Neck circumference measurement for children

This blog entry is part of a series on The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes. 

Hello, I want to surprise my Grandsons with "hero" capes. What would be an average neck measurement for a 7 year? What would be an average neck measurement for an 11 year old? Thank you, Agnes Scales

I have received many questions about how to find the average neck measurement for children, especially infant children. The neck circumference measurement can be difficult to find for many reasons.

The 1939 Study

Ruth O'Brien, appointed by the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Home Economics Department, created and executed an innovative body measurement study of children. As the study was developed, there were likely many discussions on what body measurements should be taken. The study report clearly states that some body measurements were excluded, despite the desire to not exclude anything. The reasons for exclusion varied. Consideration was given to the amount of time needed to measure each child. The more measurements taken, the longer it would take. Also remember, the study subjects were children. You can imagine that many children, especially the infants, would not tolerate a long measurement session. Then multiply that time with the need to measure thousands of children.

A decision was made to eliminate certain body measurements from the study, particularly for the infant size range. The excluded measurements were the neck base or circumference, hand width and length, and foot width and length. This decision has made it difficult to know the neck circumference for infants ever since.

Later Studies

Another body measurement study was conducted in the 1970's. This study was an anthropometric study to obtain body measurements that can be used for product design such as car seats, bicycles, etc. This study included hand width and length and foot width and length measurements. It did not include the neck circumference.

The ASTM D4910 chart has included a neck circumference measurement for infants for a long time, though it is not entirely clear how it was added. The ASTM charts have incorporated the SizeUSA study, which did measure the neck circumference for infants. In theory the measurements have some backing.

The British size study included the neck circumference measurement.

Where to find neck circumference measurements

Neck circumference measurements can be found on measurement standards available for purchase at astm.org. Search for these standards:

D4910 - Infants

D6860 - Boys, sizes 6-24

D6192 - Girls, sizes 2-20

D6829 - Juniors, size 0-19

Neck base/circumference measurements can be found on the withdrawn measurement standards for:

PS45-71 - Young men

PS36-70 - Boys

PS54-72 - Girls

My book the Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes includes an infant size chart which contains a derived neck circumference measurement. The book also includes complete copies of the withdrawn measurement standards in one place. The withdrawn measurement standards are no longer easily available on the Internet.

Why the neck circumference measurement might be needed

In general, the neck circumference measurement is NOT needed to draft basic block patterns. If you look at any pattern drafting manual, the neck measurement is not used. Do not let the lack of this measurement stop you from moving forward.

However, there are times when the neck circumference measurement may be useful. Some products, like necklaces may need this measurement. But even there, it may not be needed. A designer should take the step to "try-on" the product.

Be careful of an over reliance on one specific body measurement. There are many variables in which that measurement may not match your child. If working on a project for a specific child, either measure the child or measure the neckline from a piece of clothing. A piece of clothing will get you close to what measurement will be needed.

Neck circumference and obesity

Neck circumference is now a screening diagnostic for childhood obesity. In the last few years a study was conducted to confirm that the neck circumference has a correlation with other body measurements, such as waist circumference, and to confirm obesity. The goal of the study was to confirm the relationship and use of neck circumference in diagnostic criteria for obesity. The study does acknowledge certain deficiencies such as small sample size in one geographic location. Still, the use of the neck circumference in this way seems logical. Likely doctors will start to use this body measurement in screenings in the future.

How to find body measurement charts for children

This blog entry is part of a series on The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes.

There are a lot of children's body measurement charts floating around the Internet. But are they reliable? The answer to that question is difficult to determine. I have looked at some of the free charts out there and some are pretty good and others definitely have some anomalies. While I won't single out any particular chart, I would urge some caution on relying on whatever you can find freely on the Internet.

Some of the anomalies include inconsistent body measurements and differences between sizes. This may sound odd because you would expect that a size should measure what it measures. Having read a few measurement studies, the raw data that backs up body measurements are inconsistent between the sizes. But that raw data is difficult to work with, especially when it comes to grading. So statisticians and data analysts take the raw data and average it out. Then they take the average body measurements and adjust the numbers up or down small amounts to obtain numbers that are easy to work with as a convenience for pattern making and grading. This type of data manipulation does not result in fit anomalies as might be expected despite cries of vanity sizing and inaccuracies.

It's hard to say how these free charts available on the Internet came about. I suspect many of them are based off of cribbed data from various retailers. Some may be based on measuring some children. Some may be straight from official measurement studies. Regardless, caution is warranted.

You can use the free charts on the Internet, if you choose. It may be a place to start. It may also be a source of frustration if things aren't working quite right in your product development.

However, there are places to acquire body measurement charts. Some free, some not.

ASTM is an organization that develops standards, including body measurement standards. However, there standards are not free and contain restrictions on their use. This is the place for the most up-to-date measurement standards with sizing studies to back most of it up. Search for these standards on the Internet to find them.

D4910 - Size standard for infants, sizes preemie -24M

D6860 - Size standard for Boys, sizes 6-24, Husky

D6192 - Size standard for Girls, sizes 2-20, (Regular and Slim), plus sizes

D6829 - Size standard for Juniors, size 0-19

The U.S. government created a series of body measurement standards, which were in use into the 1980's. They were later withdrawn in favor of the ASTM standards. However, these charts are in the public domain and can still be found with some difficulty. In recent years the government has even pulled these from the Internet. They may still be found at government document repositories located within various libraries around the country or requested through standards.gov. I include complete copies of these standards in my book The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes. I created cleaned up versions of these standards that are easier to read in the appendix. I also include missing measurements from the original standard, which are the neck circumference, hand, and foot lengths and widths.

CS151-50 - Children

PS45-71 - Young Men

PS36-70 - Boys

PS54-72 - Girls

It is true that the withdrawn standards are a bit out of date. However, even the purchased, most up-to-date measurement charts from ASTM are based on this earlier standard. ASTM has added some sizes and refined some of the body measurements, but the similarities are still there. In other words, you can use the withdrawn standards as a good starting point in your product development and not be too far off. You will at least have a better foundation than using body measurement charts from unknown sources with questionable measurement data.

For this and more, see The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes.

Can children's clothing sizes be improved?

This blog is part of a series about The Essential Guide To Children's Clothing.

Any person that shops for children's clothing often becomes frustrated in their shopping experience. There appears to be a disconnect between what the retailer or brand are stating is one size and what the child actually fits. Why does this happen? Is there a better way?

It is true that age based size labels are sometimes inaccurate, or at least appear inaccurate. A child's body size and shape is influenced by a lot of different factors. Those factors include genetics, ethnicity, income demographic, diet, and nutrition. Children's clothing sizes vary because of this and other factors.

Manufacturers specialize on product type and a customer profile. This is true even in children's clothing. There is a size standard which exists for children's clothing, but manufacturers and designers will adapt or modify their product to fit their customer profile. This is not a bad thing. Children are individuals with their own unique characteristics. 

Many people complain that there needs to be a clear standard and by conforming to that standard we will solve sizing problems. Is it realistic to compel the industry to conform to a single size standard for children? By doing this, you will be guaranteed to never find clothing that fits all children at all times. There would always be a child that will not find clothing that fits if there is only one standard. Flexibility is needed in such a diverse marketplace. So while there is a general size standard that can be purchased, it may or may not be followed all that closely.

There are ways to make things easier for customers. Providing clear size charts and how to measure guides in the retail store and online can help customers select the right size. While it may be frustrating, customers have the ability to shop the market for alternate brands or sizes that fit their child. Variation is actually a good thing.

For this and more, see The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes.

How did children's clothing sizes originate?

This blog entry is part of a series on The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes.

If you were to shop for children's clothing in any department or big box store, you will find the clothing arranged by sizes and age. Baby/Infant, Toddler, 4-6x, and 7-16 sizes are sub-categories of children's clothing sizes that have an association with the age of a child.

In the early 1900's, children's clothing sizes were even more general. There were two simple general sizes - infant and child. At that time children's clothing was still made at home. As the industrial revolution continued to gain steam, children's clothing eventually became available in retail stores. Retailers quickly realized they needed a way to market children's clothing to parents. They also wanted to provide a wider range of sizes so they could sell more product. With the influence of George F. Earnshaw and the trade organizations that existed at that time, retailers and manufacturers adopted a size system for children's clothing with size labels based on age.

Age based sizing became the de facto standard for children's clothing in the United States. It is a system that evolved almost naturally for practical reasons. It was easy to understand by everyone including manufacturers, retailers, and customers. It was a practical way to organize and market product.

This system continued without any confirmation from any sizing studies for many years. So in that vain, the U.S. Home Economics Department and the U.S. Department of Agriculture commissioned a body measurement study of children in the 1930's. The goal of the study was to understand, improve, and formalize children's clothing sizes. This study both confirmed what the industry was already doing but also suggested an entirely different size organization and labeling system. For a more complete explanation, refer to the Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes.

The 1930's study was ground breaking. Nothing like it had ever been done previously, and it became the method that all future body measurement studies followed. Europe appears to have their own children's clothing sizes, but the reality is even Europe and Great Britain used the 1939 study results as the basis for their size systems. Europe and Great Britain have since switched to metric measurements and have also conducted their own body measurement studies. Regardless, there is a lot of similarity to the U.S. system.

For this and more, see The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes.

The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes Book Trailer!

 This video gives some sneak peaks about what is in the book! Available for purchase at Amazon and MelanderDesigns.com.

The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes and How to Grade Them

I am excited to announce my new book, The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes and How to Grade Them. This book explains children's clothing sizes in the United States, how they came about, and what sizes are used today. This book includes many things that have never been included in books on children's clothing design in the past.

• A break down and explanation of children's clothing sizes from Preemie to size 16, including boys sizes.
• A brief overview of difficulties in the industry, including obesity, and sleepwear
• An explanation of how create your own grade rules.
• Step-by-step instructions on how to grade basic styles, including grade rule charts.
• Body measurement charts for infants to size 14, including slim and plus sizes for older children.
• The infant measurement chart includes head circumference, neck circumference, hand length and width, foot length and width -- measurements that are hard to find.
• Extra grade rule charts that include Newborn and size 9 months.
• CAD grade rule charts
• Complete measurement studies with additional body measurements, grade rules and references for infants, toddlers, 4-6x, girls (7-14), boys, and young men.

I will be doing a series over the coming weeks highlighting the above list with sneak peaks at what is in the book. This book is essential for anyone that designs and manufactures children's clothing. The book is currently available for purchase on Amazon or as an ebook on Payhip.

Grading from body measurements pt. 3

This is part three of an ongoing discussion about N. A. Schofield's article Pattern Grading found in the Sizing in Clothing book. Part one is here, part two here. I recommend reading the previous parts of this series before reading this one.

So what were the results of Schofield's experiment? I can't reproduce the actual results here, but it was something like this.

Imagine the square is a bodice pattern piece in one size. The star is supposed to be the same pattern piece but graded to the next size. Clearly, the two shapes have no proportional relationship to each other. The problem is further compounded by a different grade for corresponding pieces.

Imagine these are front and back bodice pattern pieces. Each corresponding pattern piece was graded separately based on the measurement data for that body location. Now imagine trying to sew the front and back together. It can't be done. Schofield freely admits the difficulty in the results. Though she also believes we need to learn how to deal with new shapes in pattern pieces in order to achieve superior fit.

Schofield's experiment left me with a lot of questions. I did not understand completely why she rejected the ASTM measurement data, nor why she went back to essentially raw data. Her grading methodology left me a bit confused. The results were clearly not suitable for industry application. Superior fit is the holy grail of fashion, but I'm not convinced that grading is the entire source of the problem. Superior fit, for each individual might only be achieved on an individual basis. In this case, 3D body scanning and customized clothing is the answer, but is it practical?

I would like to see this experiment repeated. The factors that will impact additional experiments are the measurement data and grading methodology. Why not use ASTM measurement data? Why not use traditional grading methods? I always support those who are willing to test ideas and theories. This was a worthy attempt by Schofield to ask important why and how questions.

Grading from body measurements pt. 2

This is part two of an ongoing discussion about N. A. Schofield's article Pattern Grading found in the Sizing in Clothing book. Part one is here.

My initial reaction to the idea of grading from body measurements was, "Well, of course we should." And in fact, we do for children's clothing. It seemed rather obvious to me to look at children's clothing as a model. Children's sizing is based on the idea of growth, meaning that the measurement intervals between sizes are not always consistent.

Let's look at an example for a 4-6x size range.*

For sizes  4, 5, 6, 6x
Chest: 23, 24, 25, 25.5
Waist: 21.5, 22, 22.5, 23
Hip: 23.5, 24.5, 25.5, 26.5

The grade works out to be, choosing size 5 as the base size:
Chest: 1, 0, 1, 1.5
Waist: 0.5, 0, 0.5, 0.5
Hip: 1, 0, 1, 1

In this example, we have a 1" chest grade, except for size 6x which is 1.5". The waist is a 0.5" inch grade and the hip returns to a 1" grade for all sizes. Each body measurement area has it's own grade.

In women's clothing a 2" grade means that the interval change between the sizes will be 2" for chest, waist, and hips. Though even this isn't true across all brands, and you will find variations. (IMO, this is a good thing)

I don't know the history of women's sizing well enough to explain how this mode of practice came to be nor exactly why. It is clear that it does make grading, especially hand grading, much easier in practice. It is also unclear to me that grading is the source of our fitting woes. Nevertheless, it does make sense to me to go back and look at body measurements and devise a more precise grade rule.

The question then becomes, which body measurements do we use? In my children's example above, the numbers are still nice and easy to work with. The body measurements have been intentionally manipulated to be easy to work with. Raw measurement data was averaged, sorted, and studied to arrive at some numbers. Those numbers were not easy to work with, so a group of industry professionals sat down and made them that way. They modified certain measurements by about 1/8" to achieve consistency. Their modifications were rather minor and easily fall within a statistical margin of error. If you read their reasoning, it makes sense. This manipulation of measurement data for ease of use continues today in more modern measurement studies. It seems deceitful, but at the end of the day is infinitely practical. ASTM D4910 inherits this method of data handling from the measurement studies done in the 1940s, but does provide some updated measurements.

Looking at the Misses body measurement chart, ASTM D5585, it seems to be arranged and handled in the same way as the children's body measurement chart. IOW, the chart does not show a 1, 1.5, or 2 inch grade in the body measurements. It is a lot like the children's example above. There does seem to be a disconnect between measurement data and grading, at least on the surface. Individual companies will decide how to interpret and implement measurement data, and therefore their grade rules. (IMO, I think this is a good thing). And some will use a 2 inch grade, and some will not.

So what measurement data did Schofield use? She rejected the ASTM charts and created her own version of measurements derived from body measurement studies. This presented a problem because measurement studies do not always include the measurements needed for pattern making and grading. Schofield did not normalize the data, in other words make it easy to work with. Also she had to figure out how to deal with missing measurement data. I no longer have a copy of the article and can't look back, but Schofield selected certain measurements over others. How and why she handled those measurements puzzled me.

I believe Schofield's goal was to remove the idea of maintaining an ideal proportion or predictable pattern shape. She wanted to see what the body measurements really did between sizes.

Her results were almost predictable. More on that later.

*These measurements come from the withdrawn child measurement standard CS151-50. Measurements are in inches.

Grading from body measurements pt. 1

Pattern grading is the process by which new sizes are developed from an existing pattern. There are various methods or processes used to grade a pattern. These methods include slash-and-spread, shifting, and CAD. At the end of the day, each method accomplishes the same thing, a new size.

The apparel industry has received a lot of criticism for their sizing, especially of women's clothing. At it's core, sizing goes hand-in-hand with pattern grading. You have to define your sizes in order to grade a pattern. In order to grade a pattern you have to know body measurements for each size. The common grade rules for women's apparel is the 1", 1.5" and 2" grade rules used in the United States. Similar grade rules are found in Europe and the UK. The primary criticism is that these grade rules are not based on anthropometric data, or actual body measurements. Instead these grade rules are just pulled out of a hat without regard to women or their fitting needs. These arbitrary grade rules are merely for the convenience of industry.

This is the point of view taken by N. A. Schofield in her article Pattern Grading found in the Sizing in Clothing book. The goal of her research was to test the idea of creating grade rules based on actual body measurements rather than an arbitrary grade rule. There has been a lot of criticism of the industry over sizing and it is a worthy goal to research alternatives. Asking the why questions. Why does the apparel industry do things the way they do? Why do we grade women's clothing this way? Can we do it differently? I've asked a lot of these same questions as I've looked at children's clothing. When I started out, I didn't understand the why and sometimes the answer was not satisfying. I can totally get behind Schofield's motivation to try and find an answer.

And yet, I feel like I am setting up to be very critical of Schofield's research and I don't want to give the impression, as an industry professional, that even asking the questions were wrong. She was right to ask the question and to test an alternative. The results of her research are interesting and ironically (and indirectly) add support to current practices.

So here are some of Schofield's main arguments:

1. 1", 1.5", and 2" grade rules are not based on anthropometric data. Meaning it is not based on body measurements or the proportional relationships between body parts/areas. These grade rules were intended for the convenience and ease of hand grading.

2. Grade rules should be derived from body measurements. This means that grade breaks between bust, waist, and hips should not be consistent. Instead of a 34-36-38 chest measurement, we should be seeing a 34-35.5-38 (just as an example), chest measurement.

3. Size prediction and also body measurement prediction needs refinement. This idea is rather complex. Body measurement studies create a lot of raw data. In order to make sense of it, statisticians will test size prediction by using one or two body measurements. So can you predict the overall body size by using just the height or chest measurement? And if you do that, what influence does that have on other body measurements? If a person gets taller, do they also get wider? It is a complex question and not easily answered because there are so many variables. Statisticians bring order to raw measurement data so that we can organize the body measurements into sizes. They do this by averaging and, in some cases, normalizing the data so we can work with it easily. Schofield implies that we should just rely on the raw measurement data.

The ultimate goal of this study was to improve overall fit of women's apparel by basing grade rules on actual body measurements. I'll have to break up my review of this study into multiple blog entries because I have a lot to say about it. So stay tuned.