Inclusive Design in Apparel Product Development

for Working Women With Physical Disabilities

Kate E. Carroll
East Carolina University
Doris H. Kincade
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Consumers with physical limitations want apparel products and retail environments that work for them.
Inclusive design is a framework for developing products to satisfy multiple consumers, regardless of their phys-
ical ability. This qualitative study reports on physical limitations and apparel preferences of working women
(n = 9) with a variety of limitations. A prototype for a garment was developed, wear-tested, and evaluated using
inclusive design criteria. Subsequently, manufacturers (n = 6) were interviewed regarding production and dis-
tribution within the existing system. Results indicate that (a) the effect of disability on the body supercedes clin-
ical definition for apparel product development, (b) working women with various disabilities have similar apparel
needs, (c) inclusive design can be a successful strategy for product development, and (d) current industry per-
ceptions about disability present the greatest barrier to successful implementation. The researchers conclude that
further studies should focus on industry “buy-in” of inclusive design as a framework for product development.

Keywords: inclusive design; apparel; working women; disability

Increasing numbers of people with disabilities have been entering the workforce
since passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. In 1997, 78.2%
of people with a disability between the ages of 21 and 64 were employed (McNeil,
2000). As a subgroup of all people with limited physical ability, women with phys-
ical disabilities are becoming increasingly included in a widening array of
employment activities (McNeil, 2000) and need to have access to comfortable and
appropriate apparel to facilitate optimum job performance. Currently, limited
choice of apparel is available for them in the traditional retail environment. A need
exists in the retail market for apparel products with wide appeal and potential for
usage by consumers with diverse physical abilities. In addition, more and new
information about apparel needs of this consumer is desirable for potential
employees and for rehabilitation personnel involved in skills-based job training.
The purpose of this study was to explore the product development possibilities
for an apparel product for working women with physical disabilities who form a
target market of consumers with very dissimilar physical characteristics. The
inherent difficulty of providing a satisfactory product to these consumers with
similar clothing needs but diverse physical abilities prompted the researchers to
investigate the possibility of broadening the traditional target market for an

Authors’ Note: Kate E. Carroll, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Interior Design and
Merchandising at East Carolina University. Doris H. Kincade, PhD, is an associate professor in the
Department of Apparel, Housing, and Resource Management at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University.
Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4, June 2007 289-315
DOI: 10.1177/1077727X07299675
© 2007 American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences

289
290 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

apparel product. Previous research on apparel for consumers with physical limi-
tations has tended to view apparel design solutions for this market as very nar-
rowly focused; at times a target market of one (e.g., Frescura, 1963; Moran, 1976;
Phipps, 1977; Reich & Otten, 1991). The researchers felt that an investigation into
apparel product development, which treated physical limitation as an inclusive
rather than exclusive problem, was timely. In the researchers’ opinion, the intrigu-
ing challenge of the current study was in attempting to develop a single apparel
product that would provide solutions for multiple users with a variety of physi-
cal disabilities, thus meeting the criteria of a successful inclusive product.

BACKGROUND

Within any apparel product development process, numerous decisions are

made (e.g., product styling, fabrication, construction, distribution method) that
impact the final product (Rosenau & Wilson, 2001). Throughout the process, two
major sets of constraints exist—those imposed by the consumer and those imposed
by the apparel industry. For successful sell-through to consumers, industry should
seek to mesh the two sets of constraints so that optimal product quality can be
achieved. Thoren (1997) suggested that apparel companies, which are responsible
for design, production, and distribution of new products for consumers with phys-
ical disabilities, need to improve the blending of the two constraints within the
established system.

Consumer Constraints

Developing a product that addresses the needs and preferences of a target

market requires extensive research by a designer, researcher, or manufacturing
company about the characteristics of that market (Dickerson, 2003). When the tar-
get market includes people with a variety of physical abilities, this market
research becomes more complex and challenging because of the varied needs or
constraints of these consumers.
In this study, consumer constraints were defined as the apparel needs and pref-
erences of the population of working women with physical disabilities. To establish
an initial understanding of these needs and preferences, research dating back across
four decades from the 1960s to the present day was reviewed (e.g., Behrens, 1963;
Frescura, 1963; Moran, 1976; Reich & Otten, 1991; Schwab & Sindelar, 1973; Warden
& Dedmon, 1975). In many of these previous research studies, each disability and
its physical impact were regarded as separate issues yielding unique apparel prob-
lems. Most of these previous researchers tended not to look across categories of dis-
abilities for apparel solutions. Instead, subjects taking part in research studies were
often classified within categories based on medical definitions of disability (e.g.,
arthritis, scoliosis, amputation), which provided very narrow listings of needs. In
fact, some researchers concluded that the nature of individually distinct disabilities
appeared to defy a general apparel solution (Hallenbeck, 1966; Phipps, 1977;
Schwab & Sindelar, 1973). However, a synthesis of findings across this array of
research revealed common usage problems that existed in the following areas: don-
ning and doffing, fastenings, freedom of movement, fabric, aesthetics, comfort, con-
struction, and irritating features (see Table 1). Within these areas, the data also
yielded a useful body of information about specific functional apparel attributes.
 TABLE 1: Design Solutions and Features From Apparel Literature
Problem
Difficulty donning and doffing apparel
Difficulty managing fastenings
(e.g., hooks and eyes, zippers,
buttons) because of restricted use
of hands and lack of mobility
Lack of freedom of movement for a
variety of activities (e.g., crutch
walking, wheelchair sitting)
Inappropriate and uncomfortable
fabric
291
Solution
Use styles that are easy to don
and doff
Provide easy-to-manage fastenings
Add features that allow for
movement
Use fabrics with situational
appropriateness
Feature Study
Overhead donning and doffing, side or frescura (1963)
inseam openings on pants, side front schwab & Sindelar (1973)
openings, wrap-around styles, snap white & Dallas (1977)
crotch, side zippers, shoulder opening, kernaleguen (1978)
envelope neckline, large neck and reich & Otten (1991)
sleeve openings, two front openings,
center back opening, sleeve openings
Large buttons, large hooks and eyes, behrens (1963)
flat-rimmed shank buttons, vertical frescura (1963)
buttonholes, CF zipper/large pull tabs, schwab & Sindelar (1973)
facing sewn down under zipper, reich & Otten (1991)
lightweight Velcro dots, no fastenings
Action pleats, underarm gusset, box schwab & Sindelar (1973)
pleats, putting more fabric in the moran (1976)
garment, yokes, back hem of jackets kernaleguen (1978)
raised, elasticized waistlines, reich & Otten (1991)
scooped-out seat, raglan or kimono
sleeves, cut fabric on bias, bigger
armscyes
Stretch, smoothness, comfort, ease of schwab & Sindelar (1973)
care, absorbency, dimensional warden & Dedmon (1975)
stability, air circulation, durability, low reich & Otten (1991)
static, thermal insulation, odor release,
hypoallergenic, nonirritant, lightweight,
aesthetically pleasing, nonflammable
(continued)
292
TABLE 1: (continued)
Problem
Inadequate amount of fabric (e.g.,
body coverage)
Not all apparel is aesthetically
pleasing
Styles of apparel can be constricting
and uncomfortable, especially
during temporary changes
Construction quality inadequate for
stress exerted by user
Inadequate coverage of the body
(e.g., for poor circulation)
Some features are irritating and get
in the way
Solution
Provide extra length
Design apparel with more
visual appeal
Provide apparel styles that are
comfortable and sized
appropriately
Ensure quality, durable
construction of all apparel
Ensure coverage in needed
areas
Adapt features
Feature Study
Adjustable hems, extra fabric, overlap behrens (1963)
skirt panels warden & Dedmon (1975)
Attractive styling, color, fashionable moran (1976)
Big shirts, double waistband, oversized behrens (1963)
tops and pants, adjustable waistband, frescura (1963)
maxi dresses, coat-style dress reich & Otten (1991)
Reinforcement stitching in stress areas, kernaleguen (1978)
double stitched seams
High neckline, long sleeves behrens (1963)
Sew down collar so it does not ride up behrens (1963)
on neck, put a pouch pocket on belt
Carroll, Kincade / DESIGN FOR DISABLED WORKING WOMEN 293

The literature review, when examined from early literature to more recent stud-
ies, revealed a growing acknowledgement of the importance of apparel as an
appearance management, concealment, or enhancement tool. Early brochures
and handbooks, which contained tips on how to construct and alter functional
apparel for disability (e.g., Caddell, 1977; Redick, 1976; Talon/Velcro Corporation
Consumer Education, n.d.), placed limited emphasis on stylistic change and fash-
ion influence. In reviewing this early literature, the researchers became aware that
not all apparel designed to be functional was psychologically satisfying. Findings
in more recent studies reported that consumers with physical disabilities felt that
the appearance or styling of the apparel item was an important needs and prefer-
ences issue (Freeman, Kaiser, & Wingate, 1986; Liskey-Fitzwater, Moore, & Gurel,
1993). Specifically, the lack of “current” apparel styling symbolically sets a wearer
apart from the norm, even before the visual impact of disability is recognized
(Lamb, 1993).
Another important point revealed by the literature was that apparel can have
rehabilitation potential for building life skills and improving self-esteem, espe-
cially if integrated with workforce training (Freeman et al., 1986; Kaiser, Freeman,
& Wingate, 1985; Liskey-Fitzwater et al., 1993; Wingate, Kaiser, & Freeman, 1986;
Workman, Caldwell, & Kallal, 1999). For working women, apparel must perform
additional psychological and physical functions for wearer and beholder (Rabolt
& Drake, 1984-85). Traditionally, because they lack the “uniform” of the business-
man’s suit and tie, women have not had clear guidelines for working apparel in
spite of its important contribution to the success of working women (Kwon, 1994;
Solomon & Douglas, 1993). Many women in corporate America adhere, albeit
through individual interpretations, to John Molloy’s original doctrine of “dress for
success” (Bellinger, 1996).
The Molloy (1975) dress guidelines are most applicable for workplaces that
require traditional or more formal attire. Casual apparel options for working
women have existed since the early 1990s. About 53% of office workers (up from
7% in 1992) at the end of the 1999 had the option to dress casually for work every
day (Ten Kate, 1998). Faust, Cassill, Herr, and Williamson (1999) found in a study
of Fortune 500 companies (N = 189) that the casual workplace (i.e., wearing casual
clothes in the office) had the following benefits: (a) increased employee morale,
(b) incentive to attract new employees, (c) less expense for employees, and
(d) improved employee productivity. One might surmise that this trend, concur-
rent with the increase of women with disabilities coming into the workplace,
might be a welcome benefit for the worker with disabilities. Although casual
apparel is traditionally looser and less confining than tailored apparel—providing
greater comfort—this apparel may not always provide the desired appearance for
the working environment.
In summary, although previous research has provided some guidance for areas
of research and concepts to be included in a study of apparel for working women
with disabilities, more research about styling options, appropriateness, and acqui-
sition is needed about this demographic segment. Levels of awareness about dis-
abilities, accessibility to the workplace, and cultural environments of work have
changed since the early research on clothing for consumers with disabilities. The
listing of design solutions for functional aspects of apparel in Table 1 and the
awareness of psychological needs for apparel have potential for meeting the needs
of the disabled consumer but have yet to be tested as a holistic approach to apparel.
294 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

Industry Constraints

Companies (such as Rolli-Moden Designs and Adrian’s Closet) that specialize in

making and selling apparel for the consumer with disabilities are rarely the same
companies that make ready-to-wear apparel sold in most retail stores. Many com-
panies, especially those with branded products, have very focused target markets.
For these reasons, addressing the ready-to-wear needs of the consumer with phys-
ical disabilities might translate into pursuit of a “new” target consumer for any
company that currently makes ready-to-wear apparel for the general retail market.
From an industry point of view, changing target consumers would be fraught with
constraints.
Viewing the current ready-to-wear system as restrictive and too narrowly
focused, Thoren (1997) advocated a number of system changes for the apparel
industry. Thoren’s suggestions promote industry agility and consumer centricity
for the entire industry, not necessarily just for the consumer with disabilities. These
system changes—variety of choice, systemic change satisfying diverse customer
needs, lean production and marketing, and increased communication via new
technologies—are becoming familiar concepts to the U.S. apparel industry as it
struggles to find niche markets to survive in the face of increasing import compe-
tition (Parrish, Cassill, & Oxenham, 2004; Regan, Kincade, & Sheldon, 1998). As this
project focused on the product development stage of apparel production, the first
two of Thoren’s proposed areas of change (i.e., variety of choice and systemic
change satisfying diverse customer needs) were the researchers’ focus of attention.
One strategy, which might satisfy both variety of product and diverse consumer
needs, is that of inclusive design.

Inclusive Design

Inclusive design has its roots in universal design, which began as a movement
in the late 1980s in the building arts and product design. The term was first used
by Ronald Mace at North Carolina State University in 1989. His vision was to elim-
inate the term “special needs” in reference to spatial and product design directed
toward people with disabilities. Since the start of the universal design movement,
industry professionals and scholars in many other design fields have worked to
create environments and consumer products that cater to populations with vary-
ing physical abilities (e.g., the biennial series of Include conferences at the Royal
College of Art in London). This practice has become known as inclusive design. The
goal of inclusive design is not to change but to improve the design of “environ-
ments and products by making them more usable, safer, and appealing to people
with a wide range of abilities” (Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental
Access, 2003).
Globally, groups of like-minded researchers, designers, and industry profes-
sionals are coming together to improve the acceptance of the inclusive design con-
cept (e.g., the biennial series of Include conferences at the Royal College of Art) in
a variety of product fields, including apparel. Although new technologies and
strategies are available to industries to pursue a more consumer-oriented focus, a
lack of interaction exists between the constraints of the consumer with disabilities
and those of the apparel industry. The development and marketing of apparel
items could benefit from an inclusive approach with similar sensitivity to diverse
physical abilities of the user (Nevala-Puranen, Holopainen, Kinnunen, & Hänninen,
Carroll, Kincade / DESIGN FOR DISABLED WORKING WOMEN 295

2002). Because of the diversity of physical issues perceived among consumers

with disabilities, the term inclusive design was used in this study in relation to
apparel products. The researchers propose that the concept of inclusive design
could be a successful apparel product development strategy for consumers with a
wide range of physical abilities, resulting in apparel products that meet the inclu-
sive design goal.

Inclusive Design Criteria Adapted From Center for Universal Design

Inclusive design criteria for this study were adapted from the seven principles
of universal design developed by the Center for Universal Design at North
Carolina State University (1997). These universal design criteria were originally
stated and defined as follows:

1. Equitable use: The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities.
2. Flexibility in use: The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences
and abilities.
3. Simple and intuitive use: Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the
user’s experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level.
4. Perceptible information: The design communicates necessary information effec-
tively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities.
5. Tolerance for error: The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of
accidental or unintended actions.
6. Low physical effort: The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a
minimum of fatigue.
7. Size and space for approach and use: Appropriate size and space is provided for
approach, reach, manipulation, and use, regardless of user’s body size, posture, or
mobility.

Six of the seven universal design principles were interpreted for this study in the
following ways: (a) equitable use (people of varying abilities can use the clothing
product), (b) flexibility in use (the product can adapt to fit a variety of body types),
(c) simple and intuitive use (no mistakes can be made as to how the product will
be worn), (d) tolerance for error (minimization of any risks associated with wear-
ing the product), (e) low physical effort (easy donning, doffing, and wearing), and
(f) size and space for use (room enough for comfort and mobility). The fourth uni-
versal design principle, perceptible information, was deemed not applicable to
this type of apparel product because a clothing product in general does not con-
tain information as part of its intrinsic design features (information labels are
extrinsic to the garment design). One expert in universal design supported this
decision (J. Beamish, personal communication, April 21, 2001).
In summary, many past researchers generally agreed that the development of a
single method of producing apparel to satisfy a broad spectrum of physical needs
was impossible (Frescura, 1963; Schwab & Sindelar, 1973; Warden & Dedmon, 1975).
With this perspective, the previous outlook for an inclusively designed product was
bleak; however, new technologies in the apparel industry (e.g., mass-customization,
body scanning software) and new ways of approaching product design challenges
for disability (e.g., inclusive design) have been developed since these studies were
conducted. Their availability suggests that a reevaluation of the prior perspective—
a single product solution across multiple disabilities is impossible—is a timely and
296 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

necessary topic in the field of disability and clothing. Recent developments in prod-
uct design in a variety of fields provide perspectives and tools that suggest that a
fresh approach to this problem might yield possible solutions and create interaction
between the two groups (Nevala-Puranen et al., 2002). In addition, the review of
previous research, when synthesized, suggests a proven groundwork of categories
for design solutions across disabilities. Although the constraints in addressing mul-
tiple needs with one product might appear considerable, the formulation of a dis-
tinct framework for inclusive product development for this type of population at
this time is necessary so that academic researchers and industry personnel might
pursue the goal of incorporating diverse populations into traditional product devel-
opment models (e.g., Easytex, the 1st International Conference on Apparel for the
Disabled and Elderly, Tampere, Finland, June 16-18, 2002).

OBJECTIVES

To achieve the goal of developing an inclusively designed apparel product, the

following research questions were developed: (a) Can the needs and preferences
of a specific group of consumers (i.e., working women with disabilities) be incor-
porated into an inclusive apparel product? and (b) will apparel industry con-
straints impact the ultimate realization of that product?
The objectives of the study were to (a) obtain information about apparel needs
and preferences from a group of working women with physical disabilities,
(b) use this information together with the existing principles of inclusive design
to develop an apparel product, (c) evaluate a prototype developed from this infor-
mation, and (d) examine industry constraints involved in developing and manu-
facturing this inclusively designed product.

Conceptual Framework

In preparation for research, a preliminary product-development framework

was generated by integrating existing product-development frameworks found in
the review of literature (see Table 2). This framework helped guide the research
process.
In Step 1 of the framework (see Figure 1), user needs and preferences would be
collected from the consumer in interviews. Along with this data from the con-
sumer, recommendations from previous literature would be used to generate
design ideas. For example, when generating designs for women with disabilities,
the pertinent literature would include those that list design features and solutions
as shown in Table 1. In addition, the designer would review current trend ideas to
collect style information.
In Step 2 (see Figure 1), the design ideas collected in Step 1 would be used in a
codesign process involving both designer and consumer to generate a sketch.
From the sketch, the designer would construct a prototype apparel product. Also
at Step 2, a spec sheet of the prototype would be generated for ease of communi-
cation with the manufacturer who is selected to produce the product. The proto-
type and spec sheet would be in preparation for Step 4 (industry evaluation).
In Step 3 (see Figure 1), wear-testing by the consumer would take place. In
addition, the designer would check the prototype for adherence to the principles
 TABLE 2: Existing Product Development/Design Frameworks From Apparel Literature

Sketching and Constructing Evaluating Feasibility Implementing Plans

Source Generating Design Ideas First Garment and Planning Production and End Use

DeJonge (1984) Request made, design Design criteria established, Design evaluation
situation explored, problem prototype developed
structure perceived,
specifications described
Gaskill (1992) Trend analysis, concept Fabrication selection, palette Line presentation
evolvement selection, fabric design, silhouette
and style direction, prototype
construction and analysis
Glock & Kunz Line concept Preadoption product development Line adoption Postadoption product
(2004) development
LaBat & Sokolowski Problem definition Creative exploration Implementation
(1999) and research
Lamb & Kallal Problem identification, problem Design refinement, prototype Evaluation Implementation
(1992) exploration, preliminary development
ideas
Regan (1997) Creating an apparel line Develop colors and prints, Set production
implement fabric design and specifications, produce
special operations, create samples
garment pattern and prototype
Regan, Kincade Problem recognition and Searching for alternatives Evaluating and making Communicating the
& Sheldon definition, problem decision, specifying solution
(1998) exploration solution
Stone (1999) Planning the line, creating Developing the designs Planning production Production, distributing
design concept the line
Wickett, Gaskill, Inspirational search of trends, Fabrication selection, palette Line presentation, fit and Production pattern
& Damhorst trend analysis, concept selection, fabric design, style perfecting, materials/ making, retail firm or
(1999) evolvement silhouette and style direction, garment specifications manufacturer
prototype construction and writing development
analysis
Workman, Design development Sketching, precosting, first Testing, review of samples,
Caldwell, & patterns, samples determination of design
Kallal (1999) specs, estimation of costs,

297
standardization of fit
298 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

Figure 1: Proposed framework for inclusive apparel product development for working women
who have physical disabilities.

of inclusive design. Specifically, the designer would review the product for equi-
table use, flexible use, simple and intuitive use, tolerance for error, low physical
effort, and size and space for use. (Descriptions of these six criteria are included
in the Background section.) The principles would be tested on the completed pro-
totype rather than trying to work them into the codesign process in Step 2, to keep
the design process simplified and focused on the user needs. Both wear-testing
and inclusive design evaluation would be additional steps not separately stated
in the traditional industry product development process (see Table 2), which
includes design evaluation (DeJonge, 1984), evaluation (Lamb & Kallal, 1992),
evaluating and decision making (Regan, Kincade, & Sheldon, 1998), and testing
(Workman et al., 1999); all of these authors advocate steps to assess the prototype
within the evaluating-feasibility stage (see Table 2). An option within Step 3, to
return to Step 2 and make adjustments if necessary, would be available.
Carroll, Kincade / DESIGN FOR DISABLED WORKING WOMEN 299

Step 4 (see Figure 1) would be inclusion of industry evaluation and feedback in

response to consumer product specifications. This step is included as an acknowl-
edgement of Kallal and Lamb’s (1993) framework for product development, in
which industry needs are meshed with consumer needs, and Thoren’s (1997) sug-
gestions that industry constraints impact product-development processes.
(Industry constraints would be defined at this step using existing literature in
evaluation and planning production.)
Finally, the framework (see Figure 1) would conclude with implementation
plans and communication with the intended target consumer (Step 5). Depending
on the size of the target market or the number of consumers for this product, the
design would be mass produced or produced in a mass-customization environ-
ment in preparation for distribution to the consumers. Distribution channels
could include numerous outlets as appropriate for the consumer. Marketing com-
munication would be needed to promote the product to consumers. The last activ-
ities in Step 5 would be to collect information from consumers after they had
purchased and used the product.

METHOD

Research Design
This study was designed to follow the first four of the five steps proposed in
the Conceptual Framework (see Figure 1). In these four steps, the researchers set
out to discover whether an apparel product—that would serve the needs and
preferences of working women with physical disabilities without excluding
other consumers—could be successfully developed using an inclusive design
approach, thereby addressing all objectives presented in the previous section.
By including both types of product development constraints (the consumer and
the apparel industry), this study extends beyond other studies, which explored
individual design problems only at a conceptual level or from the consumer per-
spective but not from the additional industry perspective.
The study was exploratory in nature; therefore, qualitative methods were used
to achieve the desired objectives. Qualitative research is defined as “any kind of
research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures
or other means of quantification . . . some of the data may be quantified as with
census data but the analysis itself is a qualitative one” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990,
p. 17). Descriptive statistics were used to organize and track the data, but no sta-
tistical analyses were performed on these data because of the purposive nature
and limited size of the sample. The qualitative approach is a limitation in draw-
ing general conclusions from results, but it enabled in-depth interviews and eval-
uation sessions with participants.

Sample

The study involved three sample sets. The first sample (n = 10) consisted of
employed women with a variety of physical disabilities (i.e., users; see Table 3).
After the study began, 1 user (coded as 06) dropped from the study for personal
reasons, leaving a sample size of 9 for the user group. This sample was purpo-
sively drawn using a variety of selection techniques including snowballing.
“Snowballing is an appropriate method of obtaining participants whereby a set of
300 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

TABLE 3: Users Participating in the Study and Their Physical Disabilities

User Disability

01 Fibromyalgia
02 Post-polio syndrome
03 Carpal tunnel syndrome both wrists
Osteoarthritis
Double hip replacement
04 Spina bifida
05 Fibromyalgia
Chronic fatigue
07 Severe trauma from auto accident
08 Peripheral neuropathy
Auto-immune disease
Vasculitis
09 Rheumatoid arthritis
Frozen shoulder
10 Rheumatoid arthritis

participants is recommended to the researcher by word of mouth” (Babbie, 1992,

p. 309). This method is also appropriate for populations when names and addresses
cannot be distributed publicly.
Federal laws prevent agencies from revealing names and disabilities of their
clients or employees. The only way to procure possible participants was to ask
women, currently identified to the researchers, to recommend similar women or
to make the study publicly known, such as advertising it through various local
media. This technique allowed currently working women to self-identify them-
selves as having one or more upper-body physical limitations. To obtain partici-
pants, invitations to join the study were made via paper and electronic sources,
such as local newsletters and e-mail lists targeting selected groups of individuals.
Local professional women’s groups were contacted to solicit participation from
members who might be eligible. Local hospital support groups were contacted as
well as local community organizations and recreation centers that might have
programs aimed at women with physical disabilities. Women who volunteered
to participate in the study received a Human Subjects Research Informed Consent
form to complete and return to the researchers. As compensation, they received
a packet of information of practical advice on dealing with specific apparel
issues.
In addition to the users, a second sample (n = 6) of working women, those with-
out physical limitations (i.e., evaluators), was included in the wear-test evalua-
tion. This second sample was important to evaluate the extent of inclusivity of the
apparel product. Evaluators were recruited from a group of professional women
without known disabilities who were working in various positions on a univer-
sity campus.
The third sample (n = 6) consisted of industry professionals in management
positions from apparel manufacturing companies (i.e., manufacturers). Initially,
researchers contacted a total of 40 U.S. apparel companies of varying size and
type, which had been identified as the largest clothing companies in the United
States in terms of gross sales per annum by million of dollars (Speer, 2001), for par-
ticipation in the study. The reason for the large amount of nonparticipation in the
Carroll, Kincade / DESIGN FOR DISABLED WORKING WOMEN 301

Limitations of head movement

Incoordination

Limitations of stamina

Difficulty in lifting, reaching or carrying

Inability to use upper extremities

Limitations in upper body strength

Limitations of sensation

Difficulty in handling or fingering

Difficulty with range of motion of upper body

Figure 2: The Enabler figure adapted for this study.

SOURCE: Adapted from Mueller (1996, p. 107).

study was possibly related to the timing of the participation request. Packets of
information were mailed to the 40 companies who had initially agreed to partici-
pate on September 10, 2001. Many of these companies were located in New York
City, and very little feedback was received from most apparel companies after this
date, except for e-mails declining participation in the study because of issues
related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on targets within the United States.

Data Collection With Instrument Development and Use

Step 1 consisted of generation of design ideas based on user needs and previous
literature. The data collection consisted of interviews according to three separate sub-
steps: (a) gathering information on user physical limitations, (b) gathering informa-
tion on user clothing needs and preferences, and (c) codesign process. Substep A
consisted of identification of areas of physical limitation derived from a universal
design instrument known as the Enabler (Null & Cherry, 1996). This adapted Enabler
instrument was used to gather information about areas of the body affected by dis-
ability (see Figure 2). In the instrument, each effect was listed next to an outline
sketch of the upper body, with definitions provided on a second page. On the right
side of the sketch from the listings was a matrix that plotted the identifying letter of
each limitation area against a Likert-type scale of 0 to 4. Scores were anchored at 0
(not difficult) to 4 (impossible) and centered at 2 (difficult at times). The users were asked
to rate each area of physical limitation. Any extra information given by the user in
the interview was recorded in a space provided on the instrument.
302 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

In Substep B, or the second part of the interview, information about existing

apparel problems, identified and predefined from previous literature (Behrens, 1963;
Frescura, 1963; Kernaleguen, 1978; Moran, 1976; Reich & Otten, 1991; Schwab &
Sindelar, 1973; Warden & Dedmon, 1975; White & Dallas, 1977), was obtained from
the users. These predefined problems consisted of the following nine dimensions:

1. Difficulty putting on and taking off (donning and doffing) apparel,

2. Difficulty managing fastenings (e.g., hooks and eyes, zippers, buttons) because of
restricted use of hands and lack of mobility,
3. Lack of freedom of movement for a variety of activities (e.g., crutch walking, sitting
in a wheelchair),
4. Inappropriate and uncomfortable fabric,
5. Inadequate coverage of the body (e.g., body coverage in wheelchair),
6. Irritating features that inhibit movement,
7. Constricting and uncomfortable styling (especially periods of weight gain and loss),
8. Inadequate construction quality for stress exerted by user, and
9. A lack of aesthetically pleasing apparel in typical retail outlets.

A Likert-type scale was provided that quantified the degree of difficulty of each
potential problem. Scores ranged from 0 (not a problem) to 4 (impossibility), with the
middle score at 2 (problem). The users were also given the opportunity to add
information about any other problems that were not addressed by the instrument.
To conclude Step 1 (i.e., Substep C), a codesign process was used to apply cho-
sen features to a flat sketch of a basic dress bodice and sleeves. Codesign is a
process that involves the producer of a product and the consumer working together
and is used in mass customization of apparel products (Anderson-Connell, Ulrich,
& Brannon, 2002; Gilmore & Pine, 1997). This design method was selected as the
optimal method for developing the product as the process takes into account indi-
vidual selections from a range of design features. In this study, users were presented
with functional and fashion options in the forms of written and visual suggestions
from research and pages taken from catalogs and brochures. A flat sketch of a basic
bodice (Kopp, Rolfo, Zelin, & Gross, 1991) was used as the base, onto which one
researcher applied selected functional and fashion features to these preliminary
sketches with colored pencils according to direction from each user. Basic measure-
ments of each user (i.e., bust, waist, hips, and neck to waist) were recorded to facil-
itate size selection for the prototype. Only four measurement points were used to
reduce discomfort among the sample because of mobility limitations.
Step 2 represented the outcome of the codesign process in Step 1 and consisted
of the generation of a final sketch, prototype, and specifications sheet for the co-
designed upper-body apparel product. In this study, the outcome of the codesign
process was viewed by the researchers with an inclusive design focus because one
product, not multiple products, was the desired outcome. The preliminary sketches
and supporting data from each user were used by the researchers to generate a sin-
gle sketch. A basic bodice and sleeve pattern were developed from standard indus-
try pattern blocks and manipulated by one researcher to achieve the correct style
and shape that interpreted the users’ design requests. User measurements were con-
densed into two sizes; one of which corresponded to women’s size 16, the other to
a women’s size 22, using ASTM standard D5586-95 (American Standards and
Testing Methods Institute for Standards Research, 1993). Following completion of
the codesign part of Step 2, two prototypes were made; one 16W and one 22W. The
specification sheet for the prototype was generated as the final part of Step 2. The
Carroll, Kincade / DESIGN FOR DISABLED WORKING WOMEN 303

specification sheet included a description of the garment, the size range, fabrication,
care, colorways, sketches with swatches, dimensions in Imperial and metric, stitch
and seam specs, and findings specs.
Step 3 consisted of evaluation in three parts: wear-testing by users, wear-testing
by evaluators, and evaluation by a universal design expert and one of the
researchers for adherence to the criteria: (a) equitable use, (b) flexibility in use,
(c) simple and intuitive use, (d) tolerance for error, (e) low physical effort, and (f)
size and space for use. Wear testing was carried out in user and evaluator work
places and lasted for approximately 1 hour per user or evaluator. While wearing the
prototype, the users and evaluators were asked to conduct most of the tasks that
they would carry out in a typical working day. After the allotted wear-test time, each
participant was interviewed using a set of questions developed from the literature
(e.g., Huckabay, 1992; Prevatt, 1991; Rainer-Jeanes, 1994) to assess specific product
dimensions. In addition, users were asked to assess how well the prototype lived up
to their expectations from the codesign process, using a 3-point Likert-type scale
with 1 (worse than I envisioned), 2 (just as I envisioned) and 3 (better than I envisioned).
In Step 4, in-depth interviews were conducted with the apparel manufacturers.
The questions for the interviews were developed from Cohen’s (1991) business
model for new product development feasibility. The questions were grouped into
four sections: (a) company operations, (b) engineering and production, (c) finan-
cials, and (d) concept marketability. In the participant package sent by mail, man-
ufacturers received the spec sheet of the prototype with sketch dimensions and
construction details created in Step 2. In keeping with the full disclosure policy of
the university’s Institutional Review for Treatment of Human Subjects, a cover
letter indicating that the prototype was designed with and for, but not limited to,
working women with varying levels of physical disability, completed this phase
of instrumentation. Manufacturers were asked to assess feasibility of the product
in each of Cohen’s four sections. Each of the four sections was presented as four
open-ended questions specifically requesting how the product would impact their
company in each area.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

User Needs and Preferences (Objective A)

Using descriptive analysis on data collected in Step 1, the researchers found that
users’ disabilities were varied (see Table 3). Data relating to the impact of these dis-
abilities on areas of users’ physical limitations (see Table 4) ranged from 0 (no prob-
lem) to 4 (impossibility). The researchers interpreted a user score of 2 (occasional
problem) or higher as a current problem area that might impact apparel needs and
preferences; therefore, any limitation receiving this score from more than one half
of the sample was considered of importance to the remainder of the study. Areas of
physical limitation receiving a 2 or greater from any user were (a) upper-body
strength; (b) difficulty lifting, reaching, or carrying; (c) difficulty handling and fin-
gering; and (d) limitations of stamina. Previous apparel researchers have used sim-
ilar categorization techniques to become familiar with the limitations of their
subjects. Limitations in strength and endurance (parallels areas a and d) and skilled
movements involving complex motor manipulation (parallels c) were also identi-
fied by Yep (1977).
304 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

TABLE 4: Degree of Problems With Physical Limitation Areas Showing Number of Respondents
Per Level

Areas of Physical 0: No 1: Potential 2: Occasional

Limitation Problem Problem Problem 3: Problem 4: Impossibility

1. Incoordination 2 3 1 3 0
2. Limitation of upper body
strength 0 2 4 3 0
3. Limitations of head
movement 5 2 2 0 0
4. Limitations of stamina 1 3 3 2 0
5. Limitations of sensation 5 2 0 1 1
6. Difficulty lifting, reaching
or carrying 1 0 3 4 1
7. Difficulty handling and
fingering 1 1 3 4 0
8. Inability to use upper
extremities 6 1 0 2 0
9. Difficulty with range of
motion of upper body 4 2 0 3 0
10. Other 8 0 0 0 1
NOTE: The greatest problem areas are limitations 2, 4, 6, and 7.

Having established the areas of physical limitation and levels of individual

user limitations, the researchers continued descriptive analysis of the data from
Step 1 interviews to discover existing apparel problems. Nine apparel dimensions
had been established in previous literature to be “apparel problems.” Across the
diverse disabilities of the users in the current study, two apparel dimensions were
identified as problems to the majority of users: constricting styles and difficult-to-
manage fastenings (see Table 5). These findings suggested that the priority in
designing an inclusive product must be to generate a garment that allowed for
ample ease of movement with easy-to-manage fastenings.

Combine User Information With Inclusive Design

Principles to Develop an Apparel Product (Objective B)

In Step 2, selection of apparel-related fashion and function features by the users

in the codesign process resulted in preliminary sketches and information used by
one of the researchers to create a final sketch and a prototype of a jacket in two
sizes determined to be the “best-fit” possibilities for user wear-test purposes (see
Figure 3). All user selections were included in the sketch, except for a request by
one user for a high collar to hide scarring around the neck. The researchers had
expected this prototype-development step of the study to be the most challenging
because of the variety of disabilities and the results of previous literature imply-
ing that a single design solution would be challenging, if not impossible (e.g.,
Hallenbeck, 1966; Phipps, 1977; Schwab & Sindelar, 1973). However, the process
of assimilating each user’s needs and preferences into a single design was easier
than expected because of the similarity of areas of limitation (see Table 4) and sim-
ilarities of existing problems among the apparel dimensions (see Table 5), even
though the disabilities were diverse. Two identical prototypes of the jacket were
Carroll, Kincade / DESIGN FOR DISABLED WORKING WOMEN 305

TABLE 5: Apparel Needs and Preferences Scores for Apparel Dimensions With Number of
Responses Per Level

0: No Difficulty 1: Potential 2: Occasional 3: Difficulty 4: Impossibility

Apparel Dimensions Difficulty Difficulty

1. Difficulty donning and

doffing apparel 4 3 2 0 0
2. Difficulty managing
fastenings 0 4 5 0 0
3. Lack of freedom of
movement 6 2 1 0 0
4. Inappropriate and
uncomfortable fabric 3 3 3 0 0
5. Inadequate coverage
of the body 7 2 0 0 0
6. Styles of apparel can
be constricting and
uncomfortable 3 1 2 2 1
7. Construction quality
inadequate for stress
exerted by user 3 2 3 1 0
8. Some features are
irritating and get in
the way 2 4 2 0 1
9. Not all apparel is
aesthetically (visually)
pleasing 3 3 3 0 0
NOTE: The dimensions presenting greatest difficulty to users (scored by five users as 2 or more) are
item numbers 2 and 6.

made up in fabric of desired weight and type (mid-weight 100% cotton solid body
with lightweight polyester print lining), using construction techniques requested
by some of the users, such as double-stitched seams and buttons with shanks. The
prototypes differed only in size, to accommodate the diversity in user sizes dur-
ing wear-testing.
Selected fashion and function features used in making the prototype were
similar for all users. The preferred shape was loose and unfitted. The users pre-
ferred a loose-fitting garment because it gave them the freedom of movement to
accommodate their physical limitation(s). The longer length of the prototype
(i.e., covering the hips) was also preferred by a majority of the users. This pro-
vides some concealment, noted as a modesty requirement in previous research
(Kaiser, Freeman, & Wingate, 1985). Two side vents allowed more flexibility, and
a slightly longer back than front allowed for extra coverage. Some users pre-
ferred to have extra layers to maintain body temperature because of poor circu-
lation. For this reason, the prototype was fully lined. The prototype had no
waistline definition because some users had neck-to-waist measurements
shorter than the standard and did not wish to bring this to attention, and other
users did not want the restriction of a fitted waistline. The preliminary sketches
completed during the codesign process with users confirmed that the sketch
represented a style with which all users felt both emotionally and functionally
comfortable in the workplace.
306 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

Figure 3: Flat sketches (front and back) of inclusively designed upper-body apparel product.

The prototype had a full front opening with button closures. Types of closures
and their locations were an important decision in the codesign process. Front
openings with closures were found in previous studies (Kernaleguen, 1978; Reich
& Otten, 1991) to be more satisfactory than those in the back because of problems
Carroll, Kincade / DESIGN FOR DISABLED WORKING WOMEN 307

in arm and shoulder movement. Neckline openings were rejected for similar rea-
sons because the users would still have to pull the garment over their head.
Envelope necklines (that expand easily to fit the head through) and wrap styles
were rejected because of their lack of ability to cover the chest area. Users consis-
tently indicated a need to feel “covered up” around the neck and chest for mod-
esty reasons. This finding supports previous research findings about modesty
(Behrens, 1963). Once the placement of garment opening and closures had been
determined, the types of closures were selected. Users differed in their opinions
about the type of fastener that they would like on the prototype. Buttons were
deemed acceptable by most users, provided they were large enough for easy
manipulation. Snaps and hooks and eyes did not gain a particularly enthusiastic
response when presented as alternatives, nor did Velcro because of its “discom-
fort” factor (e.g., rough texture, snagging on other apparel) and perceived unac-
ceptability for workplace apparel. A “fake” line of buttons with Velcro or a strip
of snaps underneath was therefore discounted by the researchers. Zippers were
evaluated as not functional for disability problems, and users indicated that they
would also not consider a zipper to be an aesthetic or appropriate type of closure
for the workplace. Oversized buttons and diagonal keyhole buttonholes were
selected by the researchers to meet the needs of all users. This type of closure might
add to labor costs and time of production, but it would make the closure easier to
manipulate, the buttons more likely to stay in the hole, and the large hole less likely
to gap. The users considered the diagonal keyhole acceptable for a garment worn
in the workplace.
A round neckline that sits low on the neck (i.e., level with the hollow at the
front of the throat) was preferred by a majority of users; however, two users
needed to have high necklines for added warmth around the neck or to hide scar-
ring. Neckline features were the only fashion selection presenting conflicting
requests by users. Seven users did not need a collar, but another preferred a collar
that was visible only in the front of the garment (i.e. it begins at the shoulder
seam). One user requested a collar with some bulk at the back of the neck to con-
ceal a hump. Although not developed for but compatible with this prototype,
solutions for future garments would be to provide “add-on” features such as col-
lars and scarves, which could be purchased separately and attached by the cus-
tomer according to her preference. In the prototype, an interior loop was attached
at the center back to enable users to “thread” a scarf before putting on the gar-
ment, which then could be brought around the front of the neck and worn loose
or tied, without the fear of it falling or coming loose from the garment.
After consideration of all the sleeve options presented in user interviews, a
raglan sleeve was selected as the most acceptable sleeve alternative. A raglan
sleeve is a “sleeve designed with seams that extend from underarm to neckline
in slanted style” (Blair, 1992, p. 106). The researchers felt that it would give the
wearer a range of motion in the shoulder not possible with a set-in sleeve, as pro-
moted in previous research (Kernaleguen, 1978; Moran, 1976; Reich & Otten, 1991;
Schwab & Sindelar, 1973). Deep sleeve openings allow more ease of movement
through the arm and shoulder (Kernaleguen, 1978; Moran, 1976; Reich & Otten,
1991; Schwab & Sindelar, 1973). The sleeve was made full to the wrist and long, so
that users with different arm lengths could turn back the ends of the sleeves if nec-
essary, exposing the lining. Users were not interested in having any detail at the
wrist, especially buttons, perceived as difficult to manipulate and uncomfortable
when they placed their arms on a flat surface to write or rest.
308 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

Pockets were mentioned frequently in the interviews. A pocket was deemed

necessary because it takes the place of a handbag, which most users did not carry.
They needed a space in which to transport personal effects (e.g., sunglasses, keys).
Behrens (1963) had suggested a pouch pocket attached to a belt, but this was not
selected when presented as an option to users because (a) no belt was wanted on
the garment and (b) it would not have been acceptable for the workplace. Pockets
were located in the side seams for concealment and were deep, giving plenty of
room for users to carry a variety of personal belongings if needed.

Product Evaluation (Objective C)

To assess the inclusiveness (i.e., meeting criteria of inclusive design) of the pro-
totype (Step 3), two groups of working women wear-tested the prototype. One
group comprised users (working women with physical disabilities) and the other,
evaluators (a group of working women with no known physical disabilities) of
similar sizes to the users. Both groups rated the prototype on the nine apparel
dimensions (see Table 5). The user group rated fastenings (“[the button] is a good
size and didn’t hurt my fingers to manipulate it”), donning and doffing (“I just
automatically put it on; I didn’t think about how much time it took”), coverage of
the body, coverage in needed areas, and adaptation of features as exceeding
expectations (better than I envisioned); however, they found that visual appeal and
construction fell below expectations (less than I envisioned; see Table 6). Following
is an example of users’ general comments:

The minute I put it on I felt very positive about it. I think immediately if you don’t
get a good feel, you feel bad about it. It gave me a very positive feeling, and that helps
with the scope of everything that goes into clothing and how you feel in the clothing
and how you present yourself in that clothing. (User 01)

The evaluator group rated fastenings (“the buttonhole is nice and roomy, and I can
really get hold of the button”) and ease of movement (“I could climb a ladder in
this. I have a physical component to my job, and I need garments that will allow
me to move”) as exceeding expectations (see Table 7). They found that visual
appeal, construction, coverage of the body, and adaptation of features fell below
expectations.
Commonalities between the users and evaluators included the rating of fasten-
ings as exceeding expectations and the ratings of visual appeal and construction
as falling below expectations. One user stated that the construction was not what
she had been expecting and rated it low because “I like garments that are really
highly defined, just so that it has a higher quality look to it and some more detail.”
This user equated features such as decorative topstitching with quality. Using
both groups of women for wear-testing the prototype as a functional and aesthet-
ically pleasing working garment better addressed the inclusivity of the product.
Once the prototypes had been wear-tested, product assessment for adherence
to inclusive design principles took place. After analyzing the data from wear-testing
and examining the prototypes for adherence to inclusive design criteria, an expert
evaluator from the universal design field and the researcher concluded that each
criterion had been followed in the development of the product.
Carroll, Kincade / DESIGN FOR DISABLED WORKING WOMEN 309

TABLE 6: Wear-Testing Results of Apparel Dimensions for Users for Each Rating Level
(frequency)

1: Worse Than 2: Just as 3: Better Than

Apparel Dimension I Envisioned I Envisioned I Envisioned

1. Uses style that is easy

to don and doff 0 5 4
2. Uses easy-to-manage
fasteningsa 0 4 5
3. Adds features that allow
for movement 0 4 5
4. Uses fabric with situational
appropriatenessb
5. Ensures coverage in
needed areas 1 6 2
6. Provides styling that is comfortable
andappropriately sizeda 0 5 4
7. Ensures quality,
durable construction 1 5 3
8. Adapts features
specified by user 1 5 3
9. Apparel is designed
with visual appeal 1 6 2
a. Responses indicate that dimensions were considered significant problems in initial user interviews.
b. Responses are qualitative.

TABLE 7: Wear-Testing Results of Apparel Dimensions for Evaluators for Each Rating Level
(frequency)

1: Worse Than 2: Just as 3: Better Than

Apparel Dimension I Envisioned I Envisioned I Envisioned

1. Uses style that is easy to

don and doff 0 3 3
2. Uses easy-to-manage
fasteningsa 1 2 3
3. Adds features that allow
for movement 1 2 3
4. Uses fabric with
situational appropriatenessb
5. Ensures coverage in
needed areas 0 4 2
6. Provides styling that is
comfortable and appropriately sizeda 2 3 1
7. Ensures quality, durable
construction 1 4 1
8. Adapts features specified
by user NA NA NA
9. Apparel is designed with
more visual appeal 1 5 0
NOTE: NA = not applicable.
a. Responses indicate that dimensions were considered significant problems in initial user interviews.
b. Responses are qualitative.
310 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

Explore Industry Issues (Objective D)

In Step 4, analysis of manufacturers’ responses to interview questions, after

they reviewed the prototype and spec sheet, revealed concerns in three of the four
sections related to Cohen’s (1991) business model. Every effort was made in data
collection to simulate a typical feasibility study for any new product. However,
given the knowledge that the product had been designed and was intended for
use by consumers with physical disabilities, the researchers believe that this sim-
ulation was biased by manufacturer perception of this consumer. This bias is par-
ticularly evident in remarks from manufacturers as to company operations and
concept marketability.

Company Operations

A common concern for all manufacturers (n = 6) was that the product was
incompatible with their current operations. Each manufacturer stated that his or
her company did not produce or market similar types of products, even when a
review by the researchers concluded that the product was similar in style to some
manufacturers’ product lines. Manufacturers also felt that they would not have
the support within their companies necessary to meet after-sales requirements
they perceived that this type of customer might need.

Engineering and Production

All the manufacturers felt that the product would be easy to produce. They
spoke with assurance that their companies would have the design and production
capabilities, access to available raw materials, and storage facilities for raw mate-
rials and finished product.

Financials

Responses indicated that more information was needed for manufacturers to

make an accurate assessment of costing for the prototype and to determine an
accurate price point. All manufacturers indicated that more information would
need to be provided through a more detailed spec sheet or other sources about
(a) cost of materials and engineering, (b) size of production run, (c) retail target
price point (marketable cost for this target market), (d) time study, (e) lead time,
and (f) season. The researchers’ informal assessment of company profit margins,
as provided by manufacturers, determined that production costs would have to
be cut to accommodate users’ desired price point.

Concept Marketability

Marketing feasibility for the prototype was perceived by most manufacturers

(n = 5) as not compatible with their current sales or marketing functions for a vari-
ety of reasons. For example, one manufacturer stated, “We have neither the cur-
rent channels of distribution in place to market the product nor qualified sales
personnel to service this customer.” Suggestions were made by several manufac-
turers that catalogs or other direct sales methods, channels currently used by con-
sumers with disabilities to find apparel products, would be good vehicles for
Carroll, Kincade / DESIGN FOR DISABLED WORKING WOMEN 311

marketing the product. Only one manufacturer was currently using any direct
sales methods. All manufacturers agreed that the product would add a new
market for their business. They perceived it as a niche product, rather than hav-
ing a mass-market potential.

CONCLUSION

In many ways, physical limitations impact the ability of the women in the user
group to find suitable apparel. However, this study shows that the exact clinical
definition of a physical disability appears to be unrelated to the identification of
physical-limitation impact areas and the linkage of these areas to apparel prob-
lems. This finding supports previous apparel research by Yep (1977), Reich and
Shannon (1980), and Newton (1984-1985), who arrived at similar conclusions
when studying a variety of physical limitations. The findings are contrary to those
suggesting that separate types of disability necessitate separate solutions
(Frescura, 1963; Schwab & Sindelar, 1973; Warden & Dedmon, 1975). As revealed
through the results, an apparel item can be developed to suit a number of users
who represent a variety of physical limitations. In the current study, all users
wanted to find apparel in which they could move easily; with which they could
don, doff, and fasten easily; and from which they could maintain a suitable
appearance for the workplace.
To address their current needs, well-fitting, comfortable apparel allowing for
ample ease of movement with easy-to-manage fastenings and aesthetic appeal needs
to be made available. As one user stated, “Women with physical disabilities want
apparel that does not set them apart from other women.” These findings support the
need for development of inclusive apparel products that will service the needs and
preferences of a wide variety of consumers, regardless of their individual disabilities.
The prototype developed in this study demonstrates features that women with a
variety of disabilities found appealing. These features include a loose, noncon-
toured silhouette; a full lining; no defined waistline area; a front opening with diag-
onal keyhole buttonholes and large-sized buttons; a round neckline with no collar;
a raglan sleeve; large, deep pockets; removable shoulder pads; and a washable light-
weight fabric in a solid color. In production using a mass-customized approach (i.e.,
a selection of additional features), additional fashion or functional features men-
tioned by individual users (e.g., a high collar, a collar that came down low on the
back of the garment, topstitching on the front of the garment) could be added to
the basic garment. The mass-customized approach was also suggested by some of
the manufacturers as a method to manufacture and distribute this type of product.
The codesign process appeared to work well in incorporating user needs and
preferences into an upper-body apparel product. Wear-test evaluations by both
users and evaluators demonstrated that inclusivity could be developed so that the
product had universal appeal and functionality could be maintained. Ratings of
the prototype in all apparel dimensions were generally good. The majority of
women in the wear-testing step (Step 3) found the prototype just as they envi-
sioned or better than they envisioned for a garment that they might wear to work.
Production and marketing issues, as assessed by the manufacturers, indicated
that the product would be easy to engineer and produce; however, manufacturers
perceived that marketing the product would not be feasible for them, mainly
312 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

because it was not part of their established product lines or company image.
Manufacturers stressed the need to understand and adapt to customer needs;
however, they were not willing to progress beyond their established marketing
frameworks to satisfy a customer they saw as needing “specialized” treatment in
terms of sales and after-sales assistance. Because of the extra operational and mar-
keting support, costs suggested by manufacturers for production and marketing
based on apparel industry standards would be too high for this market of users.
Based on price-point information provided by users, production and/or market-
ing costs would have to be reduced. One way of doing this would be to reduce
margins by removing the brick-and-mortar retailer and sell to the customer direct
from the manufacturer. Manufacturers generally were unsure about whether pro-
duction of this type of product would generate enough sales to turn a profit.
Again, it must be remembered that all results based on the work in this study
are limited by the small sample sizes of users, evaluators, and manufacturers and
by the information about the consumers given to the manufacturers during Step
4 of the data collection.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In response to the research questions generated to guide this study, results

showed that consumer constraints could be achieved through a codesign process
with an inclusive design approach. An apparel product can be designed to address
the needs and preferences of this group of working women with physical disabili-
ties while acknowledging the limitations of generalizing inherent in any qualitative
study. Extending the use of the conceptual framework to include Step 5 would
complete the product design cycle shown in Figure 1. To implement the final step,
contractors and retail personnel from a variety of distribution channels could
become part of the sample to produce and distribute the product to explore reac-
tions to the inclusive apparel product.
Possible additions or changes to the methods were noted during the study.
Subsequent studies should address these issues. Sample size and composition is
always a concern in qualitative and quantitative research. For future studies, the
user sample could be increased in number of participants and in variety of phys-
ical disabilities to provide increased validity for the inclusivity of any apparel
product designed to serve a wide market. Areas of physical limitations could be
refined. In addition, a more specified purposive selection or a larger and random-
ized sample of evaluators or additional consumers without disabilities should
also be given an opportunity to assist in the design process of the prototype
because of its inclusive focus. The sample of participating apparel companies
could be increased and randomized. The researchers suggest that a sample be
drawn from manufacturers who make products similar to the prototype.
Changes could be made in some of the variables used to gather information on
consumers with physical disabilities. For example, lifting, reaching, and carrying
should not be treated as one area. The researchers found that difficulties in lifting
and carrying objects were generally because of lack of strength; however, these
users had no problems reaching with the arms, which related more to range of
motion. Both strength and range of motion are already represented as areas in the
study; therefore, the acts of lifting, reaching, and carrying are already represented
Carroll, Kincade / DESIGN FOR DISABLED WORKING WOMEN 313

by existing areas and do not need to be treated as separate areas. In addition, the
apparel dimension of coverage of the body requires clarification. The researchers
visualized this as a modesty issue; however, during user interviews, coverage for
warmth was also of concern to users and should be a separate question.
Future applications of research findings might utilize a line of garments with
variability from the prototype developed in this study, fabricated in a variety of
ways. The codesign process could be continued using a mass-customization
approach in which user product choice could be digitally transmitted for marker
and pattern layout. Digital technology could also be used to aid the user in visu-
alizing the finished garment on her body, using an Avatar™ body model.
Manufacturers might be persuaded to include at least one inclusively designed
garment in their seasonal ready-to-wear lines on a regular basis to test consumer
acceptance of the product.
Future research could also focus on extending the findings while using the
research framework. For example, the results indicated that a disability’s effect on the
body supersedes a clinical definition for the purpose of apparel product develop-
ment. In future research, a tool such as the Enabler would help the researcher focus
on areas of physical limitation instead of clinical definitions of disabilities. The fact
that working women with a variety of disabilities were found to have similar apparel
needs and preferences suggests that future researchers could work with clusters of
women with dissimilar disabilities. Inclusive design based on established principles
can be a successful strategy for apparel product development and should be used as
a basis or guide for future studies about meeting the needs of target consumers.
Finally, the results showed that current industry perceptions present a large
barrier to successful implementation. Industry constraints proved more challeng-
ing than the consumer constraints. An inherent bias may have been implanted by
making manufacturers aware that the product had been designed with and for
women with physical disabilities in addition to other women without physical
disabilities. Future studies could explore current industry perceptions about con-
sumers with disabilities. These preliminary qualitative results indicate that the
U.S. apparel companies might need some encouragement about approaching the
concept of inclusive design and the female consumer with physical disabilities. A
“blind” study, in which a prototype would be judged purely on its potential as an
apparel product, might be more insightful considering the need for inclusivity.
Additional topics could be discussed with manufacturers for a more comprehen-
sive view of the issues involved in production for this market. Industry profes-
sionals suggested the following issues that should be addressed in industry
surveys for future studies of a similar type: (a) forecast production volume, (b) lead
time, (c) direct sales from manufacturer, and (d) production of a full line rather
than single garment. This input demonstrates a need for a much larger market
survey to present manufacturers with a need for a new product.

REFERENCES

American Standards and Testing Methods Institute for Standards Research. (1993). Development of body
measurement tables for women 55 and older and the relationship to ready-to-wear garment size.
Philadelphia: Author.
Anderson-Connell, L. J., Ulrich, P. V., & Brannon, E. L. (2002). A consumer-driven model for the mass
customization in the apparel market. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 6(3), 1361-2026.
314 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

Babbie, E. R. (1992). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Behrens, D. (1963). Fashions for the woman who needs specially designed clothes. Cleveland, OH: The Services.
Bellinger, V. (1996). Gender differences related to corporate dressing down. Unpublished master’s thesis,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
Blair, J. E. (1992). Fashion terminology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Caddell, K. (1977). Measurements, guidelines and solutions. Lubbock, TX: Vintage Press.
Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access. (2003, December 30). IDEA mission. Retrieved
December 30, 2003, from http://www.ap.buffalo.edu/idea/mission/mission.html
Center for Universal Design. (1997, April 1). What is universal design? Retrieved March 26, 2001, from
http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/univ_design/princ_overview.htm
Cohen, W. A. (1991). The practice of marketing management: Analysis, planning, and implementation (2nd
ed.). New York: Macmillan.
DeJonge, J. O. (1984). The design process. In S. M. Watkins (Ed.), Clothing the portable environment
(pp. vii-xi). Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Dickerson, K. G. (2003). Inside the fashion business (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Faust, S., Cassill, N., Herr, D., & Williamson, N. (1999). Adoption of the casual workplace by United
States Fortune 500 companies. Journal of the Textile Institute, 90(2), 147-162.
Freeman, C. M., Kaiser, S. B., & Wingate, S. B. (1986). Perceptions of functional apparel by persons with
physical disabilities: A social-cognitive framework. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 4(1), 46-52.
Frescura, L. G. (1963). Apparel for girls with specified physical handicaps. Unpublished master’s thesis,
Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Gaskill, L. R. (1992). Towards a model of retail product development: A case study. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, 10(4), 17-24.
Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, B. J., II (1997). The four faces of mass customization. Harvard Business Review, 75(1),
91-101.
Glock, R. E., & Kunz, G. I. (2004). Apparel manufacturing: Sewn product analysis (4th ed.). New York:
Macmillan.
Hallenbeck, P. N. (1966). Special apparel for the handicapped: Review of research and resources.
Rehabilitation Literature, 27(2), 34-40.
Huckabay, D. A. (1992). Perceived body cathexis and garment fit and style proportions problems of petite women.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
Kaiser, S. B., Freeman, C. M., & Wingate, S. B. (1985). Stigmata and negotiated outcomes: Management
of appearance by persons with physical disabilities. Deviant Behavior, 6, 205-224.
Kallal, M. J., & Lamb, J. M. (1993, May). Linking industry practice with apparel design education. Paper pre-
sented at the International Conference on Fashion Design, Helsinki, Finland.
Kernaleguen, A. (1978). Apparel designs for the handicapped. Alberta, Canada: University of Alberta Press.
Kopp, E., Rolfo, V., Zelin, B., & Gross, L. (1991). How to draft basic patterns, (4th ed.). New York: Fairchild.
Kwon, Y. (1994). The influence of appropriateness of dress and gender on the self-perception of occu-
pational attributes. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12(3), 33-39.
LaBat, K. L., & Sokolowski, S. L. (1999). Three-stage design process applied to an industry-university
textile product design project. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 17(1), 11-20.
Lamb, J. M. (1993). Physical disability as an aspect of appearance. In S. J. Lennon & L. D. Burns (Eds.),
ITAA special publication #5. Social science aspects of dress: New directions. Monument, CO: International
Textile and Apparel Association.
Lamb, J. M., & Kallal, M. J. (1992). A conceptual framework for apparel design. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, 10(2), 42-47.
Liskey-Fitzwater, N., Moore, C. L., & Gurel, L. M. (1993). Apparel importance and self-perception of
female adolescents with and without scoliosis. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 11(3), 16-22.
McNeil, J. M. (2000, June/July). Employment, earnings, and disability (1991/92, 1993/93, 1994/95 and 1997
data from the survey of income and program participation). Paper presented at the 75th annual confer-
ence of the Western Economic Association International, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Molloy, J. T. (1975). Dress for success. New York: Warner Books.
Moran, M., Sr. (1976). Apparel for special needs. Unpublished master’s thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca,
NY.
Mueller, J. L. (1996). Strategy: Universal design for products. In R. L. Null & K. F. Cherry (Eds.), Universal
design: Creative solutions for ADA compliance (pp. 104-113). Belmont, CA: Professional Publications.
Nevala-Puranen, N., Holopainen, J., Kinnunen, O., & Hänninen, O. (2002). Changing the features of
clients’ clothing as a means of reducing the physical work load and strain of personal helpers—A case study.
Carroll, Kincade / DESIGN FOR DISABLED WORKING WOMEN 315

Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Clothing and Textiles for Disabled and Elderly
People, Tampere, Finland, 38-39.
Newton, A. (1984-1985). Taxonomy for independent living used to classify apparel research. Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal, 3(1), 45-47.
Null, R. L., & Cherry, K. F. (1996). Universal design: Creative solutions for A.D.A. compliance. Belmont, CA:
Professional Publications.
Parrish, E. D., Cassill, N. L., & Oxenham, W. (2004). Opportunities in the international textile and
apparel marketplace for niche markets. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 8(1), 41-57.
Phipps, C. A. (1977, September). Clothing for handicapped elderly women. Journal of Home Economics,
69(3), 21-23.
Prevatt, M. B. (1991). Fit and sizing evaluation of limited-use protective coveralls. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
Rabolt, N. J., & Drake, M. F. (1984-1985). Reference person influence on career women’s dress. Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal, 3(2), 11-19.
Rainer-Jeanes, E. (1994). Apparel interest, leisure activity, continuity and their association to apparel fit satis-
faction for women 55 years and older. Unpublished master’s thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg.
Redick, S. S. (1976). A guide for teaching grooming and apparel. Danville, IL: The Interstate Printers &
Publishers.
Regan, C. L. (1997). A concurrent engineering framework for apparel manufacture. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
Regan, C., Kincade, D., &, Sheldon G. (1998). Use of engineering product development process for
apparel manufacturers. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 16(1), 36-46.
Reich, N., & Otten, P. (1991). Apparel and dressing needs of people with arthritis. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, 9(4), 34-40.
Reich, N., & Shannon, E. (1980). Handicap: Common physical limitation and apparel-related needs.
Home Economics Research Journal, 8(6), 437-444.
Rosenau, J. A., & Wilson, D. L. (2001). Apparel merchandising: The line starts here. New York: Fairchild.
Schwab, L. O., & Sindelar, M. B. (1973). Apparel for the physically disabled homemaker. Rehabilitation
Record, 14, 30-40.
Solomon, M. R., & Douglas, S. P. (1993). The power of the pinstripe. Savvy, 4(3), 59-62.
Speer, J. K. (2001, June). The Bobbin top 50. Bobbin Magazine, 42(10) 44-66.
Stone, E. (1999). The dynamics of fashion. New York: Fairchild.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Talon Velcro Corporation Consumer Education. (n.d.). Convenience apparel and closures. New York: Author.
Ten Kate, N. (1998). Lose the suit. American Demographics, 20(4), 31-32. Retrieved October 9, 2000, from
online database ProQuest No. 01634089: http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu:8080/
pqdweb?index=6&did=28482345&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=
309&VName=PQD&TS=1170733491&clientId=8956#fulltext
Thoren, M. (1997). A new approach to apparel for disabled users. In S. Kumar (Ed.), Perspectives in reha-
bilitation ergonomics (pp. 360-367). London: Taylor and Francis.
Warden, J., & Dedmon, K. (1975). Apparel design uses style and utility. Journal of Rehabilitation, 41(4),
17-24.
White, M., & Dallas, B. (1977). Apparel adaptations: The occupational therapist and the apparel
designer collaborate. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 31(2), 90-94.
Wickett, J. L., Gaskill, L. R., & Damhorst, M. L. (1999). Apparel retail product development: Model test-
ing and expansion. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 17(1), 21-35.
Wingate, S. B., Kaiser, S. B., & Freeman, C. M. (1986). Salience of disability cues in functional apparel:
A multidimensional approach. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 4(2), 37-47.
Workman, J. E., Caldwell, L. F., & Kallal, M. J. (1999). Development of a test to measure spatial abilities
associated with apparel design and product development. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,
17(3), 128-133.
Yep, J. O. (1977). Tools for aiding physically disabled individuals increase independence in dressing.
Journal of Rehabilitation, 43(5), 39-41.