Medical Association, accepted for publication September/
October edition.
Fowler, J. (2003). The evaluation and testing of two ballistic vests: A comparison of
comfort. Unpublished master’s thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee,
Florida: Digital Library and Archives Database.
Fratto, G., Cassill, N. & Jones, M. (2004). Product and Market Analysis of the
Childrenswear Industry. ITAA Proceedings, #61, Res-80.
Hinman, M. (2004). Comparison of thoracic kyphosis and postural stiffness in
younger and older women. The Spine Journal 4(4), 413-417.
Hollies, N. R. S. (1971). The comfort characteristics of Next-To-Skin Garments,
Including Shirts, in Papers presented at the “Third Shirley International Seminar:
Textiles for Comfort,” The Cotton Silk and Man-made Fibers Research
Association, Manchester, England, June 15-17, 1971.
Horridge, P., Caddel, D., and Simonton, J. (2002). Texas trooper uniforms: Assessment
of fabrics, comfort, and wear. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal
30, 350-381.
Howley, E. & Franks, B. (1992). Health Fitness Instructor’s Handbook (2 nd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books, A Division of Human Kinetics
Publishers, Inc.
Huck, J. & Kim, Y. (1997). Coveralls for grass fire fighting. International Journal of
Clothing Science and Technology 9(5), 346-359.
Huck, J., Maganga, O., & Kim, Y. (1997). Protective overalls: evaluation of garment
design and fit. International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology 9(1),
45-61.
160

Katz, J., Amick, B., Carroll, B., Hollis, C., Fossel, A., & Coley, C. (2000). Prevalence of
upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders in college students. The American
Journal of Medicine 109 (7), 586-588.
Katz, D. E., Richards, B. S., Browne, R. H., & Herring, J. A. (1997). A Comparison
Between the Boston Brace and the Charleston Bending Brace in Adolescent
Idiopathic Scoliosis. Spine 22(12), 1302-1312.
Kebaetse, M., McCoure, P., & Pratt, N. E.(1992). Thoracic position effect on shoulder
range of motion, strength, and three-dimensional scapular kinematics. Arch
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (80)p. 945-950.
Keller, T., Colloca, C., Harrison, D.E., Harrison, D.D., & Janik, T. (2005 May-June).
Influence of spine morphology on intervertebral disc loads and stresses in
asymptomatic adults: implications for the ideal spine. The Spine Journal 5(3),
297-309.
Kendall, F. P., McCreary, E. K., Provance, P. G., Rodgers, M. M., and Romani, W. A.
(2005). Muscles: Testing and Function with Posture and Pain (5 th ed.).
Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Kim, J. and Farrell-Beck, J., (2003). Application of apparel design process in an
experimental design course. ITAA Proceedings, #60, 2003, Tea30.
Kitaoka, H. B., Crevoisier, X. M., Harbst, K., Hansen, D., Kotajarvi, B., & Kaufman, K.
(2006). The effect of ankle and foot kinematics and ground forces. Archives of
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 87(1), 130-135.
Krenzer, G., Starr, C. & Branson, D. (2005). Excellence in design – Development of a
sports bra prototype. Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 23(2), 131-134.
LaBat, K. & DeLong, M. (1990). Body cathexis and satisfaction with fit of apparel.
Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 8(2), 43-48.
Lamb, J. M. and Kallal, M. J. (Winter 1992). A conceptual framework for apparel
design. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 10(2), 42-47.
Lawrence, R., Helmick, C., Arnett, F., Deyo, R., Felson, D., Giannini, E., Heyse, S.,
Hirsch, R., Hochberg, M., Hochberg, M., Hunder, G., Liang, M., Pillemer, S.,
Steen, V., and Wolfe, F. (1998). Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and
selected musculoskeletal disorders in the United States. Arthritis Rheum 41, 778-
799.
Lawson, L. & Lorentzen, D. (1990). Selected sports bras: Comparisons of comfort and
support. Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 8(4), 55-60.
161

Loker, S., Ashdown, S., Petrova, A., Cowie, L. & Schoenfelder, K. (2003). Body scan
data applied: Evaluation of misfit to improve an apparel company’s sizing system.
ITAA Proceedings, #60, Res090.
Lyman-Clarke, L., Ashdown, S., Loker, S., Lewis, V. & Schoenfelder, K. (2005). A
Comparison of Visual Analysis Rating Systems. ITAA Proceedings, #62,
Res407.
Maher, P. M. & Sontag, M. S. (March, 1986). Insulative clothing for older women
functioning at reduced household temperatures. Research report: Home and
Family Living Technical Information. 1-23.
Markee, N., & Pederson, E. “The conceptualization of comfort with regard to
clothing.” Pp. 81-93 in S.B. Kaiser and M.L. Damhorst (eds.), Critical Linkages
in Textiles and Clothing Subject Matter: Theory, Method, and Practice.
International Textile and Apparel Association: Monument, CO (1991).
MayoClinic.com. Bones Joints and Muscles: Kyphosis. [Electronic version]. Retrieved
July 7, 2007, from http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/kyphosis/DS00681/
DSECTION=8
McCulloch, C. E., Paal, B., & Ashdown, S. P. (1998). An optimization approach to
apparel sizing. Journal of the Operational Research Society 49, 492-499.
McRoberts, L. B. (2005). Petite women: fit and body shape analysis. Louisiana State
University: Thesis & Dissertation Collection Database.
Mitchka, Black, Heitmeyer, & Cloud, (2008). Functional clothing design for dance
practicewear: A needs assessment. Clothing & Textiles Research Journal, In
press.
Mortimer, M., Pernold G. &, Wiktorin C (2006). Neck/shoulder disorders in a general
population. Natural course and influence of physical exercise: a 5-year follow-up.
Spine 30:E363–E368
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2007). NINDS repetitive
motion disorders information page. Reported 2007. [Electronic version].
Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.ninds.nih.gov.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/
disorders/repetitive_motion/repetitive_motion.html
Ostrow, S. (1958). The New York Physical Fitness Test: A Manual for Teachers of P.E.,
New York State Education Dept. (Division of HPER) 1958.
Peksoz, S., Branson, D. & Farr, C. (2005). QuadGard Body Armor. ITAA Proceedings.
#62, Des145.
162

Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach's coefficient alpha. The Journal of
Consumer Research, 21(2), 381-391.
Pham, V. M., Houlliez, A., Carpentier, A., Herbaux, B., Schill, A., & Thevenon, A.
(2008). Determination of the influence of the Chêneau brace on quality of life for
adolescent with idiopathic scoliosis. Annales de Réadaptation et de Médecine
Physique 15(1), 3-8.
Posture and back health. Harvard Women’s Health Watch: Health & Wellness Resource
Center (2005, August). [Electronic version]. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from
http://www.galenet.galegroup.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/servlet/HWRC/hits?r=d...9&
sgPhrase=true&locID=tall85761&secondary=false&t=RK&s=1&SU=posture
Rahman, T., Bowen, J. R., Takemitsu, M., Scott, C. (2005). The Association Between
Brace Compliance and Outcome for Patients With Idiopathic Scoliosis. Journal
of Pediatric Orthopaedics 25(4), 420-422.
Rhodes, M. (1996, January/February). Back in balance. Women’s Sports & Fitness 18,
44-48.
Ricci, J., Stewart, W., Chee, E., Leotta, C., Foley, K., and Hochberg, M., (2006). Back
pain exacerbations and lost productive time costs in United States workers. Spine.
31(26), 3052-3060.
Rutherford-Black, C. & Khan, S. (1995). Texas Tech police bicycle patrol: Encounter
with a uniform. Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 25(1), 26-28.
Scoliosis.com (Updated September 5, 2007). [Electronic version]. Retrieved February
23, 2008, from, http://www.iscoliosis.com/articles-brace_types.html
Shim, S., & Bickle, M. C. (1993). Women 55 years and older as catalog shoppers:
Satisfaction with apparel fit and catalog attributed. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, 11(4), 53-64.
Starr, C., Branson, D., Ricord, D., & Peksoz, S. (2006). Functional Design: Child’s
Medical Support Garment Prototype. ITAA Proceedings, In Press.
Starr, C., Branson, D., Shehab, R., Farr, C., Ownbey, S., & Swinney, J. (2005).
Biomechanical analysis of a sports bra. Journal of Textile and Apparel
Technology and Management 4(3), 1-14.
Takabu, H., Takahashi, S., & Matsumoto, T., (2005). Analysis of Shoulder Shape.
ITAA Proceedings, #62, Res 585.
Theodoridis, D. & Ruston, S. (2002). The effect of shoulder movements on thoracic
spine 3D motion. Clinical Biomechanics 17(5), 418-421.
163

Turk, J. & Black, C. (2003). Functional clothing design for dance practicewear: A needs
assessment. ITAA Proceedings, #60, Res 143.
U. S. Census Bureau: The 2008 Statistical Abstract. The National Data Book.
[Electronic version]. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from,
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0571.pdf
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (2006, 2006a, 2006b). State and
County QuickFacts. [Electronic version]. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from,
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22000.html.
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (2006, 2006a, 2006b). State and
County QuickFacts. [Electronic version]. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from,
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-
box_head_nbr=R2303&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-format=US-30
Vieria, E. R. & Kumar, S. (2004). Working Postures: A Literature Review. Journal of
Occupational Rehabilitation 14(2), 143–159.
Watkins, S. M. (1977). The design of protective equipment for ice hockey. Home
Economics Research Journal 5(3), 154-166.
Watkins, S. M. (1995). Clothing: The Portable Environment (2 nd ed.). Ames, Iowa:
Iowa State University Press.
Werrell, M. (June 2000). Keeping that back in shape. Occupational Hazards 62(6), 55-
57.
Western, J. W., Rhodes, J., & Stevenson, K. (December 2002). Tips for avoiding neck
pain. Welding Journal 81(12), 36-39.
Winters, H. (Producer), Morley, J. R. (Producer), & Spurlock, M. (Producer and
Director). (2003). Super Size Me. [Motion picture]. United States: Samuel
Goldwyn Films.
Yoo, S., Khan, S., & Black, C. R. (1996). Petite and tall sized consumer segmentation:
Comparison of fashion involvement, pre-purchase clothing satisfaction and
clothing needs. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 3, 219-235.
164

ACADEMIC PREPARATION:
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Luz “Lisa” Barona McRoberts
lmcrob1@lsu.edu
Ph.D. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 2008.
Major: Textiles and Consumer Sciences
Concentrations: Apparel Design/Product Development, Functional Design,
Comfort, Fit
Dissertation: The Design and Assessment of a Soft Structural Support Prototype
for Postural Alignment.
M.S. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 2005.
Major: Human Ecology
Concentrations: Apparel Design/Production, Fit
Thesis: Petite Women: Fit and Body Shape Analysis
B.S. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 2000.
Major: Human Ecology
Concentrations: Apparel Design/Production, Merchandising, Fashion Promotion,
Entrepreneurship, Couture Techniques
Couture Certification, House of LeSage, Paris, France, 11/97.
Concentrations: Beading and Embroidery
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
2007 to Present Assistant Professor, Louisiana State University
2005 to 2007 Graduate Teaching Assistant/Instructor, Florida State
University
2005 to 2007 Graduate Student Mentor, Florida State University
2005 to 2006 Graduate Research Assistant, Florida State University
Summer, 2005
Vera Wang Summer Intern, Bridal Design –Samplehand,
Participation in Production Fittings, and In-house press shows,
NYC, NY
2004 - 2005 Graduate Teaching Instructor, Louisiana State University
2004 - 2005 Graduate Teaching Assistant II, Louisiana State University
165

2003 - 2004 Graduate Teaching Assistant I, Louisiana State University
2002 - 2003 Intern Supervisor, Private Business Owner, Louisiana State
University
-Supervised and instructed interns couture and entrepreneurship
techniques.
Fall, 2000
Instructor, St. Joseph’s Academy, Baton Rouge, LA
1996 - 1998 Substitute Instructor, Sacred Heart School, Baton Rouge, LA
SELECTED JURIED AWARDS:
Mildred Pepper Design Competition, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
2007 Graduate Career/Day Wear (first place)
Fashion Group International, New Orleans, Louisiana
2004 Alpha Award Recipient (first place), Custom Design, Single Item –
Couture
2003 Alpha Award Recipient (first place), Custom Design, Single Item –
Couture Formal/Evening
2003 Bronze (third place), Carnival Court Costume
2002 Alpha Award Recipient (first place), Custom Design, Single Item –
Couture Formal/Evening
2002 Bronze (third place), Carnival Court Costume
2001 Alpha Award Recipient (first place), Custom Design – Bridal
2001 Bronze (third place), Custom Design – Couture
2000 Alpha Award Recipient (first place), Custom Design – Couture
1999 Participant LSU Educational Alpha Award, Team Alligator
Project, Second Place for Louisiana State University
1998 Runner Up at Fashion Group International’s Career Day
166

Fashion Group International, Dallas, Texas
2000 First Place, Special Occasion
2000 Second Place, Weekend Design
International Textiles and Apparel Association
2002 International Textiles and Apparel Association Annual Design
Exhibition and Competition, Mounted Exhibit, NYC, NY
RESEARCH IN PREPARATION:
McRoberts, L. & Belleau, B. (2006). Petite Women: Fit and Body Shape Analysis.
PUBLISHED PROCEEDINGS:
McRoberts, L. & Belleau, B. (2007). An Internship Experience Inside Vera Wang What
Students Need To Know To Be Successful. ITAA Proceedings, Monument, CO:
ITAA, Inc. (In press)
McRoberts, L. & Black, C. (2007). The Importance of Industry Techniques in the
Classroom: Vera Wang Example, Corsetry. ITAA Annual Proceedings,
Monument, CO: ITAA, Inc. (In press)
McRoberts, L. & Belleau, B. (2006). Petite Women: Fit and Body Shape Analysis. ITAA
Proceedings, Monument, CO: ITAA, Inc. (In press)
McRoberts, L. & Rees, K. (2004). An Analysis of the Competitiveness of the U.S.
Apparel Industry. ITAA Proceedings, #61, Res205, Monument, CO: ITAA, Inc.
Available from http://www.itaaonline.org
GRANTS:
McRoberts, L. (2006). College of Graduate Students Travel Award, Graduate School,
Florida State University.
McRoberts, L. (2006). College of Human Sciences Travel Award, Graduate School,
Florida State University.
McRoberts, L. (2004). Graduate School Travel Award, Graduate School, Louisiana State
University.
McRoberts, L. (2004). Dr. Harvey S. Lewis Graduate Travel Award, School of Human
Ecology, Louisiana State University.
167

PRESENTATIONS IN PREPARATION:
McRoberts, L., Belleau, B., Garrison, E., Cloud, R., & Black, C. (2008). Development of
a Fit Evaluation Index. ITAA Annual Meeting
McRoberts, L., Black, C., & Cloud, R. (2008). The Design and Assessment of a Soft
Structural Support Prototype for Postural Alignment. ITAA Annual Meeting
SELECTED JURIED PRESENTATIONS:
*Indicates Presenter(s)
*McRoberts, L. & Belleau, B. (2007). An Internship Experience Inside Vera Wang What
Students Need To Know To Be Successful. ITAA Annual Meeting
*McRoberts, L. & Black, C. (2007). The Importance of Industry Techniques in the
Classroom: Vera Wang Example, Corsetry. ITAA Annual Meeting
*McRoberts, L. & Belleau, B. (2006). Petite Women: Fit and Body Shape Analysis.
ITAA Proceedings, Monument, CO: ITAA, Inc. (In press)
*McRoberts, L. & Rees, K. (2004). An Analysis of the Competitiveness of the U.S.
Apparel Industry. ITAA Proceedings, #61, Res205, Monument, CO: ITAA, Inc.
Available from http://www.itaaonline.org
NON-JURIED PRESENTATIONS:
McRoberts, L. & Belleau, B. (2005). Petite Women: Fit and Body Shape Analysis.
Southeast Graduate Consortium, Florida State University. (*Alison Burns)
COURSES TAUGHT:
HUEC 4070 Entrepreneurship in Human Ecology
HUEC 4045 Synthesis: Textile & Apparel Production
HUEC 4037 Advanced Apparel Production
CTE 4725 Advanced Apparel Design (co-taught couture techniques)
CTE 4752 Design Through Draping
CTE 3341 Advanced Clothing Construction
CTE 1310 Basic Apparel Construction
HUEC 2041 Textile Science Lab
168

COURSES ASSISTED:
HUEC 4045 Synthesis: Textile & Apparel Production
HUEC 4037 Advanced Apparel Production
HUEC 3230 Pattern Making with Computer Application
HUEC 3037 Intermediate Textile & Apparel Production
SELECTED HONORS:
2008 Glenn Society Member, Florida State University
2008 Board Member, Arts of Fashion International
2007 Invited to participate in a teaching exchange in Colombia, South
America at the Corporacion Unificada Nacional De Educacion
Superior
2007 Golden Key Nominee, Florida State University
2007 Oglesby Gallery Exhibition Participant, Florida State University
2007 Outstanding Teacher Assistant Award, Center for Teaching and
Learning, Florida State University
2006 InRegister Runway Challenge Judge, Louisiana State University
2005 – 2006 Design Team Committee Member, AAFA Accreditation, Florida
State University
2005 College of Human Sciences Graduate ShowCase Participant,
Florida State University
2005 Louisiana State University Highlights: Community Partnerships,
Michelle Spielman
2004 Graduate Student Star, School of Human Ecology, Louisiana State
University
2004 Edith Arnold Graduate Scholarship, School of Human Ecology,
Louisiana State University
2003 Louisiana State University Graduate School Supplement Award,
Graduate School, Louisiana State University
169

BUSINESS EXPERIENCE:
1999 – 2002 Krewe of Romany, Design and execution of Court costumes,
King and Queen for Romany Ball Captains: Rachel Grace,
Jeannine Schutte, & Carol Dykes
1999 to Present Lisa Barona McRoberts, Inc., Entrepreneur, Custom couture
bridal, debutante and evening gown design business
1996 Shelley Brunson, Constructed exotic fur designer pillows
marketed by Beth Clayborn
1995 Klarion Designs, Contracted by Karla King
1995 Playmakers, Costumer
1994 Swine Palace Productions, Contracted for costumer
1994 Louisiana State University Theatre, Seamstress
1994 – 1998 Anne Marie Kenney, Designed and finished hand-painted
garments
1984 Cynthia Couture, Constructed custom-made silk dresses
1984 Independent Contractor, Began sewing eveningwear and bridal
gowns for the public
1984 Ma Petite, Salesclerk
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
2007 Outstanding Teacher Assistant Award Nominee, Center for
Teaching and Learning, Florida State University
2007 Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award Teaching Portfolio
Seminar, Program for Instructional Excellence (PIE), Florida State
University
2006 Teaching Portfolio Seminar, Program for Instructional Excellence
(PIE), Florida State University
2006 Grant Writing Workshop, Office of Research Services, Florida
State University
2005 Program for Instructional Excellence (PIE) Teaching Conference,
170

Florida State University
2004 TCTC Body Scanner Training, Southern University, Louisiana
2003 Blackboard Training, Louisiana State University
1996 New York Field Study, Louisiana State University
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP:
Textiles & Consumer Science Graduate School Advisory Committee
2006-2007 President
2005-2006 Vice-President
Gamma Beta Phi
Glenn Honor Society
International Textiles and Apparel Association
Kappa Omnicron
Phi Upsilon Omicron
The Fashion Group, International
Arts of Fashion International 2007 Board Member
PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY SERVICE:
2008 Interdisciplinary Teaching & Collaboration with Ladies Who
Launch, International
- Facilitation and supervision of Entrepreneurship students with
local entrepreneurs for the development of business plans
2007 St. Joseph’s Academy
- Served as retreat leader for Senior Trip
2007 Girls Hope
- Met with student interested in Apparel Design
2000-2005 Junior League of Baton Rouge, Member 2000-2005
- Auctioned garment for the Junior League of Baton Rouge,
Hollydays, 2000
2001-2003 Catholic High School Mother’s Club Auction
- Auctioned garment for each Annual Auction
2002 Louisiana State University Friends of the Museum Auction
- Auctioned garment for the Annual Auction
2001 American Heart Association Annual Auction
- Auctioned commissioned garment for the Annual Auction
171

2004 Spring Hill College – St. Joseph Chapel
- Design and creation of altar cloths
1995 – 2005 St. Joseph Cathedral
- Preservation and creation of vestments
2000 – 2002 St. Joseph’s Academy
- Presented couture techniques and garments
2000 Baton Rouge Bead Association
- Presentation on couture beading and embroidery
1998- 2001 St. Joseph Cathedral
- Youth Ministry Director
1997 - 1999 Sacred Heart School
- Spanish Instructor to middle school children
1988 – 1998 St. Joseph Cathedral
- Religious education instructor
PERSONAL:
Married twenty-four years, two children ages twenty-three and twenty-one.
Fluent in Spanish.
172