Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Development of a quantitative system for subjective evaluation of tracked vehicle crew jackets

Development of a quantitative system for subjective evaluation of tracked vehicle crew jackets heeeun.choi@snu.ac.kr Professor, Dept. of Textiles, The purpose of this study is to develop a quantitative evaluation system that reflects Merchandising, and Fashion the required performance factors that are important for a tracked vehicle crew jacket. Design/Research Institute of Human Ecology, College We identified and analyzed the necessary performance factors obtained from a focus of Human Ecology, Seoul group interview and a questionnaire survey. Further, we proposed a new method National University, 1 of calculating weights and developed a quantitative evaluation system. This system Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Republic featured an equation that calculated the evaluation score out of 100, using the factors’ of Korea percentages in the total factor as factor weights. The system’s application was verified Full list of author information by the assessment of subfactors by active-duty soldiers, and by confirmation that the is available at the end of the article results of the developed factor scores reflected the proposed development direction. The study is significant for its provision of a comprehensive and quantitative evalua- tion system which has not existed before for protective clothing design, as well as for the verification of the system’s application through the process of protective cloth- ing development. The quantitative evaluation system and its development process described in this study may be referenced and widely deployed due to its use of a Likert scale, which is commonly used as a subjective sensory evaluation tool. Keywords: Protective clothing, Tracked vehicle crew jacket, Quantitative evaluation system, Likert scale, Performance factors Introduction The systematic design of protective clothing requires careful consideration of various production, evaluation, and maintenance factors, and designers should consider a wide range of human factors including sizing and fit, ease of donning and doffing, comfort, and function (Ashdown and Watkins, 1996). KS K ISO 13688 (Korean Agency for Tech- nology and Standards 2021) defined protective clothing’s general performance require - ments for ergonomics, innocuousness and comfort, and ASTM F1154-18 (ASTM International, 2018) contains standard practices for evaluating the comfort, fit, func - tion, and durability of protective ensembles. Rosenblad-Wallin (1985) emphasized that the objective of functional clothing can be divided into functional and symbolic values, which must be considered for user-oriented product development. However, designing © The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate- rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 2 of 20 protective clothing that optimally satisfies all these conditions can be challenging, as some factors conflict with others (Hong, 2004). To identify potential conflicts, it is neces - sary to identify those factors that are required by wearers and whether protective cloth- ing developed against particular design criteria is suitable for its target functionality. Furthermore, it is necessary to evaluate whether protective clothing is developed suit- ably for the required performance following successful product development. Wear- ers’ subjective evaluations of comfort are essential during the clothing design process to ensure customer satisfaction, and it is common to adopt Likert scales to quantify essentially subjective evaluations. Most previous studies on the development of military clothing have focused on dimensional suitability and motion suitability, measuring such attributes as a wearers’ subjective sensations for different clothing parts, using Likert- style rating scales (Han et  al., 2016; Jeong, 2014; Lee, 2012; Lee et  al., 2012). However, when critical design decisions must be made in the final development stages, it would help to be able to translate those subjective Likert-scale evaluations into quantitative fac- tors that can be presented as objective numbers. Lee and Sim (2016) proposed a method to use the factor loadings based on a Likert scale as weights for the evaluation system to enhance the utilization of the evaluation system. The study of Cho et  al. (2008) on the evaluation and optimal design of protective clothing presented quantitative numbers for the ergonomic cost-effectiveness of their proposed flame‐proof clothing. However, they could not incorporate improvement percentages for the required performance factors. The tracked vehicle crew’s jacket is part of a protective duty uniform that protects tracked vehicle crew from flames and should be functionally suitable for performing high-intensity missions in extreme winter temperatures and restricted internal envi- ronments. However, the current tracked crew jacket’s material lacked flame retardance, camouflage, warmth, pockets, and adequate clothing size, and its jumper style required improvement in design and pattern (Choi, 2020). Therefore, the tracked vehicle crew’s jacket has been developed through a tracked vehicle jacket development project (Samil Spinning Co., Ltd., 2018) from July 2018 to June 2021 (3 years). At present, its develop- ment is currently being evaluated to determine its improvements for required perfor- mance as quantitative factors for a final decision of success. Previous studies using quantitative factors in design and evaluations have mostly focused on environmental design, the process of addressing surrounding environmental parameters (Cho et  al., 2010; Yoo, 2013), and industrial design, the process of design applied to products that are to be manufactured by mass production (Im, 2017; Jung, 2007; Park & Lee, 2007). However, these studies have proposed design and evaluation factors without verifying whether the required factors were reflected in the product development stage. Furthermore, although the studies presented quantified data, the researchers and experts collected subjective data, with the experts’ evaluation scores used as factor weights. Consequently, their evaluation systems failed to incorporate wearers’ evaluations of the functional components they valued most. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a quantitative evaluation system that reflects the required performance factors that are important for a tracked vehi - cle crew jacket. To develop a quantitative evaluation system, this study analyzed the required performance factors for protective clothing using data obtained from a focus group interview (FGI) and a questionnaire survey completed by active-duty members. Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 3 of 20 We proposed a new method of calculation of weights and an evaluation system derived from quantitative factors and tested their application on the development of a tracked vehicle crew jacket. Methods Identifying the required performance factors To identify the required performance factors for the development of a tracked vehicle jacket, we referenced and modified a table on such factors developed by Lee (2016) and Choi (2020), which summarized previous studies on protective clothing (Ashdown & Watkins, 1996; Choi & Kim, 2011; Gupta, 2011; Huck & Kim, 1997; Jeon, 2011; Jeong, 2014; Lee, 2012; Lee et  al., 2012; Lim, 2003; Rosenblad-Wallin, 1985; Tan et  al., 1998; Wiernicki, 1992). We also conducted an FGI with 16 tracked vehicle crew members on active duty during August 2019 to ask for feedback on their current on-duty clothing. Using information gained during the FGI along with a review of previous research on protective clothing, we identified relevant factors and subfactors. Setting required performance factors and subfactors Between August 19 and September 26, 2019, we asked 253 tracked vehicle active crew members to complete the final version of our questionnaire, which included the subfac - tors. All respondents had worn a tracked vehicle jacket before. We asked them to rank, using a 5-point Likert scale, the importance of various required performance factors for protective clothing that we had identified from the FGI and a literature review. We conducted a factor analysis to examine the relevance of the subfactors and factors. Initially, we had 37 subfactors. However, we removed five subfactors that had low fac - tor values (e.g., “It must be comfortable to move my joints,” “The structure of protective clothing should be efficient for carrying out a mission,” and “The functionality of materi - als must be good”) to increase the total factor loading. This left us with 32 subfactors as design and evaluation criteria. Developing a weighting method We set seven essential factor categories for a tracked vehicle crew member’s jacket design. Of these, safety, maintenance, and material functionality (three factors) could be measured using national and international standards already in place. Thus, these fac - tors are usually evaluated using experts’ evaluations and specifications rather than the wearers’ evaluations. For this reason, we focused on dimensional suitability, mission suitability, motion suitability, and aesthetics (four factors) that the wearers were better positioned to evaluate in a timely fashion. Therefore, we selected four required perfor - mance factors and conducted a factor analysis again to ensure that each weight applied to developing a quantitative evaluation system. Developing a quantitative evaluation system To develop a quantitative evaluation system, we calculated the final four factors’ equa - tion with subfactors’ points, and each factors’ weight. We referenced and supplemented Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 4 of 20 Required Operational Capability (ROC) criteria from a tracked vehicle jacket develop- ment project to determine whether it was successful or not. Testing  a developed evaluation system The reliability and validity of each subfactor had already been statistically demonstrated through factor analysis. Therefore, we tested the developed subfactors and the evalua - tion system in terms of its application. To test the developed subfactors’ application, we divided the respondents into two groups: a control group of 81 occupational soldiers (soldiers with specific training and duties) who had worn the current tracked vehicle jacket for at least six years, and a comparison group of 172 enlisted soldiers who had worn the jacket for up to two years. We compared the two groups’ evaluation scores of the current jacket that proved to be universally applicable to all those not affected by years of service or level of training. In addition, we asked 15 of the 16 tracked vehicle crew members who had participated in the earlier development of protective clothing to evaluate the current and proposed jackets. They ranked their responses to the subfactors obtained from the factor analysis using the 5-point Likert scale. We then compared the differences in their scores reflect - ing improvements in design and pattern to test the application of the developed evalua- tion system. Figure 1 shows a flow chart for the evaluation system development process. Results and discussion Identifying required performance factors Different researchers have used different terminologies to describe the required perfor - mance factors for protective clothing. For this study, we organized and divided terms with similar meanings into seven main headings: motion suitability, dimensional suit- ability, ease of use, aesthetics, safety, material functionality, and maintenance (Table 1). The FGI showed that tracked vehicle crew members worked in tight, confined spaces, with protruding structures and equipment that could easily snag loose clothing. The Idenfying Previous study Required Performance Factors FGI : 16 tracked vehicle crew Survey : 253 tracked vehicle crew Se�n g First factor analysis(Seven factors) Factors & Subfactors Developing Second factor analysis Weighng Method (Four factors) Developing Developing weighted equaon E valuaon System (out of 100) Tesng developed subfactors(two groups) Tesng Evaluaon System  Tesng applicability of evaluaon system Fig. 1 A flow chart for the evaluation system development process Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 5 of 20 Table 1 Seven performance factor category definitions for protective clothing Performance requirement Definition Terminologies used in previous studies Motion suitability Clothing does not interfere with activi- Clothing mobility, task mobility, mobility, ties and allows adequate range of comfort, motion fitness, ergonomic motion consideration, changes in relationships between body parts as the body moves Dimensional suitability Clothing fits or adjusts to fit different Sizing and fit, fit, shape fitness, fitness, body sizes and shapes to accommo- ease, relationship of body parts to one date the mission environment and another and to garments motion Ease of use Clothing components such as fasten- Task visibility, dexterity, task dexterity, ers, pockets, vents, and zippers are usability, functional, functional require- easy to use ment, functional value, ease of donning and doffing, ergonomic consideration, ease of attaching and detaching inner and outer layers Aesthetics Clothing’s visual appearance has a Psychological satisfaction, symbolic psychologically positive effect on the values, psychological requirement, wearer psychological, appearance satisfaction, aesthetic Safety Clothing protects the wearer from Protection, innocuousness, sanitation, external risks and has no inherently safety, fire safety, protect the user from dangerous features or properties task hazard, create no additional safety or health concerns Material functionality Clothing materials keep the wearer Physiological, biomechanical, physi- comfortably warm and dry ological comfort, heat and moisture transport, comfortable environment, insulation, thermal protection, fabric suitability, function of fabric Maintenance Clothing is durable and easy to keep Durability, ease of handling, cleanability, clean and tidy ease of maintenance, production spaces inside some tracked vehicles were not temperature-controlled. Most of the crew members’ motions during a mission involved upper-body movement. Many respondents had negative comments about the current jacket, among which were the following: the cuffs at the waist and wrists tended to ride up, which felt uncomfortable; there were not enough pockets; the pockets had snaps that were difficult to use; and the jackets stained and snagged easily during operational and maintenance activities. They also commented that the current jackets did not give them a “sense of belonging as a member of the tracked vehicle crew.” Setting required performance factors and subfactors We organized respondents’ feedback into the required performance factor categories to set a direction for the development of the protective clothing. The focus group had many comments and requests that reflected their unique work environments and missions. For example, they wanted clothing components that were more practical and usable (e.g., pockets, vents, and zippers); greater comfort in confined mission environments; and lighter clothing. Therefore, we extended the specific required performance factor “ease of use” used in previous studies to “mission suitability.” As a result, seven categories applicable to the development direction were selected: motion suitability, material func- tionality, dimensional suitability, mission suitability, maintenance, safety, and aesthetics. Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 6 of 20 To investigate crew members’ priorities on the simple category term which could be cross checked with their results when they evaluated them with the subfactors, the crew members were asked to rank the factors from first to third. The numbers of the results were summed up without assigning any weightings. The crew members prioritized these factors in a specific order: motion suitability, material functional - ity, dimensional suitability, mission suitability, maintenance, safety, and aesthetics (Table  2). The tracked vehicle crew members were more concerned about motion suitability, material functionality, and dimensional suitability, than safety and aesthet- ics. They may have given safety a relatively low priority because most had not experi - enced fires directly in military operations or drills, and so did not associate the word “safety” with any real threat. The crew members were more interested in functionality that affected their daily activities—whether the jacket impeded or assisted them in their mission, whether it fit, and whether it had enough or the right kind of pockets— rather than safety, which they could not evaluate based on their day-to-day opera- tions. In addition, the results of items related to the clothing’s shape, size, and ease, such as motion suitability and dimensional suitability, were considered to indicate the importance of design and pattern development when developing a tracked vehicle crew jacket. To set a direction for the development of the protective clothing and to consider usability in terms of factor weightings, we instructed the respondents to evaluate the importance of the required performance subfactors using a 5-point Likert scale. All the subfactors except color (3.59), sense of belonging (3.73), and fancy design (3.38) scored above four points; the respondents considered most subfactors to be impor- tant, and there was little difference in importance across the subfactors (Table 3 ). While previous studies (Cho et al., 2010; Park & Lee, 2007) used the average impor- tance of the subfactors to weight the factors, doing so makes little sense if there is no significant difference in the importance rankings across the subfactors. Hence, an alternative approach might be required to distinguish the degrees of importance. Analysis of required performance factors We conducted a factor analysis of the importance of the various performance subfac- tors’ ranking scale to identify any differences in the perceived importance of func - tionality based on terminological differences for the subfactors. The results (Table  4) itemized seven required performance factors: Factor 1 (16.13), Factor 2 (11.44), Fac- tor 3 (10.60), Factor 4 (9.79), Factor 5 (9.18), Factor 6 (7.37), and Factor 7 (7.29). The Table 2 Crew members’ priorities for the required performance factors (N = 253) Motion Material Dimensional Mission Maintenance Safety Aesthetics suitability functionality suitability suitability 1 110 37 49 20 19 14 4 2 64 69 36 44 22 14 5 3 30 50 38 42 47 24 21 Total 204 156 123 106 88 52 30 Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 7 of 20 Table 3 Crew members’ evaluations of the required performance subfactors (N = 253) No Required performance subfactor Importance No Required performance subfactor Importance 1 Bottom circumference fit 4.17 17 Ease of laundering 4.41 2 Sleeve length fit 4.36 18 Sufficient storage 4.21 3 Cuff circumference fit 4.19 19 Ease of storage 4.50 4 Collar circumference fit 4.18 20 Lightness 4.32 5 Posterior shoulder length fit 4.38 21 Mission environment suitability 4.49 6 Total length fit 4.35 22 Ease of dressing and undressing 4.36 7 Chest circumference fit 4.45 23 Torso joint usability 4.46 8 Fire protection 4.37 24 Shoulder joint usability 4.63 9 Fragment protection 4.26 25 Elbow joint usability 4.73 10 Chemical protection 4.37 26 Neck joint usability 4.45 11 Flame retardance 4.47 27 Color 3.59 12 Camouflage 4.40 28 Sense of belonging 3.73 13 Friction resistance 4.32 29 Fancy design 3.38 14 Water resistance 4.39 30 Ventilation 4.57 15 Integrity 4.23 31 Fast-drying 4.52 16 Stain resistance 4.59 32 Warming 4.73 total common factor variance, representing the explanatory power of the factor analy- sis, was 71.82%. The Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.822 to 0.926 across the factors, dem - onstrating internal consistency. The analysis of the common factors among the subfactors revealed dimensional suitability as Factor 1, safety as Factor 2, maintenance as Factor 3, mission suitability as Factor 4, motion suitability as Factor 5, aesthetics as Factor 6, and material func- tionality as Factor 7. These results demonstrated that the respondents ranked the importance of the required performance factors in the following order: dimensional suitability, safety, maintenance, mission suitability, motion suitability, aesthetics, and material functionality. Dimensional suitability Dimensional suitability ranked higher in importance when we included the subfactors. However, when we presented only the simple terms, motion suitability ranked higher in importance than it had when we included its subfactors. It is possible that the respond- ents did not distinguish dimensional suitability from motion suitability since it is incon- venient to move when the dimensions of a garment do not fit. Consequently, since dimensional suitability can also improve motion suitability, dimensional suitability was considered more important. Furthermore, the crew members ranked the importance of dimensional suitability’s subfactors in the following order: bottom circumference, sleeve length, cuff circumference, collar circumference, posterior shoulder length, total length, and chest circumference. This is consistent with the FGI discussion of the subfactors, where we learned that the current jacket’s bottom circumference and cuff circumfer - ence, which are ribbed, rode up and caused discomfort when the crew members moved during their missions. This reinforced our finding that the crew members considered the Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 8 of 20 Table 4 Results of factor analysis for required performance factors (N = 253) Factor Subfactor Component Common factor Cronbach’s α variance (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Bottom circumference fit 0.837 0.066 0.241 0.144 0.105 0.058 0.018 16.135 0.926 Sleeve length fit 0.835 0.120 0.036 0.057 0.157 0.070 0.118 Cuff circumference fit 0.807 0.132 0.196 0.174 0.127 0.115 0.033 Collar circumference fit 0.781 0.090 0.227 0.149 0.112 0.123 0.082 Posterior shoulder length fit 0.760 0.170 0.117 0.059 0.146 0.144 0.170 Total length fit 0.759 0.053 − 0.003 0.191 0.188 0.110 0.165 Chest circumference fit 0.740 0.105 0.071 0.199 0.164 0.068 0.256 2 Fire protection 0.133 0.878 0.175 0.141 0.016 0.077 0.081 11.440 0.896 Fragment protection 0.136 0.874 0.169 0.145 0.041 0.094 0.014 Chemical protection 0.177 0.850 0.206 0.073 − 0.005 0.139 0.058 Flame retardance 0.070 0.735 0.103 0.092 0.085 0.067 0.340 Camouflage 0.103 0.536 0.336 0.033 0.147 0.161 0.255 3 Friction resistance 0.202 0.173 0.769 0.088 0.103 0.124 0.177 10.606 0.883 Water resistance 0.055 0.204 0.733 0.370 0.044 0.058 0.191 Integrity 0.144 0.341 0.694 0.314 0.102 0.112 0.148 Stain resistance 0.198 0.104 0.689 0.152 0.186 0.112 0.097 Ease of laundering 0.175 0.248 0.661 0.185 0.070 0.130 0.177 4 Sufficient storage 0.165 0.132 0.046 0.788 0.097 0.194 0.033 9.794 0.839 Ease of storage 0.066 0.135 0.243 0.765 0.191 0.056 0.026 Lightness 0.223 0.014 0.194 0.652 0.171 0.026 0.260 Mission environment suitability 0.280 0.096 0.256 0.623 0.190 − 0.001 0.015 Ease of dressing and undressing 0.204 0.161 0.276 0.582 0.289 0.035 0.114 Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 9 of 20 Table 4 (continued) Factor Subfactor Component Common factor Cronbach’s α variance (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 Torso joint usability 0.314 0.091 0.148 0.109 0.790 0.029 0.094 9.182 0.857 Shoulder joint usability 0.175 0.019 0.095 0.339 0.789 − 0.058 0.125 Elbow joint usability 0.198 0.023 0.098 0.264 0.783 − 0.051 0.029 Neck joint usability 0.135 0.059 0.089 0.079 0.760 0.119 0.166 6 Color 0.136 0.156 0.104 0.065 − 0.036 0.857 0.084 7.372 0.844 Sense of belonging 0.137 0.134 0.193 0.056 0.103 0.828 − 0.048 Fancy design 0.170 0.086 0.075 0.109 − 0.015 0.812 0.087 7 Ventilation 0.172 0.132 0.180 0.165 0.123 0.119 0.802 7.295 0.822 Fast-drying 0.188 0.230 0.270 0.109 0.107 0.032 0.773 Warming 0.257 0.160 0.178 0.038 0.162 − 0.014 0.690 Total common factor variance (%) 71.824 - Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 10 of 20 clothing’s dimensional suitability when they thought about what made the current jacket uncomfortable. It also highlighted the need for improvements in that area. Safety The crew members considered safety more important when we included its subfactors (e.g., fire, fragments) in more specific expressions. The subfactors that correlated to the safety factor were ranked in the following order: fire protection, fragments, chemicals, flame retardance, and camouflage. The respondents seemed more sensitive to the word “safety” when it was associated with the subfactors specific to tracked vehicle risks, such as fires and explosions. The fact that the respondents placed “flame retardance” in the safety category rather than the material functionality category suggests that they con- sidered it a critical feature. “Camouflage” probably had a lower correlation with safety because the tracked vehicle crew members are usually inside their vehicles during missions. Maintenance Maintenance also ranked higher when its subfactors were included. They were ranked in the following order of importance: friction resistance, water resistance, integrity, stain resistance, and ease of laundering. Crew members enter tracked vehicles through a narrow hatch, and protruding structures inside the vehicle create a tight, awkward workspace for operations. Moreover, the vehicles easily transfer dirt and oil to the crew members’ clothing during maintenance activities. For this reason, some of the subfactors related to material functionality were also related to maintenance. Mission suitability Mission suitability ranked the same whether the respondents were presented with the primary category name alone or the category with the subfactors. It is noteworthy that they were interested in having adequate and easy-to-access personal storage—pock- ets and the like—since they operate in a confined, dark space in which finding items quickly can be problematic. Furthermore, since the crew members preferred to layer their clothing for temperature variations and wore combat vests during drills, they con- sidered lightweight clothing important. The modifications suggested to fix the current jacket’s disadvantages (e.g., bulging sleeve pockets and a bulky form that snag on the vehicle’s structures) were positively correlated to mission suitability. Ease of dressing and undressing was also correlated to mission suitability since response time is critical for the crew members’ missions. Motion suitability While the crew members considered motion suitability very important when they were presented with the simple category term, they ranked it lower when its subfactors were included. Even so, the factor loadings of the subfactors were all above 0.760, showing Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 11 of 20 that they were highly correlated to motion suitability. Loading shells, one of the most physically demanding operations in the crew members’ missions, requires flexibility for nearly all of the body’s joints; thus, the usability of the torso joint, shoulder joint, elbow joint, and neck joint were all highly correlated to motion suitability. Aesthetics While aesthetics ranked low when the crew members were presented with the simple category term and its subfactors, the subfactors all had a high correlation with aes- thetics (above 0.812). Although color and design are generally considered important elements in aesthetics, the tracked vehicle crew members primarily wanted the visual design to enhance their sense of belonging—a subfactor obtained from the FGI. The crew members pointed out that they were soldiers, and they wanted a clothing design that enhanced their sense of belonging, identity, and pride in being tracked vehicle crew members. Material functionality As with motion suitability, the crew members considered material functionality very important when they were presented with the simple category term, but they ranked it lower when its subfactors were included. Most of the respondents’ seemed to equate material functionality with the clothing’s overall functionality. When the subfactors were included, however, material functionality was highly correlated to ventilation, fast-dry- ing, and warming. This was an anticipated result since the FGI showed that tracked vehi - cle crew sweat a lot during shell loading, one of their primary mission activities, and that the current jacket’s lack of vents made them feel uncomfortable. In addition, it was cold inside the tracked vehicles during winter drills. The above results show that the crew members ranked the factors’ importance differ - ently when they were given just the factor’s category name as opposed to when the sub- factors were included. However, the subfactors were grouped into seven factors obtained from the literature review, and the subfactors’ importance showed higher factor load- ings, meaning that the subfactors effectively explained the factors affecting protective clothing. Furthermore, a high Cronbach’s α demonstrated internal consistency. There - fore, we could conclude that including the subfactors better reflected the respondents’ needs than the factors alone. The crew members’ priorities for the performance factors for protective clothing, as expressed with these factors and subfactors, should be consid- ered in the development and evaluation of protective clothing. Developing a weighting method This study used common factor-variance percentages obtained from factor analysis as a weighting method. Factor loadings represent the size of the covariance that a subfac- tor has with a common factor. Common factor variances can show the percentage of covariance explained by the factor. These were all relevant concepts in this study, and it is to be noted that factor loadings were also used in a previous study (Lee & Sim, Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 12 of 20 2016). However, technically speaking, factor loadings represent the level of correlation between subfactors and a common factor, whereas common factor variances represent the explanatory power of a common factor among all common factors. Accordingly, since the importance of a common factor among all common factors for required per- formance in protective clothing matters in this study, we decided that calculating com- mon factor-variance percentages, rather than the factor loadings, as used in the previous study, would better represent the factor’s explanatory power. In calculating the factor weights, we converted the factors’ total variance percentages into common variance per- centages and standardized them so that the percentages would add up to 100%. We conducted a factor analysis again to obtain the factor loadings for the four factors: dimensional suitability (Factor 1), mission suitability (Factor 2), motion suitability (Fac- tor  3), and aesthetics (Factor  4) (Table  5). To develop the factors that could be used to determine the suitability of the required performance factors in developing protective clothing, we standardized and calculated the factors’ percentages in the total factor load- ing (70.551): 37.19% for dimensional suitability, 23.89% for mission suitability, 21.38% for motion suitability, and 17.52% for aesthetics. Developing a quantitative evaluation system The following flow chart shows a quantitative evaluation system for subjective evaluation (Fig.  2). The evaluation score was based on the ROC reference criteria from a tracked vehicle jacket development project (Samil Spinning Co., Ltd. 2018) of at least 3 points out of 5 points, based on a 5-point Likert scale. There are only criteria for success (above; 60 out of 100) according to the reference criteria, but the criteria developed in this study further presented inadequate criteria which are capable of improvement. However, these criteria may vary depending on the objectives of the evaluation institution. While the explanatory power of the subfactors varied in this study since the different factors had a different number of subfactors, we identified the optimal number of sub - factors for explaining each factor, using factor analysis. Since the factor loading percent- ages were weighted, we divided the sum of the points from each factor’s subfactors by the sum of the maximum points. We did this to remove any influence from the number of subfactors and to prevent the percentages from being weighted redundantly. Since this study was based on a 5-point Likert scale, we calculated the score as shown in Fig. 3, with seven subfactors for dimensional suitability (35 points), five subfactors for mission suitability (25 points), four subfactors for motion suitability (20 points), and three sub- factors for aesthetics (15 points). Finally, we multiplied the scores calculated from E1, E2, E3, and E4 by the weights standardized from the factor loadings. We summed these weighted scores for the four factors into the total score for protective clothing evaluation (E5). Testing a developed evaluation system Testing the evaluation subfactors To test the developed subfactors, we divided the respondents into a reference group (occupational soldiers) and a comparison group (enlisted soldiers) and compared Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 13 of 20 Table 5 Factor analysis on required performance factors (N = 253) Factor Subfactor Component Total common Cronbach’s α Weight out of factor variance 100 1 2 3 4 (%) 1 Sleeve length fit 0.846 0.059 0.185 0.085 26.244 0.926 37.19 Bottom circumference fit 0.842 0.219 0.107 0.083 Cuff circumference fit 0.816 0.247 0.123 0.138 Collar circumference fit 0.794 0.227 0.118 0.150 Posterior shoulder length fit 0.790 0.091 0.178 0.178 Total length fit 0.765 0.231 0.189 0.082 Chest circumference fit 0.761 0.176 0.211 0.105 2 Ease of storage 0.066 0.804 0.188 0.089 16.856 0.839 23.89 Sufficient storage 0.153 0.750 0.097 0.204 Mission environment suitability 0.275 0.716 0.156 0.025 Lightness 0.245 0.685 0.200 0.038 Ease of dressing and undressing 0.223 0.684 0.279 0.073 3 Torso joint usability 0.325 0.155 0.806 0.048 15.088 0.857 21.38 Shoulder joint usability 0.171 0.362 0.792 − 0.054 Neck joint usability 0.150 0.114 0.781 0.132 Elbow joint usability 0.183 0.298 0.772 − 0.050 4 Color usability 0.151 0.100 − 0.026 0.873 12.363 0.844 17.52 Sense of belonging usability 0.135 0.101 0.099 0.854 Fancy design usability 0.180 0.101 0.004 0.819 Total factor loading (%) 70.551 100.00 Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 14 of 20 Dimensional Mission Moon Factor Aesthecs Collar circumference fit Mission environment suitability Neck joint usability Color Subfactor Chest circumference fit Sufficient storage Torso joint usability Sense of belonging Cuff circumference fit Ease of storage Shoulder joint usability Fancy design Posterior shoulder length fit Ease of dressing and undressing Elbow joint usability Sleeve length fit Lightness Total length fit Weight Factor 3weight: 21.38% Factor 4 weight: 17.52% Factor 1 weight: 37.19% Factor 2weight: 23.89% Dimensional suitability Mission suitability Moon suitability Aesthecs Weighted score weighted score weighted score weighted score weighted score Total score Dimensional suitability score + Mission suitability score + Moon suitability score + Aesthecs score Evaluaon <40points40points < 60 points 60 points outcome Fail Inadequate Success Fig. 2 Quantitative evaluation system for subjective evaluation (5-point Likert scale) = x 100 ……………………………………………….. E-1 ( ) = x 100 …………………………………………………. E-2 ( ) = x 100 ………………………………………………….. E-3 ( ) = x 100 ………………………………………………….. E-4 ( ) Total score (out of 100) = Dimensional suitability evaluaon score × 0.3719 + Mission suitability evaluaon score × 0.2389 + Moon suitability evaluaon score × 0.2138 + Aesthecs evaluaon score × 0.1752 …. E-5 Fig. 3 Calculating the total score in quantitative evaluation system their evaluation scores for the current jacket (Table  6). We found no significant dif - ference in the scores at the level of p < 0.05 between the two groups. Hence, the sub- factors were proven to be universally applicable to all tracked vehicle crew members, because the scores were not affected by years of service, level of training, or other group characteristics. Testing application of a developed evaluation system This study incorporated the respondents’ suggestions for required performance factors obtained from the FGI and the questionnaire survey, using them to develop a tracked vehicle jacket. Figure  4 shows the design of the proposed jacket in comparison to the current one. The proposed jacket is safari style, and is longer than the combat uniforms required to be worn. The number of outer pockets has been increased from three to five for sufficient storage, and the existing snap button has been changed to a zipper. In addition, the protruding pouch has been changed to an inner pocket to suit the confined duty space, and the cuffs and hem have been changed to attach with fastener tapes and stoppers. We also designed a functional sleeve pattern in which the direction of shoulder Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 15 of 20 Table 6 Results of an application on the subfactors by two groups (N = 253) Factor Subfactor A B t-value Factor Subfactor A B t-value Dimensional Bottom circum. fit 3.09 (1.03) 2.94 (0.99) − 1.12 Mission suit- Sufficient storage 2.88 (1.07) 3.23 (0.99) 0.88 suitability ability Sleeve length fit 3.02 (1.07) 2.92 (1.03) − 0.72 Ease of storage 2.72 (1.04) 2.97 (1.03) 1.83 Cuff circum. fit 3.16 (0.97) 2.98 (1.02) − 1.32 Lightness 2.93 (1.10) 2.93 (1.04) 0.03 Collar circum. fit 3.23 (0.86) 2.95 (0.96) − 2.30 Mission environment 3.16 (0.99) 3.11 (0.93) − 0.36 suitability Posterior shoulder 3.20 (1.02) 2.91 (1.02) − 2.08 Ease of dressing and 3.56 (1.00) 3.33 (1.03) − 1.61 length fit undressing Total length fit 2.98 (1.06) 2.89 (1.09) − 0.56 Motion suitability Torso joint usability 3.19 (1.04) 2.99 (0.99) − 1.45 Chest circum. fit 3.07 (1.02) 2.97 (1.04) − 0.74 Shoulder joint 3.01 (1.09) 2.81 (1.07) − 1.37 usability Aesthetic Color 3.20 (0.94) 3.42 (0.92) 1.76 Elbow joint usability 3.02 (1.12) 2.77 (1.07) − 1.76 Sense of belonging 2.99 (1.09) 3.35 (1.07) 2.48 Neck joint usability 3.20 (1.13) 2.92 (1.09) − 1.83 Fancy design 3.00 (1.01) 3.09 (0.95) 0.67 – A: Reference group; B: Comparison group; circum.: circumference Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 16 of 20 Current tracked vehicle jacket Proposed tracked vehicle jacket Fig. 4 Jackets for tracked vehicle crew joint during the mission was considered. Four patches, including those depicting the Korean Army and the Taegeukgi, the national flag of Republic of Korea were attached to each jacket to instill a sense of belonging in those who would wear them. To examine whether the factors developed in this study properly reflected a desira - ble development direction, we compared the scores of the factors for the current and the proposed jacket (Table  7). The proposed jacket scored higher on every factor than the current one at p < 0.001, demonstrating that the tracked vehicle crew members were more satisfied with the new design that incorporated their feedback, than with the cur - rent one. The current jacket scored 58.1, and the proposed one scored 87.3; the current one was evaluated as inadequate while the developed one was evaluated as successful. These results showed that the differences in design and pattern between the two jackets had a significant effect on the required performance factors. Hence, the developed evalu - ation system’s applicability was verified by confirmation that the results of the developed factor scores reflected wearers’ satisfaction with the proposed development direction. Conclusions To propose a quantitative evaluation system that could determine the success of devel- oped protective clothing, this study analyzed the required performance factors for a tracked vehicle crew’s jacket obtained from an FGI and a questionnaire survey com- pleted by members on active duty. We developed performance factors and an evaluation system derived from quantitative factors, applied them to the development process of a tracked vehicle jacket, and tested its application. The results are summarized below. The FGI revealed that tracked vehicle crew members had needs related to the jacket’s general usability, such as pockets, vents, and zippers. They also had needs related to their unique work environment, which involves heavy missions conducted in tight quarters and dark spaces. Hence, this study extended the “ease of use” performance factor of pre- vious studies to mission suitability. We established seven performance factors required to develop a tracked vehicle crew jacket, an item of protective clothing worn by tracked vehicle crew members: motion suitability, material functionality, dimensional suitability, mission suitability, maintenance, safety, and aesthetics. Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 17 of 20 Table 7 Comparison of scores in evaluation system for the current and proposed jackets (N = 15) Factor Subfactor Current tracked vehicle jacket Proposed tracked vehicle jacket t-value Points Score Standardized Points Score Standardized score score *** Dimen- 1 Bottom 2.8 55.1 20.5 4.5 85.4 31.8 − 9.5 sional circum. fit suit- 2 Sleeve length 2.7 4.6 ability fit 3 Cuff circum. 2.8 4.5 fit 4 Collar circum. 2.6 4.2 fit 5 Posterior 3.0 4.5 shoulder length fit 6 Total length 3.1 4.5 fit 7 Chest circum. 2.3 3.1 fit Subtotal 19.3 29.9 *** Mission 1 Sufficient 3.1 62.0 14.8 4.8 89.6 21.4 − 8.4 suit- storage ability 2 Ease of stor- 2.7 4.7 age 3 Lightness 3.3 4.3 4 Mission envi- 3.3 4.4 ronment suitability 5 Ease of dress- 3.1 4.2 ing and undressing Subtotal 15.5 22.4 *** Motion 1 Torso joint 3.0 57.5 12.3 4.4 86.0 18.4 − 7.0 suit- usability ability 2 Shoulder 2.9 4.3 joint usability 3 Elbow joint 2.9 4.3 usability 4 Neck joint 2.7 4.2 usability Subtotal 11.5 17.2 *** Aesthet- 1 Color 2.9 60.0 10.5 4.7 89.8 15.7 − 8.9 ics 2 Sense of 3.2 4.2 belonging 3 Fancy design 2.9 4.6 Subtotal 9.0 13.5 *** Total – 234.6 58.1 – 350.8 87.3 − 10.7 Total evaluation score for the current tracked vehicle jacket = 55.1 × 0.3719 + 62.0 × 0.2389 + 57.5 × 0.2138 + 60.0 × 0.1752 = 58.1 Total evaluation score for the newly developed tracked vehicle jacket = 85.4 × 0.3719 + 89.6 × 0.2389 + 86.0 × 0.2138 + 89.8 × 0.1752 = 87.3 circum.: circumference *** p < 0.001 Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 18 of 20 Previous studies used the average importance of the subfactors to distinguish the fac- tors’ importance. However, there was no difference in the tracked vehicle crew members’ evaluations of the importance of the subfactors in this study. Therefore, we added sub - factors in our factor analysis and compared common factor variance for the importance of each common factor among all common factors. Our results revealed differences in the importance rankings: Factor 1 was dimensional suitability, Factor 2 was safety, Factor 3 was maintenance, Factor 4 was mission suitability, Factor 5 was motion suitability, Fac- tor 6 was aesthetics, and Factor 7 was material functionality. Those results, including the subfactors, showed high factor loadings and Cronbach’s α, demonstrating validity and internal consistency. Thus, we concluded that including the subfactors better reflected the respondents’ needs than the factors alone, and they were used for development and evaluation, accordingly. To develop a quantitative evaluation system, we re-conducted the factor analysis on the four factors where subjective evaluation was the main criterion for evaluation (dimensional suitability, mission suitability, motion suitability, and aesthetics). Com- mon factor-variance percentages were proposed in the total factor loading (70.551) as a weighting method: 37.19% for dimensional suitability, 23.89% for mission suitability, 21.38% for motion suitability, and 17.52% for aesthetics. This study used these percent - ages as weightings and proposed an equation that calculated the evaluation score out of 100: Total score(out of 100) = Dimensional suitability evaluation score × 0.3719 + Mission suitability evaluation score × 0.2389 + Motion suitability evaluation score × 0.2138 + Aesthetics evaluation score × 0.1752 In the results of testing the application of the developed subfactors and evaluation system, there were no significant differences in the evaluations of the current jacket by the reference group (occupational soldiers serving for at least six years) and the com- parison group (enlisted soldiers), which proved the subfactors’ universal application. In addition, the proposed jacket scores for each of the factors were different from those of the current jacket at p < 0.001, demonstrating that their differences in design and pattern affected the required performance factors significantly. Hence, the developed evaluation system’s applicability was verified by confirmation that the results of the developed fac - tor scores reflected wearers’ satisfaction for the appropriate development direction. This study’s major contribution is that it incorporated wearers’ subjective evaluations using a new method of weighting, It developed a comprehensive and quantitative evalu- ation system that has not existed before for protective clothing design. In addition, the system’s application was verified by the assessment of subfactors by active-duty soldiers, and confirmed that the results of the developed factor scores reflected the appropriate development direction. However, this study focused on one wearer group (tracked vehi- cle crew members in Korea) and their unique work environment. Therefore, the results are not generalizable to all other soldiers with different mission environments and types. Studies should therefore be conducted with other soldiers (e.g., those with different work environments and mission types) and possibly with other clothing items (e.g., extreme cold weather uniforms and protective vests) for further verification. Furthermore, since Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 19 of 20 there are many different types of protective clothing, such as chemical, fire, and medi - cal protective clothing, it may be necessary to develop different evaluation systems in accordance with varied protective clothing’s purposes. Nevertheless, the quantitative evaluation system and development process proposed in this study may be referenced and widely used since they were developed on the basis of a Likert scale, which is com- monly used as a subjective sensory evaluation tool. Declarations Availability of data and materials The data sets used and analyzed in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This work was supported by the Defense Agency for Technology and Quality (DTaQ) grant funded by the Ministry of National Defense (Civil and Military Technology Cooperation Project No. 18-force support-01). Authors’ Contributions HEC and YR collected and analyzed the data and HEC have drafted the work. KC proposed and designed of the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements We would like to express our gratitude to the assistance of military personnel, especially the participating tracked vehicle crew members for their cooperation. Ethics approval and consent to participate This research was conducted under the approval and supervision of the Public Institutional Bioethics Committee desig- nated by the Ministry of Health and Welfare (IRB Approval No.: P01-201908-23-007, P01-202002-13-001) regarding ethical issues including consent to participate. Authors’ information Hee Eun Choi, Professor, Dept. of Textiles, Merchandising, and Fashion Design/Research Institute of Human Ecology, College of Human Ecology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.Youngshil Ryoo, Public servant of Grade 6, Headquarters Republic of Korea Marine Corps, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.Kuengmi Choi, Professor, Dept. of Fashion Design, Dong Seoul University, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. Author details Professor, Dept. of Textiles, Merchandising, and Fashion Design/Research Institute of Human Ecology, College of Human Ecology, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea. Public servant of Grade 6, Headquarters Republic of Korea Marine Corps, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. Professor, Dept. of Fashion Design, Dong Seoul University, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. Received: 4 April 2021 Accepted: 13 July 2021 References Ashdown, S. P., & Watkins, S. M. (1996). Concurrent engineering in the design of protective clothing: Interfacing with equipment design in performance of protective clothing. In J. Johnson and S. Mansdorf (Eds.), Performance of protective clothing, vol. 5 (pp. 471–485). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1520/ STP14 087S. ASTM International. (2018) ASTM F1154-18: Standard practices for evaluating the comfort, fit, function, and durability of protective ensembles, ensemble elements, and other components. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1520/ F1154- 18. Cho, J. Y., Jeong, J. R., Yeon, S. M., Chang, J. H., You, H. C., & Kim, H. E. (2008). Cost-effectiveness analysis for clothing design improvement using ergonomic methods: Evaluation of flame-proof clothing and design optimization. Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 27(4), 45–58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5143/ JESK. 2008. 27.4. 045. Cho, H. J., Lee, H. T., SaGong, J. H., & Ra, J. H. (2010). Development and application of an evaluation model for biotope appraisal as related to nature experiences and recreation. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture, 38(4), 11–24. http:// uci. kci. go. kr/ resol ution/ result. do? res_ cd= G704- 000407. 2010. 38.4. 010. Choi, H. E. (2020). Development of ergonomic jacket patterns for the Korean army’s tracked vehicle crew. [Unpublished doc- toral dissertation]. Seoul: Seoul National University. Choi, J. H., & Kim, M. J. (2011). Clothing & health. Paju: Kyomunsa. Gupta, D. (2011). Design and engineering of functional clothing. Indian Journal of Fibre and Textile Research, 36(4), 327–335. http:// nopr. nisca ir. res. in/ handle/ 12345 6789/ 13226. Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 20 of 20 Han, H. S., Han, H. J., Cho, J. Y., & Koh, J. S. (2016). Satisfaction on fitness and motion suitability of Korean male military winter jacket. Fashion and Textile Research Journal, 18(5), 685–694. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5805/ SFTI. 2016. 18.5. Hong, S. A. (2004). Application of standards & evaluation for the development of protective clothing systems. Journal of Korean Living Environment System, 11(1), 1–14. Huck, J., & Kim, Y. (1997). Coveralls for grass fire fighting. International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 9(5), 346–359. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 09556 22971 01854 97. Im, Y. J. (2017). A study on inducing process of critical design factors for enhancing customer satisfaction. Korean Society for Quality Management, 45(4), 717–737. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7469/ JKSQM. 2017. 45.4. 717. Jeon, E. J. (2011). Designing of ergonomic flight suit through developing pattern and size systematization [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Daegu: Kyungpook National University. Jeong, M. A. (2014). Development of a pattern for military winter uniform tops considering size and motion appropriateness [Unpublished master’s dissertation]. Seoul: Seoul National University. Jung, K. T. (2007). Expert evaluation method for the suitability of universal design. Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 26(4), 57–64. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5143/ JESK. 2007. 26.4. 057. Lee, J. H. (2012). Development of evaluation standards and a pattern for combat uniforms according to combat training motions [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Seoul: Seoul National University. Lee, A. L. (2016). Development of a ROKAF fighter pilot’s flight duty uniform [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Seoul: Seoul National University. Lee, K. W., & Sim, S. Y. (2016). A study on an evaluation system by factor loadings. Journal of the Korean Data and Informa- tion Science Society, 27(5), 1285–1291. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7465/ jkdi. 2016. 27.5. 1285. Lee, S. J., Choi, Y. L., & Nam, Y. J. (2012). Development and evaluation of air force mechanic parka to enhance the functions and insulation. Fashion and Textile Research Journal, 14(2), 294–303. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5805/ KSCI. 2012. 14.2. 294. Lim, H. J. (2003). A study on the functional improvement of work clothing for aircraft mechanic [Unpublished master’s dis- sertation]. Seoul: Ewha Womans University. Park, H. S., & Lee, M. R. (2007). Application of quality function deployment to ergonomic design of a plier. Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 26(4), 85–90. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5143/ JESK. 2007. 26.4. 085 Rosenblad-Wallin, E. (1985). User-oriented product development applied to functional clothing design. Applied Ergonom- ics, 16(4), 279–287. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0003- 6870(85) 90092-4. Samil Spinning Co., Ltd. (2018). Flame resistant jumper for tracked vehicle pilots and crew. Daegu: Author. Tan, Y. B., Crown, E. M., & Capjack, L. (1998). Design and evaluation of thermal protective flightsuits. Part I: The design process and prototype development. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 16(1), 47–55. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08873 02X98 01600 106. Wiernicki, C. (1992). Protective clothing program management. In J. McBriarty and N. Henry (Eds.), Performance of protec- tive clothing, vol. 4 (pp. 857–866). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1520/ STP19 213S. Yoo, B. H. (2013). A study on the evaluation system of public design based on sustainability. Journal of Digital Design, 13(2), 93–102. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17280/ jdd. 2013. 13.2. 010. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Fashion and Textiles Springer Journals

Development of a quantitative system for subjective evaluation of tracked vehicle crew jackets

Download PDF
20 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/development-of-a-quantitative-system-for-subjective-evaluation-of-PeOUkrodRp

References (31)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2022
eISSN
2198-0802
DOI
10.1186/s40691-021-00274-5
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

heeeun.choi@snu.ac.kr Professor, Dept. of Textiles, The purpose of this study is to develop a quantitative evaluation system that reflects Merchandising, and Fashion the required performance factors that are important for a tracked vehicle crew jacket. Design/Research Institute of Human Ecology, College We identified and analyzed the necessary performance factors obtained from a focus of Human Ecology, Seoul group interview and a questionnaire survey. Further, we proposed a new method National University, 1 of calculating weights and developed a quantitative evaluation system. This system Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Republic featured an equation that calculated the evaluation score out of 100, using the factors’ of Korea percentages in the total factor as factor weights. The system’s application was verified Full list of author information by the assessment of subfactors by active-duty soldiers, and by confirmation that the is available at the end of the article results of the developed factor scores reflected the proposed development direction. The study is significant for its provision of a comprehensive and quantitative evalua- tion system which has not existed before for protective clothing design, as well as for the verification of the system’s application through the process of protective cloth- ing development. The quantitative evaluation system and its development process described in this study may be referenced and widely deployed due to its use of a Likert scale, which is commonly used as a subjective sensory evaluation tool. Keywords: Protective clothing, Tracked vehicle crew jacket, Quantitative evaluation system, Likert scale, Performance factors Introduction The systematic design of protective clothing requires careful consideration of various production, evaluation, and maintenance factors, and designers should consider a wide range of human factors including sizing and fit, ease of donning and doffing, comfort, and function (Ashdown and Watkins, 1996). KS K ISO 13688 (Korean Agency for Tech- nology and Standards 2021) defined protective clothing’s general performance require - ments for ergonomics, innocuousness and comfort, and ASTM F1154-18 (ASTM International, 2018) contains standard practices for evaluating the comfort, fit, func - tion, and durability of protective ensembles. Rosenblad-Wallin (1985) emphasized that the objective of functional clothing can be divided into functional and symbolic values, which must be considered for user-oriented product development. However, designing © The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate- rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 2 of 20 protective clothing that optimally satisfies all these conditions can be challenging, as some factors conflict with others (Hong, 2004). To identify potential conflicts, it is neces - sary to identify those factors that are required by wearers and whether protective cloth- ing developed against particular design criteria is suitable for its target functionality. Furthermore, it is necessary to evaluate whether protective clothing is developed suit- ably for the required performance following successful product development. Wear- ers’ subjective evaluations of comfort are essential during the clothing design process to ensure customer satisfaction, and it is common to adopt Likert scales to quantify essentially subjective evaluations. Most previous studies on the development of military clothing have focused on dimensional suitability and motion suitability, measuring such attributes as a wearers’ subjective sensations for different clothing parts, using Likert- style rating scales (Han et  al., 2016; Jeong, 2014; Lee, 2012; Lee et  al., 2012). However, when critical design decisions must be made in the final development stages, it would help to be able to translate those subjective Likert-scale evaluations into quantitative fac- tors that can be presented as objective numbers. Lee and Sim (2016) proposed a method to use the factor loadings based on a Likert scale as weights for the evaluation system to enhance the utilization of the evaluation system. The study of Cho et  al. (2008) on the evaluation and optimal design of protective clothing presented quantitative numbers for the ergonomic cost-effectiveness of their proposed flame‐proof clothing. However, they could not incorporate improvement percentages for the required performance factors. The tracked vehicle crew’s jacket is part of a protective duty uniform that protects tracked vehicle crew from flames and should be functionally suitable for performing high-intensity missions in extreme winter temperatures and restricted internal envi- ronments. However, the current tracked crew jacket’s material lacked flame retardance, camouflage, warmth, pockets, and adequate clothing size, and its jumper style required improvement in design and pattern (Choi, 2020). Therefore, the tracked vehicle crew’s jacket has been developed through a tracked vehicle jacket development project (Samil Spinning Co., Ltd., 2018) from July 2018 to June 2021 (3 years). At present, its develop- ment is currently being evaluated to determine its improvements for required perfor- mance as quantitative factors for a final decision of success. Previous studies using quantitative factors in design and evaluations have mostly focused on environmental design, the process of addressing surrounding environmental parameters (Cho et  al., 2010; Yoo, 2013), and industrial design, the process of design applied to products that are to be manufactured by mass production (Im, 2017; Jung, 2007; Park & Lee, 2007). However, these studies have proposed design and evaluation factors without verifying whether the required factors were reflected in the product development stage. Furthermore, although the studies presented quantified data, the researchers and experts collected subjective data, with the experts’ evaluation scores used as factor weights. Consequently, their evaluation systems failed to incorporate wearers’ evaluations of the functional components they valued most. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a quantitative evaluation system that reflects the required performance factors that are important for a tracked vehi - cle crew jacket. To develop a quantitative evaluation system, this study analyzed the required performance factors for protective clothing using data obtained from a focus group interview (FGI) and a questionnaire survey completed by active-duty members. Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 3 of 20 We proposed a new method of calculation of weights and an evaluation system derived from quantitative factors and tested their application on the development of a tracked vehicle crew jacket. Methods Identifying the required performance factors To identify the required performance factors for the development of a tracked vehicle jacket, we referenced and modified a table on such factors developed by Lee (2016) and Choi (2020), which summarized previous studies on protective clothing (Ashdown & Watkins, 1996; Choi & Kim, 2011; Gupta, 2011; Huck & Kim, 1997; Jeon, 2011; Jeong, 2014; Lee, 2012; Lee et  al., 2012; Lim, 2003; Rosenblad-Wallin, 1985; Tan et  al., 1998; Wiernicki, 1992). We also conducted an FGI with 16 tracked vehicle crew members on active duty during August 2019 to ask for feedback on their current on-duty clothing. Using information gained during the FGI along with a review of previous research on protective clothing, we identified relevant factors and subfactors. Setting required performance factors and subfactors Between August 19 and September 26, 2019, we asked 253 tracked vehicle active crew members to complete the final version of our questionnaire, which included the subfac - tors. All respondents had worn a tracked vehicle jacket before. We asked them to rank, using a 5-point Likert scale, the importance of various required performance factors for protective clothing that we had identified from the FGI and a literature review. We conducted a factor analysis to examine the relevance of the subfactors and factors. Initially, we had 37 subfactors. However, we removed five subfactors that had low fac - tor values (e.g., “It must be comfortable to move my joints,” “The structure of protective clothing should be efficient for carrying out a mission,” and “The functionality of materi - als must be good”) to increase the total factor loading. This left us with 32 subfactors as design and evaluation criteria. Developing a weighting method We set seven essential factor categories for a tracked vehicle crew member’s jacket design. Of these, safety, maintenance, and material functionality (three factors) could be measured using national and international standards already in place. Thus, these fac - tors are usually evaluated using experts’ evaluations and specifications rather than the wearers’ evaluations. For this reason, we focused on dimensional suitability, mission suitability, motion suitability, and aesthetics (four factors) that the wearers were better positioned to evaluate in a timely fashion. Therefore, we selected four required perfor - mance factors and conducted a factor analysis again to ensure that each weight applied to developing a quantitative evaluation system. Developing a quantitative evaluation system To develop a quantitative evaluation system, we calculated the final four factors’ equa - tion with subfactors’ points, and each factors’ weight. We referenced and supplemented Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 4 of 20 Required Operational Capability (ROC) criteria from a tracked vehicle jacket develop- ment project to determine whether it was successful or not. Testing  a developed evaluation system The reliability and validity of each subfactor had already been statistically demonstrated through factor analysis. Therefore, we tested the developed subfactors and the evalua - tion system in terms of its application. To test the developed subfactors’ application, we divided the respondents into two groups: a control group of 81 occupational soldiers (soldiers with specific training and duties) who had worn the current tracked vehicle jacket for at least six years, and a comparison group of 172 enlisted soldiers who had worn the jacket for up to two years. We compared the two groups’ evaluation scores of the current jacket that proved to be universally applicable to all those not affected by years of service or level of training. In addition, we asked 15 of the 16 tracked vehicle crew members who had participated in the earlier development of protective clothing to evaluate the current and proposed jackets. They ranked their responses to the subfactors obtained from the factor analysis using the 5-point Likert scale. We then compared the differences in their scores reflect - ing improvements in design and pattern to test the application of the developed evalua- tion system. Figure 1 shows a flow chart for the evaluation system development process. Results and discussion Identifying required performance factors Different researchers have used different terminologies to describe the required perfor - mance factors for protective clothing. For this study, we organized and divided terms with similar meanings into seven main headings: motion suitability, dimensional suit- ability, ease of use, aesthetics, safety, material functionality, and maintenance (Table 1). The FGI showed that tracked vehicle crew members worked in tight, confined spaces, with protruding structures and equipment that could easily snag loose clothing. The Idenfying Previous study Required Performance Factors FGI : 16 tracked vehicle crew Survey : 253 tracked vehicle crew Se�n g First factor analysis(Seven factors) Factors & Subfactors Developing Second factor analysis Weighng Method (Four factors) Developing Developing weighted equaon E valuaon System (out of 100) Tesng developed subfactors(two groups) Tesng Evaluaon System  Tesng applicability of evaluaon system Fig. 1 A flow chart for the evaluation system development process Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 5 of 20 Table 1 Seven performance factor category definitions for protective clothing Performance requirement Definition Terminologies used in previous studies Motion suitability Clothing does not interfere with activi- Clothing mobility, task mobility, mobility, ties and allows adequate range of comfort, motion fitness, ergonomic motion consideration, changes in relationships between body parts as the body moves Dimensional suitability Clothing fits or adjusts to fit different Sizing and fit, fit, shape fitness, fitness, body sizes and shapes to accommo- ease, relationship of body parts to one date the mission environment and another and to garments motion Ease of use Clothing components such as fasten- Task visibility, dexterity, task dexterity, ers, pockets, vents, and zippers are usability, functional, functional require- easy to use ment, functional value, ease of donning and doffing, ergonomic consideration, ease of attaching and detaching inner and outer layers Aesthetics Clothing’s visual appearance has a Psychological satisfaction, symbolic psychologically positive effect on the values, psychological requirement, wearer psychological, appearance satisfaction, aesthetic Safety Clothing protects the wearer from Protection, innocuousness, sanitation, external risks and has no inherently safety, fire safety, protect the user from dangerous features or properties task hazard, create no additional safety or health concerns Material functionality Clothing materials keep the wearer Physiological, biomechanical, physi- comfortably warm and dry ological comfort, heat and moisture transport, comfortable environment, insulation, thermal protection, fabric suitability, function of fabric Maintenance Clothing is durable and easy to keep Durability, ease of handling, cleanability, clean and tidy ease of maintenance, production spaces inside some tracked vehicles were not temperature-controlled. Most of the crew members’ motions during a mission involved upper-body movement. Many respondents had negative comments about the current jacket, among which were the following: the cuffs at the waist and wrists tended to ride up, which felt uncomfortable; there were not enough pockets; the pockets had snaps that were difficult to use; and the jackets stained and snagged easily during operational and maintenance activities. They also commented that the current jackets did not give them a “sense of belonging as a member of the tracked vehicle crew.” Setting required performance factors and subfactors We organized respondents’ feedback into the required performance factor categories to set a direction for the development of the protective clothing. The focus group had many comments and requests that reflected their unique work environments and missions. For example, they wanted clothing components that were more practical and usable (e.g., pockets, vents, and zippers); greater comfort in confined mission environments; and lighter clothing. Therefore, we extended the specific required performance factor “ease of use” used in previous studies to “mission suitability.” As a result, seven categories applicable to the development direction were selected: motion suitability, material func- tionality, dimensional suitability, mission suitability, maintenance, safety, and aesthetics. Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 6 of 20 To investigate crew members’ priorities on the simple category term which could be cross checked with their results when they evaluated them with the subfactors, the crew members were asked to rank the factors from first to third. The numbers of the results were summed up without assigning any weightings. The crew members prioritized these factors in a specific order: motion suitability, material functional - ity, dimensional suitability, mission suitability, maintenance, safety, and aesthetics (Table  2). The tracked vehicle crew members were more concerned about motion suitability, material functionality, and dimensional suitability, than safety and aesthet- ics. They may have given safety a relatively low priority because most had not experi - enced fires directly in military operations or drills, and so did not associate the word “safety” with any real threat. The crew members were more interested in functionality that affected their daily activities—whether the jacket impeded or assisted them in their mission, whether it fit, and whether it had enough or the right kind of pockets— rather than safety, which they could not evaluate based on their day-to-day opera- tions. In addition, the results of items related to the clothing’s shape, size, and ease, such as motion suitability and dimensional suitability, were considered to indicate the importance of design and pattern development when developing a tracked vehicle crew jacket. To set a direction for the development of the protective clothing and to consider usability in terms of factor weightings, we instructed the respondents to evaluate the importance of the required performance subfactors using a 5-point Likert scale. All the subfactors except color (3.59), sense of belonging (3.73), and fancy design (3.38) scored above four points; the respondents considered most subfactors to be impor- tant, and there was little difference in importance across the subfactors (Table 3 ). While previous studies (Cho et al., 2010; Park & Lee, 2007) used the average impor- tance of the subfactors to weight the factors, doing so makes little sense if there is no significant difference in the importance rankings across the subfactors. Hence, an alternative approach might be required to distinguish the degrees of importance. Analysis of required performance factors We conducted a factor analysis of the importance of the various performance subfac- tors’ ranking scale to identify any differences in the perceived importance of func - tionality based on terminological differences for the subfactors. The results (Table  4) itemized seven required performance factors: Factor 1 (16.13), Factor 2 (11.44), Fac- tor 3 (10.60), Factor 4 (9.79), Factor 5 (9.18), Factor 6 (7.37), and Factor 7 (7.29). The Table 2 Crew members’ priorities for the required performance factors (N = 253) Motion Material Dimensional Mission Maintenance Safety Aesthetics suitability functionality suitability suitability 1 110 37 49 20 19 14 4 2 64 69 36 44 22 14 5 3 30 50 38 42 47 24 21 Total 204 156 123 106 88 52 30 Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 7 of 20 Table 3 Crew members’ evaluations of the required performance subfactors (N = 253) No Required performance subfactor Importance No Required performance subfactor Importance 1 Bottom circumference fit 4.17 17 Ease of laundering 4.41 2 Sleeve length fit 4.36 18 Sufficient storage 4.21 3 Cuff circumference fit 4.19 19 Ease of storage 4.50 4 Collar circumference fit 4.18 20 Lightness 4.32 5 Posterior shoulder length fit 4.38 21 Mission environment suitability 4.49 6 Total length fit 4.35 22 Ease of dressing and undressing 4.36 7 Chest circumference fit 4.45 23 Torso joint usability 4.46 8 Fire protection 4.37 24 Shoulder joint usability 4.63 9 Fragment protection 4.26 25 Elbow joint usability 4.73 10 Chemical protection 4.37 26 Neck joint usability 4.45 11 Flame retardance 4.47 27 Color 3.59 12 Camouflage 4.40 28 Sense of belonging 3.73 13 Friction resistance 4.32 29 Fancy design 3.38 14 Water resistance 4.39 30 Ventilation 4.57 15 Integrity 4.23 31 Fast-drying 4.52 16 Stain resistance 4.59 32 Warming 4.73 total common factor variance, representing the explanatory power of the factor analy- sis, was 71.82%. The Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.822 to 0.926 across the factors, dem - onstrating internal consistency. The analysis of the common factors among the subfactors revealed dimensional suitability as Factor 1, safety as Factor 2, maintenance as Factor 3, mission suitability as Factor 4, motion suitability as Factor 5, aesthetics as Factor 6, and material func- tionality as Factor 7. These results demonstrated that the respondents ranked the importance of the required performance factors in the following order: dimensional suitability, safety, maintenance, mission suitability, motion suitability, aesthetics, and material functionality. Dimensional suitability Dimensional suitability ranked higher in importance when we included the subfactors. However, when we presented only the simple terms, motion suitability ranked higher in importance than it had when we included its subfactors. It is possible that the respond- ents did not distinguish dimensional suitability from motion suitability since it is incon- venient to move when the dimensions of a garment do not fit. Consequently, since dimensional suitability can also improve motion suitability, dimensional suitability was considered more important. Furthermore, the crew members ranked the importance of dimensional suitability’s subfactors in the following order: bottom circumference, sleeve length, cuff circumference, collar circumference, posterior shoulder length, total length, and chest circumference. This is consistent with the FGI discussion of the subfactors, where we learned that the current jacket’s bottom circumference and cuff circumfer - ence, which are ribbed, rode up and caused discomfort when the crew members moved during their missions. This reinforced our finding that the crew members considered the Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 8 of 20 Table 4 Results of factor analysis for required performance factors (N = 253) Factor Subfactor Component Common factor Cronbach’s α variance (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Bottom circumference fit 0.837 0.066 0.241 0.144 0.105 0.058 0.018 16.135 0.926 Sleeve length fit 0.835 0.120 0.036 0.057 0.157 0.070 0.118 Cuff circumference fit 0.807 0.132 0.196 0.174 0.127 0.115 0.033 Collar circumference fit 0.781 0.090 0.227 0.149 0.112 0.123 0.082 Posterior shoulder length fit 0.760 0.170 0.117 0.059 0.146 0.144 0.170 Total length fit 0.759 0.053 − 0.003 0.191 0.188 0.110 0.165 Chest circumference fit 0.740 0.105 0.071 0.199 0.164 0.068 0.256 2 Fire protection 0.133 0.878 0.175 0.141 0.016 0.077 0.081 11.440 0.896 Fragment protection 0.136 0.874 0.169 0.145 0.041 0.094 0.014 Chemical protection 0.177 0.850 0.206 0.073 − 0.005 0.139 0.058 Flame retardance 0.070 0.735 0.103 0.092 0.085 0.067 0.340 Camouflage 0.103 0.536 0.336 0.033 0.147 0.161 0.255 3 Friction resistance 0.202 0.173 0.769 0.088 0.103 0.124 0.177 10.606 0.883 Water resistance 0.055 0.204 0.733 0.370 0.044 0.058 0.191 Integrity 0.144 0.341 0.694 0.314 0.102 0.112 0.148 Stain resistance 0.198 0.104 0.689 0.152 0.186 0.112 0.097 Ease of laundering 0.175 0.248 0.661 0.185 0.070 0.130 0.177 4 Sufficient storage 0.165 0.132 0.046 0.788 0.097 0.194 0.033 9.794 0.839 Ease of storage 0.066 0.135 0.243 0.765 0.191 0.056 0.026 Lightness 0.223 0.014 0.194 0.652 0.171 0.026 0.260 Mission environment suitability 0.280 0.096 0.256 0.623 0.190 − 0.001 0.015 Ease of dressing and undressing 0.204 0.161 0.276 0.582 0.289 0.035 0.114 Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 9 of 20 Table 4 (continued) Factor Subfactor Component Common factor Cronbach’s α variance (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 Torso joint usability 0.314 0.091 0.148 0.109 0.790 0.029 0.094 9.182 0.857 Shoulder joint usability 0.175 0.019 0.095 0.339 0.789 − 0.058 0.125 Elbow joint usability 0.198 0.023 0.098 0.264 0.783 − 0.051 0.029 Neck joint usability 0.135 0.059 0.089 0.079 0.760 0.119 0.166 6 Color 0.136 0.156 0.104 0.065 − 0.036 0.857 0.084 7.372 0.844 Sense of belonging 0.137 0.134 0.193 0.056 0.103 0.828 − 0.048 Fancy design 0.170 0.086 0.075 0.109 − 0.015 0.812 0.087 7 Ventilation 0.172 0.132 0.180 0.165 0.123 0.119 0.802 7.295 0.822 Fast-drying 0.188 0.230 0.270 0.109 0.107 0.032 0.773 Warming 0.257 0.160 0.178 0.038 0.162 − 0.014 0.690 Total common factor variance (%) 71.824 - Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 10 of 20 clothing’s dimensional suitability when they thought about what made the current jacket uncomfortable. It also highlighted the need for improvements in that area. Safety The crew members considered safety more important when we included its subfactors (e.g., fire, fragments) in more specific expressions. The subfactors that correlated to the safety factor were ranked in the following order: fire protection, fragments, chemicals, flame retardance, and camouflage. The respondents seemed more sensitive to the word “safety” when it was associated with the subfactors specific to tracked vehicle risks, such as fires and explosions. The fact that the respondents placed “flame retardance” in the safety category rather than the material functionality category suggests that they con- sidered it a critical feature. “Camouflage” probably had a lower correlation with safety because the tracked vehicle crew members are usually inside their vehicles during missions. Maintenance Maintenance also ranked higher when its subfactors were included. They were ranked in the following order of importance: friction resistance, water resistance, integrity, stain resistance, and ease of laundering. Crew members enter tracked vehicles through a narrow hatch, and protruding structures inside the vehicle create a tight, awkward workspace for operations. Moreover, the vehicles easily transfer dirt and oil to the crew members’ clothing during maintenance activities. For this reason, some of the subfactors related to material functionality were also related to maintenance. Mission suitability Mission suitability ranked the same whether the respondents were presented with the primary category name alone or the category with the subfactors. It is noteworthy that they were interested in having adequate and easy-to-access personal storage—pock- ets and the like—since they operate in a confined, dark space in which finding items quickly can be problematic. Furthermore, since the crew members preferred to layer their clothing for temperature variations and wore combat vests during drills, they con- sidered lightweight clothing important. The modifications suggested to fix the current jacket’s disadvantages (e.g., bulging sleeve pockets and a bulky form that snag on the vehicle’s structures) were positively correlated to mission suitability. Ease of dressing and undressing was also correlated to mission suitability since response time is critical for the crew members’ missions. Motion suitability While the crew members considered motion suitability very important when they were presented with the simple category term, they ranked it lower when its subfactors were included. Even so, the factor loadings of the subfactors were all above 0.760, showing Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 11 of 20 that they were highly correlated to motion suitability. Loading shells, one of the most physically demanding operations in the crew members’ missions, requires flexibility for nearly all of the body’s joints; thus, the usability of the torso joint, shoulder joint, elbow joint, and neck joint were all highly correlated to motion suitability. Aesthetics While aesthetics ranked low when the crew members were presented with the simple category term and its subfactors, the subfactors all had a high correlation with aes- thetics (above 0.812). Although color and design are generally considered important elements in aesthetics, the tracked vehicle crew members primarily wanted the visual design to enhance their sense of belonging—a subfactor obtained from the FGI. The crew members pointed out that they were soldiers, and they wanted a clothing design that enhanced their sense of belonging, identity, and pride in being tracked vehicle crew members. Material functionality As with motion suitability, the crew members considered material functionality very important when they were presented with the simple category term, but they ranked it lower when its subfactors were included. Most of the respondents’ seemed to equate material functionality with the clothing’s overall functionality. When the subfactors were included, however, material functionality was highly correlated to ventilation, fast-dry- ing, and warming. This was an anticipated result since the FGI showed that tracked vehi - cle crew sweat a lot during shell loading, one of their primary mission activities, and that the current jacket’s lack of vents made them feel uncomfortable. In addition, it was cold inside the tracked vehicles during winter drills. The above results show that the crew members ranked the factors’ importance differ - ently when they were given just the factor’s category name as opposed to when the sub- factors were included. However, the subfactors were grouped into seven factors obtained from the literature review, and the subfactors’ importance showed higher factor load- ings, meaning that the subfactors effectively explained the factors affecting protective clothing. Furthermore, a high Cronbach’s α demonstrated internal consistency. There - fore, we could conclude that including the subfactors better reflected the respondents’ needs than the factors alone. The crew members’ priorities for the performance factors for protective clothing, as expressed with these factors and subfactors, should be consid- ered in the development and evaluation of protective clothing. Developing a weighting method This study used common factor-variance percentages obtained from factor analysis as a weighting method. Factor loadings represent the size of the covariance that a subfac- tor has with a common factor. Common factor variances can show the percentage of covariance explained by the factor. These were all relevant concepts in this study, and it is to be noted that factor loadings were also used in a previous study (Lee & Sim, Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 12 of 20 2016). However, technically speaking, factor loadings represent the level of correlation between subfactors and a common factor, whereas common factor variances represent the explanatory power of a common factor among all common factors. Accordingly, since the importance of a common factor among all common factors for required per- formance in protective clothing matters in this study, we decided that calculating com- mon factor-variance percentages, rather than the factor loadings, as used in the previous study, would better represent the factor’s explanatory power. In calculating the factor weights, we converted the factors’ total variance percentages into common variance per- centages and standardized them so that the percentages would add up to 100%. We conducted a factor analysis again to obtain the factor loadings for the four factors: dimensional suitability (Factor 1), mission suitability (Factor 2), motion suitability (Fac- tor  3), and aesthetics (Factor  4) (Table  5). To develop the factors that could be used to determine the suitability of the required performance factors in developing protective clothing, we standardized and calculated the factors’ percentages in the total factor load- ing (70.551): 37.19% for dimensional suitability, 23.89% for mission suitability, 21.38% for motion suitability, and 17.52% for aesthetics. Developing a quantitative evaluation system The following flow chart shows a quantitative evaluation system for subjective evaluation (Fig.  2). The evaluation score was based on the ROC reference criteria from a tracked vehicle jacket development project (Samil Spinning Co., Ltd. 2018) of at least 3 points out of 5 points, based on a 5-point Likert scale. There are only criteria for success (above; 60 out of 100) according to the reference criteria, but the criteria developed in this study further presented inadequate criteria which are capable of improvement. However, these criteria may vary depending on the objectives of the evaluation institution. While the explanatory power of the subfactors varied in this study since the different factors had a different number of subfactors, we identified the optimal number of sub - factors for explaining each factor, using factor analysis. Since the factor loading percent- ages were weighted, we divided the sum of the points from each factor’s subfactors by the sum of the maximum points. We did this to remove any influence from the number of subfactors and to prevent the percentages from being weighted redundantly. Since this study was based on a 5-point Likert scale, we calculated the score as shown in Fig. 3, with seven subfactors for dimensional suitability (35 points), five subfactors for mission suitability (25 points), four subfactors for motion suitability (20 points), and three sub- factors for aesthetics (15 points). Finally, we multiplied the scores calculated from E1, E2, E3, and E4 by the weights standardized from the factor loadings. We summed these weighted scores for the four factors into the total score for protective clothing evaluation (E5). Testing a developed evaluation system Testing the evaluation subfactors To test the developed subfactors, we divided the respondents into a reference group (occupational soldiers) and a comparison group (enlisted soldiers) and compared Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 13 of 20 Table 5 Factor analysis on required performance factors (N = 253) Factor Subfactor Component Total common Cronbach’s α Weight out of factor variance 100 1 2 3 4 (%) 1 Sleeve length fit 0.846 0.059 0.185 0.085 26.244 0.926 37.19 Bottom circumference fit 0.842 0.219 0.107 0.083 Cuff circumference fit 0.816 0.247 0.123 0.138 Collar circumference fit 0.794 0.227 0.118 0.150 Posterior shoulder length fit 0.790 0.091 0.178 0.178 Total length fit 0.765 0.231 0.189 0.082 Chest circumference fit 0.761 0.176 0.211 0.105 2 Ease of storage 0.066 0.804 0.188 0.089 16.856 0.839 23.89 Sufficient storage 0.153 0.750 0.097 0.204 Mission environment suitability 0.275 0.716 0.156 0.025 Lightness 0.245 0.685 0.200 0.038 Ease of dressing and undressing 0.223 0.684 0.279 0.073 3 Torso joint usability 0.325 0.155 0.806 0.048 15.088 0.857 21.38 Shoulder joint usability 0.171 0.362 0.792 − 0.054 Neck joint usability 0.150 0.114 0.781 0.132 Elbow joint usability 0.183 0.298 0.772 − 0.050 4 Color usability 0.151 0.100 − 0.026 0.873 12.363 0.844 17.52 Sense of belonging usability 0.135 0.101 0.099 0.854 Fancy design usability 0.180 0.101 0.004 0.819 Total factor loading (%) 70.551 100.00 Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 14 of 20 Dimensional Mission Moon Factor Aesthecs Collar circumference fit Mission environment suitability Neck joint usability Color Subfactor Chest circumference fit Sufficient storage Torso joint usability Sense of belonging Cuff circumference fit Ease of storage Shoulder joint usability Fancy design Posterior shoulder length fit Ease of dressing and undressing Elbow joint usability Sleeve length fit Lightness Total length fit Weight Factor 3weight: 21.38% Factor 4 weight: 17.52% Factor 1 weight: 37.19% Factor 2weight: 23.89% Dimensional suitability Mission suitability Moon suitability Aesthecs Weighted score weighted score weighted score weighted score weighted score Total score Dimensional suitability score + Mission suitability score + Moon suitability score + Aesthecs score Evaluaon <40points40points < 60 points 60 points outcome Fail Inadequate Success Fig. 2 Quantitative evaluation system for subjective evaluation (5-point Likert scale) = x 100 ……………………………………………….. E-1 ( ) = x 100 …………………………………………………. E-2 ( ) = x 100 ………………………………………………….. E-3 ( ) = x 100 ………………………………………………….. E-4 ( ) Total score (out of 100) = Dimensional suitability evaluaon score × 0.3719 + Mission suitability evaluaon score × 0.2389 + Moon suitability evaluaon score × 0.2138 + Aesthecs evaluaon score × 0.1752 …. E-5 Fig. 3 Calculating the total score in quantitative evaluation system their evaluation scores for the current jacket (Table  6). We found no significant dif - ference in the scores at the level of p < 0.05 between the two groups. Hence, the sub- factors were proven to be universally applicable to all tracked vehicle crew members, because the scores were not affected by years of service, level of training, or other group characteristics. Testing application of a developed evaluation system This study incorporated the respondents’ suggestions for required performance factors obtained from the FGI and the questionnaire survey, using them to develop a tracked vehicle jacket. Figure  4 shows the design of the proposed jacket in comparison to the current one. The proposed jacket is safari style, and is longer than the combat uniforms required to be worn. The number of outer pockets has been increased from three to five for sufficient storage, and the existing snap button has been changed to a zipper. In addition, the protruding pouch has been changed to an inner pocket to suit the confined duty space, and the cuffs and hem have been changed to attach with fastener tapes and stoppers. We also designed a functional sleeve pattern in which the direction of shoulder Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 15 of 20 Table 6 Results of an application on the subfactors by two groups (N = 253) Factor Subfactor A B t-value Factor Subfactor A B t-value Dimensional Bottom circum. fit 3.09 (1.03) 2.94 (0.99) − 1.12 Mission suit- Sufficient storage 2.88 (1.07) 3.23 (0.99) 0.88 suitability ability Sleeve length fit 3.02 (1.07) 2.92 (1.03) − 0.72 Ease of storage 2.72 (1.04) 2.97 (1.03) 1.83 Cuff circum. fit 3.16 (0.97) 2.98 (1.02) − 1.32 Lightness 2.93 (1.10) 2.93 (1.04) 0.03 Collar circum. fit 3.23 (0.86) 2.95 (0.96) − 2.30 Mission environment 3.16 (0.99) 3.11 (0.93) − 0.36 suitability Posterior shoulder 3.20 (1.02) 2.91 (1.02) − 2.08 Ease of dressing and 3.56 (1.00) 3.33 (1.03) − 1.61 length fit undressing Total length fit 2.98 (1.06) 2.89 (1.09) − 0.56 Motion suitability Torso joint usability 3.19 (1.04) 2.99 (0.99) − 1.45 Chest circum. fit 3.07 (1.02) 2.97 (1.04) − 0.74 Shoulder joint 3.01 (1.09) 2.81 (1.07) − 1.37 usability Aesthetic Color 3.20 (0.94) 3.42 (0.92) 1.76 Elbow joint usability 3.02 (1.12) 2.77 (1.07) − 1.76 Sense of belonging 2.99 (1.09) 3.35 (1.07) 2.48 Neck joint usability 3.20 (1.13) 2.92 (1.09) − 1.83 Fancy design 3.00 (1.01) 3.09 (0.95) 0.67 – A: Reference group; B: Comparison group; circum.: circumference Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 16 of 20 Current tracked vehicle jacket Proposed tracked vehicle jacket Fig. 4 Jackets for tracked vehicle crew joint during the mission was considered. Four patches, including those depicting the Korean Army and the Taegeukgi, the national flag of Republic of Korea were attached to each jacket to instill a sense of belonging in those who would wear them. To examine whether the factors developed in this study properly reflected a desira - ble development direction, we compared the scores of the factors for the current and the proposed jacket (Table  7). The proposed jacket scored higher on every factor than the current one at p < 0.001, demonstrating that the tracked vehicle crew members were more satisfied with the new design that incorporated their feedback, than with the cur - rent one. The current jacket scored 58.1, and the proposed one scored 87.3; the current one was evaluated as inadequate while the developed one was evaluated as successful. These results showed that the differences in design and pattern between the two jackets had a significant effect on the required performance factors. Hence, the developed evalu - ation system’s applicability was verified by confirmation that the results of the developed factor scores reflected wearers’ satisfaction with the proposed development direction. Conclusions To propose a quantitative evaluation system that could determine the success of devel- oped protective clothing, this study analyzed the required performance factors for a tracked vehicle crew’s jacket obtained from an FGI and a questionnaire survey com- pleted by members on active duty. We developed performance factors and an evaluation system derived from quantitative factors, applied them to the development process of a tracked vehicle jacket, and tested its application. The results are summarized below. The FGI revealed that tracked vehicle crew members had needs related to the jacket’s general usability, such as pockets, vents, and zippers. They also had needs related to their unique work environment, which involves heavy missions conducted in tight quarters and dark spaces. Hence, this study extended the “ease of use” performance factor of pre- vious studies to mission suitability. We established seven performance factors required to develop a tracked vehicle crew jacket, an item of protective clothing worn by tracked vehicle crew members: motion suitability, material functionality, dimensional suitability, mission suitability, maintenance, safety, and aesthetics. Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 17 of 20 Table 7 Comparison of scores in evaluation system for the current and proposed jackets (N = 15) Factor Subfactor Current tracked vehicle jacket Proposed tracked vehicle jacket t-value Points Score Standardized Points Score Standardized score score *** Dimen- 1 Bottom 2.8 55.1 20.5 4.5 85.4 31.8 − 9.5 sional circum. fit suit- 2 Sleeve length 2.7 4.6 ability fit 3 Cuff circum. 2.8 4.5 fit 4 Collar circum. 2.6 4.2 fit 5 Posterior 3.0 4.5 shoulder length fit 6 Total length 3.1 4.5 fit 7 Chest circum. 2.3 3.1 fit Subtotal 19.3 29.9 *** Mission 1 Sufficient 3.1 62.0 14.8 4.8 89.6 21.4 − 8.4 suit- storage ability 2 Ease of stor- 2.7 4.7 age 3 Lightness 3.3 4.3 4 Mission envi- 3.3 4.4 ronment suitability 5 Ease of dress- 3.1 4.2 ing and undressing Subtotal 15.5 22.4 *** Motion 1 Torso joint 3.0 57.5 12.3 4.4 86.0 18.4 − 7.0 suit- usability ability 2 Shoulder 2.9 4.3 joint usability 3 Elbow joint 2.9 4.3 usability 4 Neck joint 2.7 4.2 usability Subtotal 11.5 17.2 *** Aesthet- 1 Color 2.9 60.0 10.5 4.7 89.8 15.7 − 8.9 ics 2 Sense of 3.2 4.2 belonging 3 Fancy design 2.9 4.6 Subtotal 9.0 13.5 *** Total – 234.6 58.1 – 350.8 87.3 − 10.7 Total evaluation score for the current tracked vehicle jacket = 55.1 × 0.3719 + 62.0 × 0.2389 + 57.5 × 0.2138 + 60.0 × 0.1752 = 58.1 Total evaluation score for the newly developed tracked vehicle jacket = 85.4 × 0.3719 + 89.6 × 0.2389 + 86.0 × 0.2138 + 89.8 × 0.1752 = 87.3 circum.: circumference *** p < 0.001 Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 18 of 20 Previous studies used the average importance of the subfactors to distinguish the fac- tors’ importance. However, there was no difference in the tracked vehicle crew members’ evaluations of the importance of the subfactors in this study. Therefore, we added sub - factors in our factor analysis and compared common factor variance for the importance of each common factor among all common factors. Our results revealed differences in the importance rankings: Factor 1 was dimensional suitability, Factor 2 was safety, Factor 3 was maintenance, Factor 4 was mission suitability, Factor 5 was motion suitability, Fac- tor 6 was aesthetics, and Factor 7 was material functionality. Those results, including the subfactors, showed high factor loadings and Cronbach’s α, demonstrating validity and internal consistency. Thus, we concluded that including the subfactors better reflected the respondents’ needs than the factors alone, and they were used for development and evaluation, accordingly. To develop a quantitative evaluation system, we re-conducted the factor analysis on the four factors where subjective evaluation was the main criterion for evaluation (dimensional suitability, mission suitability, motion suitability, and aesthetics). Com- mon factor-variance percentages were proposed in the total factor loading (70.551) as a weighting method: 37.19% for dimensional suitability, 23.89% for mission suitability, 21.38% for motion suitability, and 17.52% for aesthetics. This study used these percent - ages as weightings and proposed an equation that calculated the evaluation score out of 100: Total score(out of 100) = Dimensional suitability evaluation score × 0.3719 + Mission suitability evaluation score × 0.2389 + Motion suitability evaluation score × 0.2138 + Aesthetics evaluation score × 0.1752 In the results of testing the application of the developed subfactors and evaluation system, there were no significant differences in the evaluations of the current jacket by the reference group (occupational soldiers serving for at least six years) and the com- parison group (enlisted soldiers), which proved the subfactors’ universal application. In addition, the proposed jacket scores for each of the factors were different from those of the current jacket at p < 0.001, demonstrating that their differences in design and pattern affected the required performance factors significantly. Hence, the developed evaluation system’s applicability was verified by confirmation that the results of the developed fac - tor scores reflected wearers’ satisfaction for the appropriate development direction. This study’s major contribution is that it incorporated wearers’ subjective evaluations using a new method of weighting, It developed a comprehensive and quantitative evalu- ation system that has not existed before for protective clothing design. In addition, the system’s application was verified by the assessment of subfactors by active-duty soldiers, and confirmed that the results of the developed factor scores reflected the appropriate development direction. However, this study focused on one wearer group (tracked vehi- cle crew members in Korea) and their unique work environment. Therefore, the results are not generalizable to all other soldiers with different mission environments and types. Studies should therefore be conducted with other soldiers (e.g., those with different work environments and mission types) and possibly with other clothing items (e.g., extreme cold weather uniforms and protective vests) for further verification. Furthermore, since Choi  et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 19 of 20 there are many different types of protective clothing, such as chemical, fire, and medi - cal protective clothing, it may be necessary to develop different evaluation systems in accordance with varied protective clothing’s purposes. Nevertheless, the quantitative evaluation system and development process proposed in this study may be referenced and widely used since they were developed on the basis of a Likert scale, which is com- monly used as a subjective sensory evaluation tool. Declarations Availability of data and materials The data sets used and analyzed in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This work was supported by the Defense Agency for Technology and Quality (DTaQ) grant funded by the Ministry of National Defense (Civil and Military Technology Cooperation Project No. 18-force support-01). Authors’ Contributions HEC and YR collected and analyzed the data and HEC have drafted the work. KC proposed and designed of the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements We would like to express our gratitude to the assistance of military personnel, especially the participating tracked vehicle crew members for their cooperation. Ethics approval and consent to participate This research was conducted under the approval and supervision of the Public Institutional Bioethics Committee desig- nated by the Ministry of Health and Welfare (IRB Approval No.: P01-201908-23-007, P01-202002-13-001) regarding ethical issues including consent to participate. Authors’ information Hee Eun Choi, Professor, Dept. of Textiles, Merchandising, and Fashion Design/Research Institute of Human Ecology, College of Human Ecology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.Youngshil Ryoo, Public servant of Grade 6, Headquarters Republic of Korea Marine Corps, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.Kuengmi Choi, Professor, Dept. of Fashion Design, Dong Seoul University, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. Author details Professor, Dept. of Textiles, Merchandising, and Fashion Design/Research Institute of Human Ecology, College of Human Ecology, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea. Public servant of Grade 6, Headquarters Republic of Korea Marine Corps, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. Professor, Dept. of Fashion Design, Dong Seoul University, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. Received: 4 April 2021 Accepted: 13 July 2021 References Ashdown, S. P., & Watkins, S. M. (1996). Concurrent engineering in the design of protective clothing: Interfacing with equipment design in performance of protective clothing. In J. Johnson and S. Mansdorf (Eds.), Performance of protective clothing, vol. 5 (pp. 471–485). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1520/ STP14 087S. ASTM International. (2018) ASTM F1154-18: Standard practices for evaluating the comfort, fit, function, and durability of protective ensembles, ensemble elements, and other components. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1520/ F1154- 18. Cho, J. Y., Jeong, J. R., Yeon, S. M., Chang, J. H., You, H. C., & Kim, H. E. (2008). Cost-effectiveness analysis for clothing design improvement using ergonomic methods: Evaluation of flame-proof clothing and design optimization. Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 27(4), 45–58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5143/ JESK. 2008. 27.4. 045. Cho, H. J., Lee, H. T., SaGong, J. H., & Ra, J. H. (2010). Development and application of an evaluation model for biotope appraisal as related to nature experiences and recreation. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture, 38(4), 11–24. http:// uci. kci. go. kr/ resol ution/ result. do? res_ cd= G704- 000407. 2010. 38.4. 010. Choi, H. E. (2020). Development of ergonomic jacket patterns for the Korean army’s tracked vehicle crew. [Unpublished doc- toral dissertation]. Seoul: Seoul National University. Choi, J. H., & Kim, M. J. (2011). Clothing & health. Paju: Kyomunsa. Gupta, D. (2011). Design and engineering of functional clothing. Indian Journal of Fibre and Textile Research, 36(4), 327–335. http:// nopr. nisca ir. res. in/ handle/ 12345 6789/ 13226. Choi et al. Fashion and Textiles (2022) 9:16 Page 20 of 20 Han, H. S., Han, H. J., Cho, J. Y., & Koh, J. S. (2016). Satisfaction on fitness and motion suitability of Korean male military winter jacket. Fashion and Textile Research Journal, 18(5), 685–694. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5805/ SFTI. 2016. 18.5. Hong, S. A. (2004). Application of standards & evaluation for the development of protective clothing systems. Journal of Korean Living Environment System, 11(1), 1–14. Huck, J., & Kim, Y. (1997). Coveralls for grass fire fighting. International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 9(5), 346–359. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 09556 22971 01854 97. Im, Y. J. (2017). A study on inducing process of critical design factors for enhancing customer satisfaction. Korean Society for Quality Management, 45(4), 717–737. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7469/ JKSQM. 2017. 45.4. 717. Jeon, E. J. (2011). Designing of ergonomic flight suit through developing pattern and size systematization [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Daegu: Kyungpook National University. Jeong, M. A. (2014). Development of a pattern for military winter uniform tops considering size and motion appropriateness [Unpublished master’s dissertation]. Seoul: Seoul National University. Jung, K. T. (2007). Expert evaluation method for the suitability of universal design. Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 26(4), 57–64. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5143/ JESK. 2007. 26.4. 057. Lee, J. H. (2012). Development of evaluation standards and a pattern for combat uniforms according to combat training motions [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Seoul: Seoul National University. Lee, A. L. (2016). Development of a ROKAF fighter pilot’s flight duty uniform [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Seoul: Seoul National University. Lee, K. W., & Sim, S. Y. (2016). A study on an evaluation system by factor loadings. Journal of the Korean Data and Informa- tion Science Society, 27(5), 1285–1291. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7465/ jkdi. 2016. 27.5. 1285. Lee, S. J., Choi, Y. L., & Nam, Y. J. (2012). Development and evaluation of air force mechanic parka to enhance the functions and insulation. Fashion and Textile Research Journal, 14(2), 294–303. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5805/ KSCI. 2012. 14.2. 294. Lim, H. J. (2003). A study on the functional improvement of work clothing for aircraft mechanic [Unpublished master’s dis- sertation]. Seoul: Ewha Womans University. Park, H. S., & Lee, M. R. (2007). Application of quality function deployment to ergonomic design of a plier. Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 26(4), 85–90. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5143/ JESK. 2007. 26.4. 085 Rosenblad-Wallin, E. (1985). User-oriented product development applied to functional clothing design. Applied Ergonom- ics, 16(4), 279–287. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0003- 6870(85) 90092-4. Samil Spinning Co., Ltd. (2018). Flame resistant jumper for tracked vehicle pilots and crew. Daegu: Author. Tan, Y. B., Crown, E. M., & Capjack, L. (1998). Design and evaluation of thermal protective flightsuits. Part I: The design process and prototype development. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 16(1), 47–55. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08873 02X98 01600 106. Wiernicki, C. (1992). Protective clothing program management. In J. McBriarty and N. Henry (Eds.), Performance of protec- tive clothing, vol. 4 (pp. 857–866). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1520/ STP19 213S. Yoo, B. H. (2013). A study on the evaluation system of public design based on sustainability. Journal of Digital Design, 13(2), 93–102. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17280/ jdd. 2013. 13.2. 010. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Journal

Fashion and Textiles – Springer Journals

Published: May 5, 2022

Keywords: Protective clothing; Tracked vehicle crew jacket; Quantitative evaluation system; Likert scale; Performance factors

There are no references for this article.