Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations
The Graduate School
2007
Comfort Perceptions of Police Officers
Toward Ballistic Vests
Jessica F. (Jessica Fowler) Barker
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF HUMAN SCIENCES
COMFORT PERCEPTIONS OF POLICE OFFICERS
TOWARD BALLISTIC VESTS
By
JESSICA F. BARKER
A Dissertation submitted to the
Department of Textiles and Consumer Sciences
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Awarded:
Summer Semester, 2007
Copyright © 2007
Jessica F. Barker
All Rights Reserved
The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Jessica Barker defended on
March 12, 2007.
Mary Ann Moore
Professor Directing Dissertation
William Doerner
Outside Committee Member
Rinn Cloud
Committee Member
Jeanne Heitmeyer
Committee Member
Approved:
Joe Nosari, Interim Chair, Department of Textiles and Consumer Sciences
Billie Collier, Dean, College of Human Sciences
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee
members.
ii
To Andrew.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my deepest appreciation for those who contributed to this
research. Thank you to the faculty members, staff, and graduate students in the
Department of Textiles and Consumer Sciences who served as my friends, mentors, and
supporters throughout my graduate program. I am extremely grateful to the law
enforcement officers of the Florida State University Campus Police Department and
Tallahassee Police Department who took the time to participate in this study and
provided honest and forthright feedback about their ballistic vest experiences.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................x
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................xi
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
Purpose...........................................................................................................4
Objectives ......................................................................................................4
Rationale of the Study....................................................................................4
Limitations .....................................................................................................5
Assumptions...................................................................................................5
Definition of Terms........................................................................................6
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................9
Protective Clothing ........................................................................................9
Ballistic Vests ..........................................................................................10
Styles..................................................................................................11
Construction Methods........................................................................11
Materials Used ...................................................................................12
Comfort ..........................................................................................................13
Clothing Comfort Models ........................................................................14
Fourt and Hollies' Comfort Triad.......................................................14
Pontrelli's Comfort's Gestalt ..............................................................15
Sontag's Comfort Triad......................................................................17
Branson and Sweeney's Clothing Comfort Model.............................19
Physical Comfort and Related Clothing Research.......................23
Social-psychological Comfort and Related Clothing
Research....................................................................................25
Physiological/Perceptual Response and Related
Clothing Research.....................................................................26
Wearer Comfort Adjustments ......................................................26
Needs Assessments in Design Research ........................................................27
Summary ........................................................................................................29
v
3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................30
Conceptual Framework for the Study ............................................................30
Hypotheses and Research Questions .............................................................31
Survey Procedures .........................................................................................35
Selection of Final Sample ........................................................................35
Initial Letter and Survey Administration .................................................35
Survey Instrument....................................................................................36
Physical Dimension Items..................................................................36
Social-psychological Dimension Items..............................................38
Comfort Items ....................................................................................39
Wearer Comfort Adjustment Items....................................................39
Pilot Study................................................................................................40
Factor Analysis ..............................................................................................40
Reliability of Measures ..................................................................................44
Data Analysis .................................................................................................44
4. FINDINGS.....................................................................................................46
Description of the Final Subjects...................................................................46
Physical Dimension Attributes ......................................................................46
Person.......................................................................................................47
Activity ..............................................................................................47
Clothing....................................................................................................50
Clothing System.................................................................................50
Uniforms ......................................................................................50
Undershirts...................................................................................51
Ballistic Vests ..............................................................................54
Vest Fit...............................................................................................58
Vest Properties ...................................................................................62
Environment.............................................................................................66
Temperature .......................................................................................66
Social-psychological Dimension Attributes ..................................................70
Person.......................................................................................................70
Values ................................................................................................71
Attitudes.............................................................................................71
Environment.............................................................................................74
Comfort ..........................................................................................................76
Testing of Hypotheses....................................................................................78
Clothing Comfort and Physical Dimension Correlations ........................78
Clothing Comfort and Social-psychological Dimension
Correlations...........................................................................................82
Influence of Significant Factors on Clothing Comfort ............................82
Research Questions........................................................................................84
Officers' Suggestions for Ballistic Vest Manufacturers.................................87
vi
5. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................89
Attributes Influencing Clothing Comfort.......................................................89
Physical Dimension Attributes ................................................................89
Person.................................................................................................89
Clothing..............................................................................................90
Social-psychological Dimension Attribute ..............................................91
Clothing Comfort ...........................................................................................91
Revised Clothing Comfort Model..................................................................92
Wearer Comfort Adjustments ..................................................................93
Physical Dimension of Wearer Comfort Adjustments.......................95
Social-psychological Dimension of Wearer Comfort Adjustments...97
Summary of the Study ...................................................................................99
Recommendations for Further Research........................................................101
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................103
A.
B.
C.
D.
Initial Contact Letter to Police Chief ............................................................103
Cover Letter to Participants...........................................................................105
Questionnaire ................................................................................................107
Human Subjects Approval Letters ................................................................118
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................121
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...........................................................................................128
vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1. Physical Dimension of Clothing Comfort Model ................................................21
2. Social-psychological Dimension of Clothing Comfort Model ............................22
3. Attributes Investigated Within the Physical Dimension......................................32
4. Attributes Investigated Within the Social-psychological Dimension..................33
5. Factor Loadings for Attitude Items......................................................................41
6. Factor Loadings for Vest Properties ....................................................................42
7. Factor Loadings for Comfort Items .....................................................................43
8. Age, Height, Weight, and Race ...........................................................................48
9. Distribution of Hours per Week Spent Performing Job-related Duties ...............49
10. Officer Satisfaction with Uniform Components ..................................................52
11. Mean Ratings for Officer Satisfaction with Uniform Components .....................53
12. Actual vs. Ideal Wearing Behavior......................................................................55
13. Brands of Ballistic Vests Worn by Officers ........................................................56
14. Age, Protection Level, and Size of Ballistic Vests ..............................................57
15. Officers' Perceived Vest Fit When Standing and Sitting .....................................59
16. Mean, Standard Deviations, and T-test Scores for Perceived Vest Fit................61
17. Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Vest Properties .....................63
18. Negative Interaction of Ballistic Vests with Uniform Components ....................65
19. Months Officers are Inclined to Remove Vest ....................................................67
20. Temperature Officers Consider Removing Vests ................................................69
21. Means and Standard Deviations for Officer Values ............................................72
22. Officer Attitudes Related to the Uniform and Vest .............................................73
23. Marital Status and Highest Education Level .......................................................75
24. Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Comfort Measures................77
viii
25. Correlations between Clothing Comfort and Physical Dimension Attributes .....79
26. Correlations between Clothing Comfort and Social-psychological
Dimension Attribute.............................................................................................80
27. Multiple Regression Analysis for Influence of Fit and Vest Properties
on Clothing Comfort ............................................................................................83
28. Wearer Comfort Adjustments: Storage Methods for Ballistic Vests...................85
29. Physical Dimension of Wearer Comfort Adjustments.........................................96
30. Social-psychological Dimension of Wearer Comfort Adjustments.....................98
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1. Comfort's Gestalt by Pontrelli..............................................................................16
2. Sontag's Clothing Comfort Triad.........................................................................18
3. Branson and Sweeney's Clothing Comfort Model...............................................20
4. Revised Clothing Comfort Model........................................................................94
x
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to analyze the needs of ballistic vest wearers and
determine aspects of ballistic vests that influenced wearer comfort. Based on Branson and
Sweeney's (1991) Clothing Comfort Model, this research identified attributes of the
person, clothing, and environment that affected police officers' physical and socialpsychological comfort levels when wearing ballistic vests. Ten attributes identified as
influential comfort factors were examined.
The sample consisted of 91 police officers employed in Tallahassee, Florida. The
officers were surveyed to determine their uniform and ballistic vest wearing experiences,
as well as satisfaction levels and demographics. Two attributes had positive significant
correlations with comfort: fit and vest properties. These two variables were examined
further and a linear relationship with comfort was revealed.
This study also proposed that wearers may attempt to improve their clothing
comfort in various ways. This phenomenon, called wearer comfort adjustments, was
conceptualized based on data from a previous research study (Fowler, 2003b) and
developed further through this research. Wearer comfort adjustments were defined as
adaptations or accommodations wearers make to themselves, their clothing, or their
environment to improve their wearing experience.
Findings of the study indicated that ballistic vest wearers employ specific wearer
comfort adjustments to improve their comfort. Existing clothing comfort models do not
account for these accommodations and/or adaptations made by the wearer. Hence, a
taxonomy of wearer comfort adjustments was developed and the nature of the
relationship between comfort and wearer comfort adjustments was theorized. The
concept of wearer comfort adjustments has been developed through this study, but further
research is needed to test the proposed relationship of wearer comfort adjustments and
comfort.
xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Protective ballistic clothing is designed to increase wearer safety, but it often has
negative effects on wearer performance, including heat stress or thermo-physiological
discomfort, reduced work efficiency, limited movement and range-of-motion (Adams,
Slocum, & Keyserling, 1994; Fowler, 2003a). Negative comfort effects of protective
clothing could cause the wearer to reject the clothing, leaving the wearer unprotected
from risk of injury (Shanley, Slaten, & Shanley, 1993). Often, changes are made to the
clothing to allow for increased comfort. Examination of the influence of current garment
design and features on wearer comfort can aid in improving wearer satisfaction. Solutions
are needed to maximize wearer comfort and task performance while wearing ballistic
clothing.
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) issued a call for more research related to
the comfort of ballistic vests worn by police officers (NIJ Solicitation, 2004). Body armor
has been credited for saving over 2500 lives since 1973 (NIJ guide 100-01, 2001, p. 12).
In previous research, however, officers still chose not to wear their vests because they are
uncomfortable (Olsen, 1981; Fowler, 2003a). Despite these findings, little research has
been done to identify officers' needs when wearing ballistic vests.
In addition to the NIJ's call for research, previous research indicates the need for
further study related to the design and function of ballistic vests and related comfort
implications. Participants in the Fowler (2003a) study identified the following problems
when wearing ballistic vests: limited mobility due to the bulkiness and stiffness of vest
fabric, discomfort caused by inadequate fit of vests, sweating and skin chaffing attributed
to the poor absorbency of vests. Results indicated that vest designs could be altered to
reduce wearer discomfort, thus maximizing wearer performance, but further examination
of vest comfort is needed to determine optimal design approaches. A broader study of
1
ballistic vest wearers will assist in identifying critical comfort and design factors of
ballistic vests.
Participants in the Fowler (2003b) study also indicated the use of techniques to
improve their vest experience, such as loosening the vest at the sides or using a cooling
device to reduce their thermal discomfort when wearing the vest. Some officers removed
the vest altogether and stored them in ways that may be detrimental to the protective
properties of the vest (i.e., in the trunk of a patrol car). Previous clothing comfort
research did not account for this phenomenon. Thus, this study was designed to explore
these aforementioned techniques and their relationship with clothing comfort judgments.
Before this concept could be studied, though, it must be defined.
Branson and Sweeney (1991) defined clothing comfort as "a state of satisfaction
indicating physiological, social-psychological and physical balance among a person,
his/her clothing, and his/her environment" (p. 99). The researchers emphasized that
"balance" was important to achieve satisfaction or clothing comfort. Thus, it was
proposed that when balance does not exist between physical and social-psychological
dimensions of the person, clothing, and environment, the wearer makes changes in an
attempt to achieve clothing comfort. For the purposes of this study, these changes were
referred to as wearer comfort adjustments. More specifically, wearer comfort adjustments
were defined as adaptations or accommodations wearers make to themselves, their
clothing, or their environment to improve their wearing experience. Since clothing
comfort judgments are affected by physical and social-psychological aspects of the
person, clothing, and environment, wearer comfort adjustments can also include
behavioral changes.
It is important to clarify the difference between adaptations and accommodations.
Frisancho (1993) defines adaptation as “a process whereby the organism has attained a
beneficial adjustment to the environment”. Accommodation occurs as “responses to
environmental stresses that are not wholly successful because even though they favor
survival of the individual they also result in significant losses in some important
functions” (Frisancho, 1993). When these definitions are applied to wearer comfort
adjustments, adaptations are techniques that yield successful improvements in the
2
wearer’s comfort without negatively impacting the wearer in other ways. For example, an
officer may wear an undershirt designed to wick moisture from the body and find that
he/she is now comfortable. This is an adaptation the officer made to his clothing that was
successful and did not impact the officer’s ability to perform or the ballistic vests’
protective properties.
An accommodation has a negative impact on the wearer in some way. For
instance, in the Fowler study (2003b), one officer described his method for cooling off
when he became too hot wearing the vest. This method involved attaching a vacuum
hose to his patrol vehicle’s air conditioning vent and inserting the opposite end of the
hose into his vest. This cooling technique appeared to be effective until he tried to exit his
vehicle quickly to pursue a suspect on foot. Having the vacuum hose inside his vest kept
the officer from moving as rapidly as he needed to, thus illustrating the negative effects
environmental accommodations can have on officer performance. Another officer in the
Fowler study (2003b) went home during his lunch break to change his sweat saturated
undershirt and complained that because of this, he often ran out of time to eat during his
lunch break. This officer modified his behavior to improve his comfort, and found that
although he was drier, he was now hungry. Several officers described accommodations
and adaptations they made to themselves, their clothing, or their environment to the
researcher while participating in the Fowler study (2003b), thus supporting the definition
of wearer comfort adjustments developed for this study.
Branson and Sweeney (1991) indicated that clothing comfort judgments are based
on physical and social-psychological properties, this research investigated both the
physical and social-psychological dimensions of comfort perceived by police officers
when wearing ballistic vests. The study also explored wearer comfort adjustments
employed by ballistic vest wearers. The results of this research are beneficial to law
enforcement wearing ballistic vests and could also be applied to military personnel
wearing ballistic vests.
3
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to analyze the needs of ballistic vest wearers and
determine aspects of ballistic vests that influenced wearer comfort. Wearer comfort
adjustments employed by officers were explored as a possible additional factor affecting
comfort. Branson and Sweeney's (1991) Clothing Comfort Model was used as a
conceptual framework for the research project. Thus, physical and social-psychological
attributes of comfort related to the person, clothing, and environment were investigated to
determine the influence of each factor in the wearer's overall comfort level. Since
Branson and Sweeney’s (1991) Clothing Comfort Model includes individual garments
and the entire clothing system, this study investigated factors of ballistic vests and
officers’ uniforms. It was anticipated that the study would identify potential
improvements for both the vest design and wearer comfort adjustments that would lead to
increased wearer comfort and performance, based on officers' comments.
Objectives
The purpose of the study was accomplished through a needs assessment. Main
objectives of the needs assessment were to:
1. Assess comfort needs of officers wearing ballistic vests;
2. Determine attributes within the physical and social-psychological dimension
that contribute to ballistic vest wearer comfort; and
3. Identify wearer comfort adjustments used to address comfort.
Rationale of the Study
The protective properties of ballistic vests have been examined in previous studies
(Cochron-Benloulo, Rodriguez, & Sanchez-Galvez, 1997; Edwards, 1995; Lesce, 1998;
Pratt, 2004), but the effects of ballistic vests on wearer comfort and performance have
been largely ignored. Through this study, vest design issues were identified that
negatively affected wearer comfort. Design solutions that improve comfort of ballistic
vests can contribute to saving lives by increasing user satisfaction and thereby
willingness to wear body armor in a variety of situations.
4
Additionally, wearer comfort adjustments were examined to identify practices
used by the police officers. Previous research revealed some wearer comfort adjustments
that could detrimentally affect vest performance, which provided evidence of the need for
further research (Fowler, 2003b). Information on best practices in wearer comfort
adjustments such as selection of undergarments can improve officer safety as well as
lengthen the useful garment life of the vest.
This study focused on police officers in a select southern city. The South has the
highest percentage (33%) of officers employed in the United States (Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 2006, p. 371). In 2005, 55 officers were killed nationwide (Federal Bureau
of Investigation, 2006, Table 1). Of these deaths, 51% occurred in the South. From 1996
to 2005, the southern states accounted for 51% of 575 officer deaths throughout the
country (Table 1). These statistics emphasize the need to investigate officers' ballistic
vest needs in a southern state. A city in Florida was chosen for extremely hot and humid
environmental conditions, which may increase officers' discomfort and therefore their
utilization of wearer comfort adjustments.
Delimitations
The following delimitations were placed on this study:
1. The study was limited to police officers within a select city in the state of
Florida. Hence, generalizations can not be made beyond the selected
population and geographic area defined by the study; and
2. The assessment of ballistic vest styles and models was limited to the vests
currently worn by participants.
Assumptions
The assumptions for this study were:
1. Police officers have identifiable needs related to ballistic vests;
2. Officers are perceptive of their clothing problems;
3. Officers currently employ wearer comfort adjustments and can accurately
describe these techniques; and
5
4. Officers are able to express their needs and respond conscientiously.
Definition of Terms
Adaptation: "a process whereby the organism has attained a beneficial adjustment
to the environment" (Frisancho, 1993, p. 4)
Accommodation: "responses to environmental stresses that are not wholly
successful because even though they favor survival of the individual they also result in
significant losses in some important functions" (Frisancho, 1993, p. 7)
Armor carrier: "a component of the armor sample or armor panel whose primary
purpose is to retain the ballistic panel and provide a means of supporting and securing the
armor garment to the user. These carriers are not generally ballistic resistant" (NIJ
standard 0101.04, 2000, p. 3).
Armor panel: "the portion of an armor sample that generally consists of an
external carrier and its internal ballistic protective component(s)" (NIJ standard 0101.04,
2000, p. 3).
Clothing comfort: "a state of satisfaction indicating physiological, socialpsychological and physical balance among a person, his/her clothing, and his/her
environment" (Branson & Sweeney, 1991, p. 99).
Comfort: "a mental state of ease or well-being, a state of balance or equilibrium
that exists between a person and his or her environment" (Sontag, 1985-86, p. 10).
Fit: "the relationship of the garment to the body" (Watkins, 1995, p. 264).
Functional design process: "the nature of design and the thought processes and
methods designers use to develop effective design solutions" (Watkins, 1995, p. 334).
Stages of the design process are "request made, design situation explored, problem
structure perceived, specifications described, design criteria established, prototype
developed, design evaluation" (DeJonge, 1984, p. viii).
Garment impediment: "occurs when clothing impairs a worker's performance"
(Adams, Slocum, & Keyserling, 1994, p. 11).
6
Insert: "a removable or nonremovable unit of ballistic material which can be part
of either the armor or ballistic panel, which is utilized to enhance the ballistic
performance of an armor in a specific area" (NIJ standard 0101.04, 2000, p. 5).
Mobility: "the ease with which an articulation, or a series of articulations, is
allowed to move before being restricted by the surrounding structures" (Kreighbaum &
Barthels, 1985, p. 644).
Needs assessment: "a tool which formally harvests the gaps between current
results (or outcomes, products) and required or desired results, places these gaps in
priority order and selects those gaps (needs) of the highest priority or action, usually
through the implementation of a new or existing curriculum or management procedure"
(English & Kaufman, 1975, p. 3).
Perception of fit: "the amount of variation in the fit of apparel that can be
perceived by the wearer" (Ashdown & DeLong, 1995, p. 48).
Physical comfort: "a mental state of physical well-being expressive of satisfaction
with physical attributes of a garment such as air, moisture, and heat transfer properties,
mechanical properties such as elasticity and flexibility, bulk, weight, texture, and
construction" (Sontag, 1985-86, p. 10).
Psychological comfort: "a mental state of psychological well-being expressive of
satisfaction with desired affective states, such as femininity, sophistication, or having fun.
Psychological comfort can also be derived from a sense of being dressed in a manner
congruent with or expressive of one's self-concept" (Sontag, 1985-86, p. 10).
Social comfort: "a mental state of social well-being expressive of the
appropriateness of one's clothing to the occasion of wear, satisfaction with the impression
made on others or with the degree of desired conformity of dress to that of one's peers"
(Sontag, 1985-86, p. 10).
Strike face: "the surface of an armor sample or panel, designated by the
manufacturer, as the surface that should face the incoming ballistic threat" (NIJ standard
0101.04, 2000, p. 7).
Type II ballistic vest (9 mm; 357 Magnum): "this armor protects against 9 mm
Full Metal Jacketed Round Nose (FMJ RN) bullets, with nominal masses of 8.0 g
7
(124 gr) impacting at a minimum velocity of 358m/s (1175 ft/s) or less, and 357 Magnum
Jacketed Soft Point (JSP) bullets, with nominal masses of 10.2 g (158 gr) impacting at a
minimum velocity of 427 m/s (1400 ft/s) or less" (NIJ standard 0101.04, 2000, p. 2).
Wearer comfort adjustments: adaptations or accommodations wearers make to
themselves, their clothing, or their environment to improve their wearing experience
(original to this study).
Wear face: "the surface of an armor sample or panel, designated by the
manufacturer, as the surface that should be worn against the body" (NIJ standard
0101.04, 2000, p. 7).
8
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The review of literature concentrates on the literature, concepts, and theory
related to the study's focus. A brief discussion of protective clothing research follows,
with emphasis on ballistic vests. A review of comfort studies is included, with an
examination of comfort and those aspects of comfort pertinent to this study, as well as a
discussion of common comfort measures for clothing studies. The final section defines
needs assessments and discusses the application of needs assessment methods in
functional design research.
Protective Clothing
Protective clothing serves as protection for the wearer from environmental
conditions as well as work or task-related conditions that expose wearers to risks. Taskrelated protection needs require a wide variety of types of clothing, each designed for a
specific end use. Protective clothing specifications often pose additional challenges for
designers and textile scientists. Frequently solutions involve increased protection against
an environmental threat or factors affecting thermo-physiological comfort, such as
reduced weight or bulk or improved interaction between components in the clothing
(Shishoo, 2002).
According to Shishoo (2002), wearers are subjected to a range of risks in many
industrial segments, hospital settings, energy services, and the military. Common end
uses for protective clothing include chemical splash suits, dry chemical handling,
asbestos abatement coveralls, vapor protection, clean-room apparel, fire fighting suits,
hospital textiles, stab and puncture resistant clothing, and ballistic protection. Previous
research has investigated many types of protective clothing, including clothing for
asbestos abatement (Ashdown, 1989; Turpin-Legendre & Meyer, 2003), insulation
9
(Sontag, 1985-1986), chemical protection (Pratt, 2004; Tremblay-Lutter, Crown, &
Rigakis, 1996; Veghte & Storment, 1992), grass fire fighting (Huck & Kim, 1997; Huck,
Maganga, & Kim, 1997; Rucker, Anderson, & Kangas, 2000), police bicycle patrol
(Rutherford-Black & Khan, 1995), and helicopter flight (Tan, Crown, & Capjack, 1998),
as well as various athletic uses (Chae, 2002; Lawson & Lorentzen, 1990; Ruckman,
Murray, & Choi, 1999; Walde-Armstrong, Branson, & Fair, 1996; Watkins, 1977; Wheat
& Dickson, 1999).
Results from these studies indicate that negative comfort perceptions occur more
often with garments that retain heat (Turpin-Legendre & Meyer, 2003; Lawson &
Lorentzen, 1990), inhibit movement (Lawson & Lorentzen, 1990), or are inadequately
sized (Huck & Kim, 1997). Other findings include positive correlations between fit and
mobility (Huck et al., 1997; Tremblay-Lutter et al., 1996), appropriate design features
and comfort (Tan et al., 1998), and wearer satisfaction and comfort (Wheat & Dickson,
1999). This study focused on the type of protective clothing referred to as body armor,
specifically ballistic vests, in order to accomplish the purpose of the study. Findings from
previous protective clothing studies were used as a guide in framing this study.
Ballistic Vests
During the 1960s and 1970s, the United States experienced an increase in officer
fatalities (Edwards, 1995; NIJ guide 100-01, 2001). The number of officers killed by
firearms jumped significantly from 55 in 1966 to 127 in 1975 (Edwards, 1995, p. 17).
Between 1991 and 2000, 644 officers were killed (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2001,
p. 13), illustrating that the country is still experiencing a high number of officer fatalities.
Only 46% of these officers were wearing ballistic vests (p. 13). Of those wearing ballistic
vests, 109 died of gunshot wounds in the upper torso (p. 13), further emphasizing the
need for protection. These deaths suggest there is need for improvement in ballistic vest
comfort to increase the number of officers wearing ballistic vests.
Ballistic vests should be comfortable to allow for maximum performance,
productivity, and mobility (Shanley et al., 1993; Watkins, 1995). In order to provide
adequate protection, it should fit well and be properly sized. It also must provide impact
protection for the officers. In an effort to understand ballistic vest design and function, an
10
examination of the current styles and construction methods was necessary, as well as a
brief review of current materials used in ballistic vests.
Styles
Ballistic vests are designed for multiple threat levels that should be considered
when officers select their armor (NIJ Journal, 2003; Olsen, 1981). Ballistic vests can be
concealable, semi-rigid, or rigid. When choosing between these styles, the wearer
considers the end use, protection level, and comfort level of the armor (NIJ Journal,
2003). Police, government officials, and military personnel wear ballistic vests, but the
styles worn vary from group to group.
Concealable ballistic vests (Levels I, II-A, II, and III-A) are the styles of ballistic
vests most commonly used by officers. This style of ballistic vest is a protective garment,
most often in the form of a vest, designed to be worn under the uniform shirt. It is
intended to be lightweight so officers can wear the armor through a full shift.
Concealable ballistic vests usually provide full front, side and rear protection of the upper
torso from handguns or long rifles (NIJ guide 100-01, 2001; NLECTC, 2002).
Ballistic vests designed for higher threat levels (Levels III and IV) are usually
semi-rigid, consisting of a less flexible material with impregnated ballistic fabrics. Other
semi-rigid armor uses small plates of ballistic material (steel, ceramic, or plastic)
reinforced with a woven ballistic material. Semi-rigid ballistic vests are more difficult to
conceal and restricts the wearer's movement more than concealable ballistic vests (NIJ
guide 100-01, 2001).
Rigid ballistic vests are the most restrictive and most difficult to conceal and
consists of ballistic material that is molded to cover a specific portion of the body (NIJ
guide 100-01, 2001). This style is used in situations with high threat levels that require
the most protection (Levels IV and above) available, such as the military in intensive
combat situations (NIJ Journal, 2003).
Construction Methods
Concealable ballistic vests usually consist of protective panels inserted into an
outer vest carrier. The vest carrier serves as a casing for the ballistic panels and is made
of typical garment fabrics such as nylon or cotton. The protective panels are constructed
11
separately from the vest carrier of multiple layers of ballistic-resistant materials. Front
and back panels are inserted into corresponding pockets in the front and back of the vest
carrier. Some vests are designed with separate side panels, while others have larger front
and back panels that are designed to extend around the sides of the body for protection.
The panels may or may not be removable from the outer vest carrier for easier cleaning of
the vest carrier and panels.
The protective panels can be assembled numerous ways. Some are bias stitched
around the edges of the panel; others have the layers tacked together in several places.
The panels may be sewn with rows of vertical or horizontal stitching or quilted entirely
(NIJ guide 100-01, 2001). The protective panels are made of materials designed for
ballistic properties. Commonly-used ballistic materials are each described below.
Materials Used
Three major types of polymer fibers currently used in constructing ballistic
materials are aramid, high performance polyethylene (HPPE), and
polyphehylenebenzobisoxazole (PBO). According to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ
guide 100-01, 2001), the most commonly used materials are marketed under the names
Kevlar®, Spectra®, Dyneema®, and Zylon®. Ballistic vests worn by participants in this
study included combinations of Kevlar®, Spectra®, and/or Dyneema® fabrics.
The first material used in modern concealable ballistic vests was DuPont's
Kevlar®, an aramid fiber that is flame resistant, does not melt, and has high strength
combined with low weight. It also has high chemical and cut resistance (DuPont, 2001;
Shishoo, 2002). In the early 1970s, DuPont developed Kevlar® 29, making flexible
ballistic vests possible for the first time. DuPont later introduced Kevlar® 129, offering
increased ballistic protection against high-energy rounds such as the 9mm. DuPont's
Kevlar® Protera, first marketed in 1996, allowed lighter weight, greater flexibility, and
higher levels of protection through improved tensile strength and energy-absorbing
capabilities (Lesce, 1998; NIJ guide 100-01, 2001).
Honeywell manufactures Spectra® fiber, an ultra-high-strength polyethylene
(HPPE) fiber with very high chemical and cut resistance (Shishoo, 2002). Two layers of
Spectra® fibers, crossing at 0 and 90 degree angles, are held in place by a flexible resin
12
and then sealed between two thin layers of polyethelene film. This nonwoven fabric is
marketed as Honeywell's Spectra Shield®, an extremely strong, flexible, and protective
composite. Honeywell also uses this process with aramid fibers to produce another high
strength shield composite called GoldFlex® (NIJ guide 100-01, 2001; NLECTC, 2002).
Dyneema® (HPPE) and Zylon® (PBO) are both newer fibers for ballistic vest
protective panels, featuring improvements in strength-to-weight ratios (ChocronBenloulo, Rodriguez, & Sanchez-Galvez, 1997; NIJ guide 100-01, 2001; Shishoo, 2002).
Although recent news reports cite diminished protective properties when Zylon® is
exposed to extreme environmental conditions, other reports contradict these statements,
claiming unusually extreme testing conditions were used (Justnet, 2004; NIJ Status
Report, 2004). Newly marketed vests are no longer using Zylon® fabric, and ballistic
vest manufacturers are providing replacement vests for those vests that contain Zylon®
fabric. Protective properties of Zylon® and other ballistic materials are currently being
investigated for degradation by government agencies (Justnet, 2004; NIJ Status Report,
2004).
Manufacturers of ballistic fabrics have studied the protective properties of various
ballistic fabrics, individually and layered with other fabrics to improve the performance
and wearability of their vests. However, since that research is privately funded to
improve the marketability of specific products, the research findings are not available for
reference in this study. Likewise, other previous studies of the style or construction of
ballistic vests are proprietary.
Comfort
Comfort has been defined as a "value state that exists between the individual and
the environment" (Maher & Sontag, 1986, p. 3), while clothing comfort has been defined
as "a state of satisfaction indicating physiological, social psychological and physical
balance among a person, his/her clothing, and his/her environment" (Branson &
Sweeney, 1991). Protective clothing is designed to increase wearer safety, and although
designers consider comfort levels, the protective ensemble may negatively affect wearer
performance. These effects may include heat stress or thermophysiological discomfort,
13
reduced work efficiency, or limited movement and range-of-motion (Shanley, Slaten, &
Shanley, 1993). Negative effects of protective wear could cause the wearer to reject the
protective clothing, which would leave the wearer unprotected from risks such as injury
or disease. Previous research indicates that uncomfortable clothing will not be worn,
justifying the need to identify comfort factors of protective clothing (Shanley, Slaten, &
Shanley, 1993).
Branson and Sweeney (1991) indicated that clothing comfort is a complex
concept that is difficult to define and measure. An examination of comfort theory
provides evidence of this difficulty. Each existing comfort model includes a variation of
comfort factors, adding to the complexity of this concept. A review of comfort models
illustrates the varied thinking related to comfort.
Clothing Comfort Models
Some disciplines, such as medicine, focus only on the relationship between
human and environment, clothing comfort researchers indicate that it is a balance of the
person, clothing, and environment. Beginning with Fourt and Hollies (1970), clothing
comfort models have emphasized the role of clothing in the relationship of the person to
the environment. Clothing may be either part of the environment or an extension of the
body, but must be considered since it is necessary to a person's survival of most
environmental elements (Fourt and Hollies, 1970). Other researchers examined the
relationship of the person, clothing, and environment in their clothing comfort models,
including Pontrelli's Comfort's Gestalt, Sontag's Comfort Triad, and Branson and
Sweeney's Clothing Comfort Model. While each of these clothing comfort models are
commonly referenced in clothing comfort studies, few researchers other than the authors
of each model have tested the models as part of the research design. Thus, this study will
measure relationships within the framework of a clothing comfort model. A discussion of
each model and applicable research studies follows.
Fourt and Hollies' Comfort Triad
Fourt and Hollies (1970) initially theorized the triad of comfort, consisting of the
person, clothing, and environment and incorporated them into a model. The researchers
presented variables for each element of the triad, and identified measurement methods
14
and units for each variable. Key variables used to evaluate the person were given as
metabolism, evaporation, surface temperature, rectal temperature, tympanic membrane
temperature, DuBois surface area, and heart rate. Clothing variables were identified as
thermal insulation, resistance to evaporation or breathability, wind resistance, thickness,
weight, and surface area. Environmental variables included temperature, relative
humidity, air movement, and radiant heat. By identifying variables related to comfort
within the triad framework and assessment techniques, Fourt and Hollies significantly
advanced the understanding and methodology related to clothing comfort and function.
Fourt and Hollies (1970) focused their study on protective and functional aspects
of clothing, omitting fashion, style, and other general psychological and sociological
factors of clothing. While Fourt and Hollies focused on the function of clothing, other
models have included additional social and psychological aspects of comfort.
Pontrelli's Comfort's Gestalt
In 1977, Pontrelli introduced a new comfort model, appropriately titled
"Comfort's Gestalt," where each aspect is affected by or effects the other aspects of
comfort. This model, illustrated in Figure 1, includes physical variables of the person,
clothing, and environment borrowed from Fourt and Hollies (1970), but adds a psychophysiological dimension. Psycho-physiological variables were adapted from literature on
psychology and consumer preferences of clothing (Flugel, 1950; Kemp, 1971), and
include state of being, end-use and occasion of wear, style and fashion, fit, and tactile
aesthetics.
Pontrelli (1977) contributed the filter concept to comfort theory, called stored
modifiers in the Comfort's Gestalt model. Conceptually, the filter allows the physical and
psycho-physiological variables to be filtered through the person's stored modifiers to
determine comfort level. Modifiers consist of past experiences, prejudices, expectations,
imagery, and lifestyle of the person. By incorporating the filter concept within clothing
comfort models, subjective measures of comfort are validated.
15
Environment
Transport properties
Level of physical activity
Garment
Physical
Stored modifiers
Comfort
judgment
State of being
End-use and occasion of wear
Psycho-physiological
Style/fashion
Fit
Tactile aesthetics
Figure 1. Comfort's Gestalt by Pontrelli. Adapted from "Partial analysis of comfort's
gestalt," by F. J. Pontrelli, 1977. In N. R. S. Hollies & R. F. Goldman (Eds.), Clothing
comfort: Interaction of thermal, ventilation, construction, and assessment factors (p. 74).
16
Pontrelli (1977) applied this model in a study of tactile aesthetics of double-knit
dresses, slacks, and single-knit shirts. Findings indicated that a person's stored modifiers
influenced their tactile preferences in other garments of similar fabrication. Subjects used
tactile aesthetics as a stored modifier, filtering their judgments of fabrics through past
experiences and future expectations of fabric performance, supporting the inclusion of the
filter in Pontrelli's model. The filter concept continues to serve as an integral part of
comfort models, although subsequent models have applied it in slightly different
contexts.
Sontag's Comfort Triad
Sontag (1985-1986) later developed Fourt and Hollies' triad (1970) into a
theoretical model, including Pontrelli's (1977) stored modifiers as a characteristic of the
person. In her model, three concentric circles represent each of the triad dimensions, with
the person attributes as the core (Figure 2). The person is encircled by the clothing
attributes, which is in turn encircled by the environmental attributes. Each level contains
specific attributes, expanding those variables and dimensions identified in previous
models (Fourt & Hollies, 1970; Pontrelli, 1977). A double-ended arrow travels through
three circles, representing an individual's comfort perception and response, and indicating
interaction between the levels.
The attributes identified by Sontag relate to physical, psychological, and social
descriptors of comfort, and she provided concise definitions for each of these terms (see
Definition of Terms, p. 5-7). Sontag's model illustrates that each triad dimension is
separate but connected, and includes the physical, psychological, and social aspects of
comfort within each level of the triad.
In a study of insulative clothing for elderly women, Sontag (1985-1986) found
that physical comfort and psychological comfort were highly correlated with the overall
comfort rating of clothing. However, she noted that after wearing the insulative clothing,
participants' physical comfort was more important in the overall comfort rating. Sontag
suggests that this may be more likely to occur in extreme temperatures. Participants in
Yoo's (1996) study also associated their comfort with physical attributes. In Yoo's (1996)
17
ENVIRONMENT ATTRIBUTES:
Space-time
Outdoor climate
Habitat
CLOTHING ATTRIBUTES:
People
Weight, Bulk, Drape, Construction, Style,
Design, Texture, Thickness, Mechanical properties,
Surface properties, Thermal resistance
Social norms,
Cultural
traditions,
Aesthetic standards
PERSON ATTRIBUTES:
Stored modifiers
PERCEPTION/RESPONSE
Age Race, Sex, Weight, Height,
State of physical health
Physiological systems
Activity, Energy
Figure 2. Sontag's clothing comfort triad. Adapted from "Comfort dimensions of actual
and ideal insulative clothing for older women." by M. S. Sontag, 1985-86. In Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal, 16, p. 51.
18
study, petite and tall-sized consumers rated fit, a physical attribute, more important in
clothing purchase than attractiveness, a psychological attribute. Likewise, Black (1988)
found that participants in her study reported discomfort due to physical attributes of the
garment, such as fit, garment construction, and fabric weight.
Branson and Sweeney's Clothing Comfort Model
A more recent model, proposed by Branson and Sweeney (1991), builds upon past
models and incorporates previously identified concepts into one framework. Branson and
Sweeney suggest that clothing comfort has both physical and social-psychological
dimensions which affect a person's physiological or perceptual response to the clothing.
In addition, each individual applies a filter of past experiences, preferences, and
perceptions to their clothing experience. Through the dimensions of comfort and the
person's response to the clothing and filter, an individualized judgment of clothing
comfort is formed. Branson and Sweeney also indicate that each part of the model affects
and is affected by the other parts. Figure 3 illustrates Branson and Sweeney's model. In
this model, broken lines are used to signify the interaction between each dimension.
Branson and Sweeney (1991) incorporated the triad of the person, clothing, and
environment proposed by Fourt and Hollies (1970) into their model. They stated that
clothing comfort results "from the interactions of various physical and non-physical
stimuli for a person wearing a given ensemble under given environmental conditions" (p.
94). Slater (1985) also defined comfort as "a pleasant state of physiological,
psychological, and physical harmony between a human being and the environment" (p.
4). Other researchers previously indicated that comfort was a state derived from both
physical and non-physical interactions with the person and environment (Rohles, 1978;
Sontag, 1985-1986). However, Branson and Sweeney suggest that the person, clothing,
and environment components of the triad have both physical and social-psychological
dimensions. These components are listed in Tables 1 and 2.
Another concept Branson and Sweeney adopted was Pontrelli's filter concept, first
introduced in 1977. Conceptualizing that clothing comfort not only involves physical
and psycho-physiological aspects, but also applies a filter to each of these, Pontrelli
argued that comfort is not only a function of variables, but is interpreted by human
19
Physical Dimension Triad
Social-psychological Dimension Triad
Physiological/Perceptual Response
Filter
Clothing Comfort Judgment
Figure 3. Branson and Sweeney's clothing comfort model. Adapted from
"Conceptualization and measurement of clothing comfort: Toward a metatheory," by D.
H. Branson and M. Sweeney, 1991. In S. Kaiser & M. L. Damhorst (Eds.), Critical
linkages in textiles and clothing: Theory, method and practice (p. 102).
20
Table 1
Physical Dimension of Clothing Comfort Model
Physical Dimension Triad
Person Attributes
Clothing Attributes
Sex
Fabric Characteristics
Age
Fiber Content
Race
Yarn
Weight
Fabric Structure
Height
Finishes
Physical Condition
Color
Activity
Fabric/Clothing System
Exposed Surface Area
Heat Transfer Properties
Moisture/Vapor Transfer Properties
Air Permeability
Clothing System
Fit
Design
Environment Attributes
Air Temperature
Radiant Temperature
Wind Velocity
Ambient Vapor
Pressure
Note: Attributes listed are examples provided by Branson and Sweeney (1991) and are
not intended as a comprehensive list.
21
Table 2
Social-psychological Dimension of Clothing Comfort Model
Social-psychological Dimension Triad
Person Attributes
State of Being
Self Concept
Personality
Body Image/Cathexis
Values
Attitudes
Interests
Awareness
Religious Beliefs
Political Beliefs
Clothing Attributes
Fabric/Clothing System
Aesthetics
Style
Fashionability
Appropriateness
Design
Color
Texture
Body Emphasis/
De-emphasis
Environmental Attributes
Occasion/ Situation of Wear
Significant Other
Reference Group
Social Norms
Cultural Patterns
Historical Precedence
Geographic Locale
Note: Attributes listed are examples provided by Branson and Sweeney (1991) and are
not intended as a comprehensive list.
22
expectations that influence comfort perceptions. These expectations, or stored modifiers,
can be past experiences, prejudices, expectations, or the person's lifestyle, and through
this filter, the wearer will feel comfortable or uncomfortable. Sontag (1985-1986) also
included the filter, or stored modifiers, as a person attribute in her version of the triad.
Sontag introduced the response function in her model, as an individualized and continual
process of responding to varying environmental and clothing attributes to enhance
comfort. As previously described, Sontag illustrates her model with three concentric
circles representing the person, clothing, and environment attributes. The response
concept is illustrated by an arrow moving through each circle. Branson and Sweeney
visualized the response as a separate element, affected by the physical and socialpsychological comfort levels and the individual's filter, thus it is placed between these
elements in their model. However, Branson and Sweeney (1991) specify that these
elements are continually affecting each other, causing the individual to constantly adjust
their comfort perceptions.
Physical comfort and related clothing research.
The physical dimension of comfort includes the person, clothing, and
environment aspects of the triad. Examples of person attributes given by Branson and
Sweeney include sex, age, race, weight, height, physical condition, activity, and exposed
surface area. Clothing attributes can be fabric and clothing characteristics/properties, as
well as garment fit and design. Environment attributes include air and radiant
temperature, wind velocity, and ambient vapor pressure. Each of the attributes listed in
the physical dimension is measurable, and therefore can serve as a variable to evaluate
clothing comfort. Previous research has documented the relation of these variables with
comfort (Barker, 2002; Horridge, Cadel, & Simonton, 2002; Sontag, 1985-1986).
Barker (2002) found that the wicking characteristics of a garment are crucial to
perceived comfort. He also identified design, fit, and environmental wear conditions as
factors that influence comfort judgments. Horridge et al. (2002) stated that person
attributes influenced comfort and should continue to be studied. Sontag (1985-1986)
found that physical comfort was affected by environmental conditions, especially when
the conditions were extreme.
23
Physical comfort can be measured subjectively using methods such as wearer
acceptability questionnaires (Fowler, 2003a; Huck & Kim, 1997) and needs assessments
(Bergon, Capjack, McConnan, & Richards, 1996; Brandt & Cory, 1999; CasselmanDickson & Damhorst, 1993; Chae, 2002; Rutherford-Black & Khan, 1995; Turk, 2002;
Yoo, 1996). Despite the emphasis placed on the person's stored modifiers, or filter, within
comfort theory, the majority of research still focuses on objective measures of physical
comfort. A number of research studies have employed objective methods to analyze
physical comfort using wear testing methods, such as exercise protocols (Fowler, 2003a;
Huck et al., 1997; Ruckman et al., 1999), range of motion measurements (Adams &
Keyserling, 1996; Fowler, 2003a; Huck & Kim, 1997; Huck et al., 1997; Watkins, 1977),
dexterity tests (Tremblay-Lutter et al., 1996), displacement tests (Lawson & Lorentzen,
1990; Watkins, 1977), and observing garment strain in photographs (Ashdown, 1989;
Watkins, 1977).
Previous clothing research shows correlations between wearer
acceptability/satisfaction and garment properties (Horridge et al., 2002; Huck et al., 1997;
Rutherford-Black & Khan, 1995; Watkins, 1977; Wheat & Dickson, 1999), protection
(Tan et al., 1998; Watkins, 1977), and comfort (Huck & Kim, 1997; Huck et al., 1997;
Rucker et al., 2000; Sontag (1985-1986); Watkins, 1977; Wheat & Dickson, 1999). For
instance, Sontag (1985-1986) measured physical properties of insulative clothing, such as
absorbency, warmth, and elasticity, and found these properties to be associated with
comfort. Horridge et al. (2002) also found comfort ratings were affected by fiber content,
and that a person’s height or weight influenced comfort though fit. Wheat and Dickson
(1999) also found higher ratings of satisfaction were correlated with better garment fit.
Wearer acceptability/satisfaction has also been linked to garment design.
Research related to sex and clothing fit indicates that men struggle to find appropriate
sleeve lengths (Hogge, Baer, & Kang-Park, 1988), while a study of petite and tall-sized
women indicated respondents were not satisfied with pant, sleeve, skirt, and bodice
length (Yoo, 1996). Hogge et al. (1988) compared age to garment properties and found
that elderly men are more comfortable in man-made garments than non-elderly men. This
24
same study also indicated that non-elderly men found garment design to be important,
while elderly men were more concerned with garment durability.
An evaluation of fit of chemical protective gloves found that sizing and design
criteria affected a wearer's fit satisfaction (Tremblay-Lutter et al., 1996). The study found
that as the final fit rating increased for a glove, the decrements in performance on
dexterity tests decreased (p. 222).
Social-psychological comfort and related clothing research.
Branson and Sweeney's (1991) social-psychological dimension includes attributes
related to the person include the wearer's state of being, self-concept, personality, body
image, values, attitudes, interests, awareness, religious and political beliefs. Clothing
attributes incorporate aspects of the fabric and clothing system: aesthetics, style,
fashionability, appropriateness, design, color, texture, body emphasis/de-emphasis.
Environmental attributes within this dimension are: occasion/situation of wear,
significant other, reference group, social norms, cultural patterns, historical precedence,
and geographic locale. Shanley et al. (1993) noted that psychological comfort is critical
to achieving maximum performance efficiency of the wearer, thus illustrating the
importance of examining psychological comfort as well as physical comfort. Several
studies have analyzed the social and psychological aspects of comfort (Ashdown, 2001;
Chattaraman & Rudd, 2006; Tremblay-Lutter et al., 1996).
Wearers’ past experiences with clothing, fit preferences, desire for comfort, and
feelings about their body affect their perception of fit (Ashdown, 2001), influencing their
psychological comfort level. Culture and societal issues, as well as visual and tactile
information, also affect the perception of fit. When wearers perceive a garment to fit
well, they are more likely to feel psychologically comfortable.
Another study examined the relationships between aesthetic preferences in
clothing and body image, body cathexis, and body size (Chattaraman & Rudd, 2006).
Findings indicated that participants with lower body image and/or larger body size
preferred clothing that provided more coverage (p. 58). These findings support the
inclusion of social-psychological person attributes in Branson and Sweeney’s (1991)
Clothing Comfort Model.
25
In particular, consumer attitudes and values have been linked to consumption
activities (Kaiser, 1990), therefore measures of attitudes and values were included in this
study. Kamakura and Novak (1992) indicated that values are more directly related to
consumer behaviors than attitudes. Specifically, person-oriented values are proposed to
be the most related to consumer behaviors (Beatty, Kahle, Homer, & Misra, 1985).
Studies have found consumer values to be influential to apparel purchasing
decisions (Goldsmith, 1988), fashion leadership (Goldsmith, Heitmeyer, & Freiden,
1991), and fashion adoption (Kim & Farrell-Beck, 2005). For example, consumers who
placed personal value on excitement or fun and enjoyment of life were more likely to be
fashion leaders (Goldsmith et al., 1991). Furthermore, cultural values, such as
individualism and masculinity or femininity, were found influential to consumers' dress
styles and behaviors (Kim & Farrell-Beck, 2005). However, a review of literature did not
reveal any studies that evaluated the relationship of consumer values to clothing comfort.
Physiological/perceptual response and related clothing research.
Previous studies have analyzed the physiological (Ruckman et al., 1999; TurpinLegendre & Meyer, 2003) response of comfort using measures of body temperature, heart
rate, and sweat loss. Ruckman et al. (1999) used skin temperature and perspiration rates
to compare ventilation systems used in outdoor jackets. Another study combined oral
temperature, heart rate, and sweat loss measures to compare the physiological
implications of protective coveralls used for asbestos abatement (Turpin-Legendre &
Meyer, 2003). Results from both studies showed that clothing systems with proper
ventilation lead to significant reductions in the wearer's heat stress versus clothing
systems without ventilation. These results indicate the need for investigating
physiological responses to other types of protective clothing.
Wearer Comfort Adjustments
Participants in the Fowler (2003b) study indicated that ballistic vest wearers
utilize techniques to improve their vest experience, referred to as wearer comfort
adjustments. Wearer comfort adjustments were defined in this study as adaptations or
accommodations wearers make to themselves, their clothing, or their environment to
26
improve their wearing experience. Previous clothing comfort research does not focus on
this concept, although previous researchers have alluded to the concept. For example,
Shanley et al. (1993) noted that uncomfortable clothing will be altered, possibly in a
manner that would undermine the protective properties of the garment, and Rucker et al.
(2000) indicated a need for wearers to make adjustments to clothing to improve their
comfort without sacrificing their protection.
Sontag (1985-1986) also mentioned that wearers can have a voluntary or
involuntary response to achieve comfort. Participants in the Sontag (1985-1986) study
made modifications to the clothing system to improve their thermal comfort. Changes in
the time of day and location of activity also influenced participants' comfort.
In the Fowler (2003b) study, participants discussed their wearer comfort
adjustments with the researcher. Officers loosened the vest at the sides or using a cooling
device to reduce their thermal discomfort when wearing the vest. Some officers removed
the vest altogether and stored them in ways that may be detrimental to the protective
properties of the vest (i.e., in the trunk of a patrol car). One officer gave an example of a
behavioral change he made to improve his comfort. When wearing a ballistic vest, he
sweat so profusely that his undershirt would become saturated and chafe his skin. To
remedy this, he would go home during his lunch break to change his undershirt. Another
participant noted that he wore his vest in certain patrol areas but not in others. Further
examination of ballistic vest wearers' comfort adjustments is needed to determine if these
adjustments are detrimental to protective properties of ballistic vests.
Needs Assessments in Design Research
English and Kaufman (1975) defined needs assessment is defined as "a tool which
formally harvests the gaps between current results (or outcomes, products) and required
or desired results, places these gaps in priority order and selects those gaps (needs) of the
highest priority or action, usually through the implementation of a new or existing
curriculum or management procedure". This study conducted a needs assessment using
the following steps identified by English and Kaufman: "(1) planning to plan: charting
27
means and ends; (2) goal translation; (3) validation of performance objectives; (4)
develop initial gap or need statements; and (5) publish list of gap statements" (p. 13).
Studies have used needs assessments to explore clothing needs for various
populations, such as neonates (Bergen et al., 1996) and petite and tall-sized women (Yoo,
1996). Needs assessments have also been used to determine task-related clothing needs
for female bicyclists (Casselman-Dickson & Damhorst, 1993), dancers (Turk, 2002), and
tennis players (Chae, 2002), as well as bicycle police (Rutherford-Black & Khan, 1995)
and cleanroom workers (Brandt & Cory, 1989). Clothing needs identified in these studies
were: physical comfort; garment function, fit, and design; wearer preferences; garment
appearance/attractiveness; and protection. Some of these needs assessments were
conducted as part of a larger research process.
In apparel design, DeJonge (1984) developed a functional design process,
yielding a systematic approach from the initial clothing concept through the final design
evaluation similar to a needs assessment. While this study did not use the entire design
process, information gained in this study will allow completion of the remaining steps in
subsequent research. The steps applied in previous research of ballistic vests (Fowler,
2003a), as well as those which were applied in this study, are described below.
The first step of the DeJonge (1984) design process is the general request, or
broad problem statement of the clothing need. The request can be a general statement of
the objective made by the designer or an expression of need from the wearer. This step
can incorporate brainstorming, user interviews, and observations of garments and the
wearer (Bergen et al., 1996; DeJonge, 1984), much like English and Kaufman's (1975)
first step of "planning to plan." Prior research employed user interviews and observations
in a limited study to assess officers' ballistic vest circumstances (Fowler, 2003a).
Exploration of the design situation follows, with a statement of objectives,
comparable to the "goal translation" and "validation of performance objectives" in a
needs assessment (English & Kaufman, 1975). This part of the process consists of a
literature search and further refinement of the problem statement. Additional observations
or market analysis could also be included (Bergen et al., 1996; DeJonge, 1984; Huck &
28
Kim, 1997; Lawson & Lorentzen, 1990). Through reviewing current literature, pertinent
objectives were developed for this study.
The problem structure is perceived through a review of critical factors. This
review is often done through objective and/or subjective measurements, such as a
movement analysis, thermal assessment, impact testing, and social-psychological
assessment (Ashdown & DeLong, 1995; Black, 1988; Huck et al., 1997; Bergen et al.,
1996; DeJonge, 1984; Huck & Kim, 1997; Lawson & Lorentzen, 1990; Rutherford-Black
& Khan, 1995; Yoo, 1996). By taking objective and/or subjective measures, the
researcher is able to accomplish steps 4 and 5 in the needs assessment process: "develop
initial gap or need statements" and, after evaluation, "publish a list of gap statements"
(English & Kaufman, 1975).
This study employed the needs assessment method within the framework of
DeJonge's (1984) design process. As indicated above, the remaining steps in the design
process will not be discussed since this study's goals and objectives were accomplished in
the first three steps. It is anticipated that the information gained from this study will allow
future research efforts to explore the remaining steps.
Summary
Pertinent literature has been reviewed related to ballistic vests styles, construction
methods and ballistic fabrics. Concepts related to comfort were defined, and several
comfort models were presented. By presenting these comfort models, the relationships
between varying aspects of comfort were described. Emphasis was placed on the physical
and social-psychological dimensions of comfort. Research related to these two
dimensions was also reviewed.
29
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This study assessed the ballistic vest needs of police officers in the state of
Florida. Emphasis was placed on their physical and social-psychological comfort levels
when wearing ballistic vests. In addition, wearer comfort adjustments were identified to
determine adaptations and accommodations made while using ballistic vests.
This chapter outlines the conceptual framework for the study, followed by a
description of the survey procedures. The sampling method is discussed next, and then
the survey instrument is explained, noting the hypotheses that were tested. In conclusion,
the data analysis procedure is described.
Conceptual Framework for the Study
Branson and Sweeney's (1991) Clothing Comfort Model provided the foundation
for this research project. As discussed in Chapter Two, this model evolved from previous
clothing comfort theories (Fourt & Hollies, 1970; Pontrelli, 1977; Sontag, 1985-1986).
Each of these theories combines similar elements, adapted and reorganized to reflect new
developments in comfort research. Branson and Sweeney's (1991) Clothing Comfort
Model was selected as the framework of this study because it related aspects of comfort
not addressed in previous models. Through the application of Branson and Sweeney's
model, officers' needs related to ballistic vests were assessed.
Branson and Sweeney theorized two separate, but interrelated, dimensions of
comfort, physical and social-psychological, that exist for the person, the clothing, and the
environment. These dimensions, through a filter of stored modifiers, affect a person's
physiological or perceptual response to the clothing. Based on the response, an
individualized judgment of clothing comfort is developed. Branson and Sweeney also
30
indicated that each part of the model affects and is affected by the other parts. Figure 3 in
Chapter Two (p. 19) illustrates Branson and Sweeney's model.
In this study, attributes of comfort related to the person, clothing, and
environment were investigated within both the physical and social-psychological
dimensions to determine the influence of each factor in the wearer's overall comfort level.
Tables 3 and 4 show the attributes that were examined within this study in bold. Based on
the findings of the literature review, only those attributes relevant to the purpose and
objectives of the study were included.
Physical clothing and environment attributes included in this list were measured
as reported by the subjects. Laboratory measures of fabric heat and moisture transfer
properties or air permeability were not taken during this study. Rather, these measures
came from the subject's perception of these properties as related to ballistic vests.
Likewise, objective measures of air and radiant temperature and ambient vapor pressure
were not conducted. Subjects were asked to record these conditions to the best of their
knowledge.
Hypotheses and Research Questions
It was proposed that attributes within the physical and social-psychological were
correlated with clothing comfort. Based on the conceptual framework for this study, the
following hypotheses were tested to fulfill the study's purpose and objectives:
•
H1a: A correlation exists between clothing comfort and sex.
•
H1b: A positive correlation exists between clothing comfort and clothing
system.
•
H1c: A positive correlation exists between clothing comfort and vest fit.
•
H1d: A positive correlation exists between clothing comfort and vest properties.
Based on previous research (Fowler, 2003a) and a review of literature, it
was proposed that as satisfaction with the general clothing system increased, the
wearer's clothing comfort would also increase. Likewise, this same relationship
was projected between clothing comfort and ballistic vest fit and ballistic vest
properties. It was also suggested that females could have more ballistic vest fitting
31
Table 3
Attributes Investigated Within the Physical Dimension
Physical Dimension Triad
Person Attributes
Sex
Age
Race
Weight
Height
Physical Condition
Activity
Exposed Surface Area
Clothing Attributes
Fabric Characteristics
Fiber Content
Yarn
Fabric Structure
Finishes
Color
Fabric/Clothing System
Heat Transfer Properties
Moisture/Vapor Transfer Properties
Air Permeability
Clothing System
Fit
Design
Note: Bolded attributes investigated in the current study.
32
Environment Attributes
Air Temperature
Radiant Temperature
Wind Velocity
Ambient Vapor
Pressure
Table 4
Attributes Investigated Within the Social-psychological Dimension
Social-psychological Dimension Triad
Person Attributes
State of Being
Self Concept
Personality
Body Image/Cathexis
Values
Attitudes
Interests
Awareness
Religious Beliefs
Political Beliefs
Clothing Attributes
Fabric/Clothing System
Aesthetics
Style
Fashionability
Appropriateness
Design
Color
Texture
Body Emphasis/
De-emphasis
Note: Bolded attributes investigated in the current study.
33
Environment Attributes
Occasion/ Situation of Wear
Significant Other
Reference Group
Social Norms
Cultural Patterns
Historical Precedence
Geographic Locale
problems than males, resulting in decreased clothing comfort. Therefore, it was
hypothesized that males would experience greater comfort than females. The
measurement scales for clothing system, fit, and vest properties are described in
the survey instrument discussion.
•
H1e: A negative correlation exists between clothing comfort and age.
•
H1f: A negative correlation exists between clothing comfort and weight.
•
H1g: A negative correlation exists between clothing comfort and height.
Anecdotal evidence from previous research (Fowler, 2003b) suggested
that officers who wore some of the earlier, stiffer and heavier models of ballistic
vests would perceive the newer, lighter weight and more flexible vests to be less
protective, resulting in lower clothing comfort. Thus, it was proposed that as
officer age increased, clothing comfort would decrease. A negative relationship
was also expected between weight and height and clothing comfort, due to the
potential for increases in fitting problems with increased weight or height.
•
H2: A correlation exists between clothing comfort and significant other.
It was also projected that those officers involved in a personal relationship
would value the protection provided by ballistic vests more than those officers
who were single. Therefore, it was hypothesized that officers with a significant
other would rate their comfort higher than officers without a significant other.
In addition to the hypotheses that were tested, the following research questions
were explored:
•
Do ballistic vest wearers employ wearer comfort adjustments to increase their
comfort?
•
If so, what are the techniques commonly used?
Participating officers in the Fowler (2003b) study sought out methods to
improve their comfort when wearing ballistic vests. This study is designed to
determine, in a more objective manner, if this is truly happening and what kinds
of methods officers employ to increase their comfort.
34
Survey Procedures
The research purpose and objectives were accomplished using survey research
methods to assess officers' satisfaction with current ballistic vests. The survey was
completed by police officers, both male and female, who wear ballistic vests. The
methods are described below.
Selection of Final Sample
The sample was limited to police officers' within a major city in the state of
Florida, where environmental conditions are extremely hot and humid. Male and female
officers were surveyed to determine the needs relevant to each gender. Police officers
solicited to participate in the survey did so voluntarily after permission was obtained
from their police chief.
Initial Letter and Survey Administration
After receiving Human Subject Approval on July 27, 2005, an initial letter
requesting participation in the study was mailed to the contact persons identified by the
police department, including the police chief and other relevant police executives. Only
those who were able to determine officer participation were contacted. The initial letter
described the goals of the study, survey procedures, and time commitment for
participants.
After permission was obtained from the police chief to survey police officers, a
packet containing the survey invitation and surveys was delivered to a representative at
the police department who agreed to distribute the survey invitation and surveys to
officers. The survey invitation contained a brief description of the research goals, time
commitment, and instructions for taking the survey. The survey was attached to the
survey invitation. Completion of the survey took approximately 20 minutes.
Questionnaires were distributed to Tallahassee Police Department officers during
the summer of 2006. At the time of the survey distribution, there were 151 full-time
police officers employed by Tallahassee Police Department. Thus, 151 questionnaires
were distributed and 91 were returned, yielding a 60% response rate.
35
Survey Instrument
The questionnaire for this study consisted of 56 items, six of which had multiple
parts (Appendix C). Items related to attributes of the person, clothing, and environment
found within the physical and social-psychological dimensions. A combination of forcedchoice and open-ended questions were used to elicit information regarding these
attributes. All items were selected to gain information about the participants, their
clothing and environment, as well as their comfort experiences and wearer comfort
adjustments when wearing ballistic vests. Each item will be discussed below, categorized
by the physical and social-psychological dimensions, comfort, and wearer comfort
adjustments.
Physical Dimension Items
Person attributes items included forced-choice questions related to participants'
sex, height, weight, and race (Questions 50, 53, 54, and 55 respectively, Appendix C). An
open-ended question asked respondents to give their age (Question 52, Appendix C). In
addition, participants answered a forced-choice question about how long they served in
law enforcement, followed by two open-ended questions which asked for their current
rank and a list of previous law enforcement departments they served in (Questions 1-3,
Appendix C).
Respondents answered forced-choice questions about what types of task-related
activities they performed when wearing ballistic vests, and identified the number of hours
they spent doing each activity per week (Questions 20-21, Appendix C). The choices of
activities included were based on daily tasks identified in preliminary interviews of police
officers in the Fowler (2003a) study. A follow-up question asked for a description of
other activities they did when wearing their vest that was not included as an option in the
previous forced-choice activity question (Question 22, Appendix C). This question was
designed to determine if there were any daily task-related activities that were not
identified in the Fowler (2003a) study.
Officers were asked "Are there any specific activities during which you do not
wear your vest?" and a follow-up question asked them to explain why they do not wear
their vests for these activities (Questions 37-38, Appendix C). They also described how
36
wearing their vests affected their activities (Question 32, Appendix C). These questions
elicited information related to the impact of the ballistic vests on officers' performance.
Questions were asked related to officers' clothing system, vest fit, and vest
properties. The clothing system worn by officers was identified in preliminary interviews
of the Fowler (2003a) study, and was confirmed with police department representatives
before surveying officers in this study. Components of the clothing system included
uniform shirts, shorts, pants, jackets, belts, and utility belts, as well as undershirts and
ballistic vests. Officers were asked to indicate their satisfaction with each of these
uniform items on a 5-point Likert-type scale, where Satisfied=1 and Dissatisfied=5
(Question 6, Appendix C). Participants also related the number of uniforms they currently
owned as well as uniform brand information (Questions 4-5, Appendix C). An openended question asked respondents to identify the type of undershirt they most commonly
wear with their ballistic vest (Question 9, Appendix C).
Officers answered forced-choice questions related to the age, protection level, and
size of their ballistic vests, as well as the number of vests owned (Questions 10-15,
Appendix C). They identified the brands of ballistic vests they have worn (Question 8,
Appendix C). Two forced-choice questions were included to evaluate officers' actual
amount of time spent wearing their vests compared to the amount of time they should be
wearing their vests, or ideal wearing behavior (Questions 18-19, Appendix C).
Officers were asked to rate their vest on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1=Does
Not Fit and 5=Excellent Fit (Question 23, Appendix C). Vest Fit items allowed
participants to measure the fit of their vests when standing and sitting in specific areas,
which included "tightness of neckline," "armhole pinching," "fit of shoulder area," "fit of
chest area," "fit of waist area," and "overall length." This scale was used in a previous
study (Fowler, 2003a) to analyze ballistic vest fit and had a high reliability (0.89).
Vest properties, consisting of 12 adjective sets, were measured using a 5-point
semantic differential scale (Question 24, Appendix C). The bipolar adjective sets
included: "acceptable/unacceptable", "not bulky/bulky", "absorbent/nonabsorbent", "easy
to take off/hard to take off", "safe/unsafe", "lightweight/heavyweight", "sturdy/not
sturdy", "easy to put on/hard to put on", "high quality/low quality",
37
"functional/nonfunctional", "like/dislike", and "provides protection/lack of protection".
These measures were adopted from previous research (Fowler, 2003a; Huck & Kim,
1997). Items that were reversed coded as used in previous research were left reverse
coded in this study. In the Fowler (2003a) study, a scale consisting of most of these items
was used to measure physical attributes of ballistic vests (Reliability = 0.75). The
following items were included as measures in the Fowler (2003a) study, but not grouped
as part of a scale: "not bulky/bulky", "absorbent/nonabsorbent", "easy to take off/hard to
take off", and "easy to put on/hard to put on". This current study had a larger sample size
and respondents wore their vests every day, allowing these items to be measured more
accurately and thus included in the scale. The modified scale name was changed from
vest attributes to vest properties to avoid confusion with person, clothing, and
environment attributes referred to in Branson and Sweeney's (1991) Clothing Comfort
Model.
The effect of environmental conditions on ballistic vest wearing behavior was
explored through two questions. Participants indicated months during which they are
inclined to not wear their vests and the temperature at which they consider removing their
vests (Questions 25-26, Appendix C).
Social-psychological Dimension Items
Social-psychological dimension attributes examined included officers' education
level, marital status, values, and attitudes. Education level and marital status were both
forced-choice items (Questions 56 and 51, respectively, Appendix C).
The scale for Values asked participants to rate the importance of the following
items on a 9-point Likert-type scale: "sense of belonging," "excitement," "warmrelationships with other," "self-fulfillment," "being well respected," "fun and enjoyment
of life," "security," "self-respect," and "a sense of accomplishment" (Question 49,
Appendix C). This scale, called the List of Values, was developed by Kahle (1983). The
List of Values was selected over other value scales because it is concise and easy for
participants to understand.
Attitude measures (Question 7, Appendix C) were modified from previous
research (Wheat & Dickson, 1999; Yoo, Khan, & Rutherford-Black, 1999) to relate to
38
ballistic vest wearers. Officers were asked to indicate how strongly they agreed or
disagreed with each statement (1=Strongly Agree, 5=Strongly Disagree). Since these
statements were adapted from two previous research studies, the statements were not
anticipated to be used as a scale. Factor analysis was conducted to determine if the items
were related as measured in this study (see discussion on Factor Analysis).
Comfort
Comfort was determined through 13 adjective sets (Question 24, Appendix C)
also taken from 5-point semantic differential scales previously employed in protective
clothing research (Fowler, 2003a; Huck & Kim, 1997; Rutherford-Black & Khan, 1995).
The adjective sets included: "flexible/rigid", "easy to move in/hard to move in",
"cold/hot", "soft to skin/harsh to skin", "freedom of movement of arms/restricted
movement of arms", "breathable/not breathable", "feels soft/feels stiff", "freedom of
movement of torso/restricted movement of torso", "non-irritating/irritating", "fits
well/does not fit well", "ease of movement/confining", "loose/tight", and "overall
satisfied/dissatisfied". Again, items that were reversed coded in previous research were
left reverse coded in this study. An additional adjective set of
"comfortable/uncomfortable" was included to compare with the overall comfort score. In
the Fowler (2003a) study, the comfort scale had a reliability of 0.69.
Wearer Comfort Adjustment Items
Officers were also asked questions related to wearer comfort adjustments they use
in an effort to improve their vest experience. Open-ended questions determined any
adaptations or accommodations officers made when wearing ballistic vests (Questions
28-31, Appendix C). Additional open-ended questions were used to determine conditions
when officers may have removed their vests due to discomfort or perceived loss of
function (Questions 40-42, Appendix C). Questions regarding ballistic vest compatibility
with other uniform components were included to examine the vest as part of the entire
clothing system worn by officers (Questions 33-34, 39, Appendix C). Participants were
also asked to describe their laundering and storage methods for the vest and any changes
in vest shape they experienced (Questions 16-17, 35-36, Appendix C).
39
Pilot Study
Prior to beginning the study, the questionnaire was pilot tested using twenty-one
officers from the Florida State University Campus Police. The questionnaire responses
were evaluated for reliability, appropriateness, and construct validity. The pilot study was
also used to accurately determine the time commitment of participants. Initial evaluation
of the survey instrument showed acceptable reliabilities (see discussion on Reliability of
Measures) and construct validity (see discussion on Factor Analysis) for all measures and
appropriate completion time (under 30 minutes). It was not deemed necessary to make
any modifications to the survey instrument. The validation processes for Attitudes, Vest
Performance, and Comfort scales, as well as reliabilities for each of the scales used in the
pilot study and final survey are discussed below.
Factor Analysis
Factor analysis was used to determine construct validity and identify relationships
of underlying latent variables, commonly referred to as factors, for measures of attitudes,
vest performance, and comfort. Items used to measure officers' attitudes were analyzed
to determine whether they measured one factor and could be combined into a scale since
these items were developed specifically for this study. The factor analysis results
indicated three factor groupings with acceptable eigenvalues of 1.0 or above (see Table
5). The researcher evaluated the factor solution and found the variables that loaded on
each factor did not share common characteristics and were not meaningful for
interpretation or theoretical purposes. Thus, items used to measure officers' attitudes were
evaluated individually and not combined into scales.
The items designed to measure Vest Performance and Comfort were expected to
load as one factor since these measures were used in a previous study (Fowler, 2003a).
Factor analysis was utilized to confirm construct validity of these two scales in this study.
Vest Performance items and Comfort items each loaded as one factor with eigenvalues
above 1.0 (Tables 6 and 7). Therefore, all items were included in these scales as planned
for further data analysis.
40
Table 5
Factor Loadings for Attitude Items
Factor Loadings
Item
The fit of vests should be improved.
1
0.832
2
0.330
3
0.162
More styles of vests should be offered to me.
0.777
0.313
0.129
I feel safer when wearing a ballistic vest.
0.645
-0.439
0.193
The overall fit of my uniform should be improved.
0.422
0.125
0.115
I dislike wearing my ballistic vest.
-0.116
0.733
0.390
It is more important that my uniform and vest look
professional than keep me comfortable.
-0.175
-0.254
0.843
I don't care how my uniform and vest look as long as
I am comfortable.
-0.261
0.680
-0.440
I am more likely to take risks when wearing my vest.
-0.450
0.210
0.371
Eigenvalues
2.412
1.523
1.259
% of variance
30.15
19.04
15.74
Note: Factor loadings greater than 0.50 in absolute value are bolded.
41
Table 6
Factor Loadings for Vest Properties
Item
Acceptable/Unacceptable
Vest Properties
0.892
Functional/Nonfunctional
0.892
High quality/Low quality
0.833
Easy to put on/Hard to put on
0.820
Absorbent/Nonabsorbent
0.799
Safe/Unsafe
0.798
Easy to take off/Hard to take off
0.674
Sturdy/Not sturdy
0.657
Not bulky/Bulky
0.602
Provides protection/Lack of protection
0.596
Like/Dislike
0.574
Lightweight/Heavyweight
0.551
Eigenvalues
5.429
% of variance
45.24
Note: Factor loadings greater than 0.50 in absolute value are bolded.
42
Table 7
Factor Loadings for Comfort Items
Item
Ease of movement/Confining
Vest Properties
0.874
Overall satisfied/Overall dissatisfied
0.805
Flexible/Rigid
0.794
Non-irritating/Irritating
0.753
Fits well/Does not fit well
0.748
Easy to move in/Hard to move in
0.734
Freedom of movement of arms/Restricted movement of arms
0.730
Feels soft/Feels stiff
0.726
Breathable/Does not breathe
0.714
Freedom of movement of torso/Restricted movement of torso
0.678
Cold/Hot
0.604
Soft to skin/Harsh to skin
0.556
Loose/Tight
0.523
Eigenvalues
6.988
% of variance
49.92
Note: Factor loadings greater than 0.50 in absolute value are bolded.
43
Reliability of Measures
This research employed Cronbach's coefficient alpha to determine reliabilities
for each measurement scale. As suggested by Peterson (1994), acceptable alpha
coefficients for preliminary research should be 0.70 or higher while basic research
requires stronger reliabilities of at least 0.80. As previously noted, the pilot study results
indicated high reliabilities for each scale. The alpha coefficients for the pilot study
measures were as follows: Clothing System = 0.81; Vest Properties = 0.85; Vest Fit =
0.95; and Comfort = 0.92.
After collecting the data from the final sample, the reliabilities were re-examined.
Alpha coefficients for the final data were: Clothing System = 0.83; Vest Properties =
0.79; Vest Fit = 0.90; and Comfort = 0.82. With the exception of Clothing System, each
reliability level dropped slightly but were still acceptable. The decreases in reliability
could have been due to the increased sample size, which exhibited more variance in
demographics, style and fit preferences than the pilot study. In addition, there was an
increase in the ballistic vest styles, sizes, and protection levels worn by these officers.
The changes could account for small differences found in the alpha coefficients.
The reliability for Clothing System showed a slight increase. The officers in the
final sample did not have as much variance in uniform attire as those in the pilot study,
which may account for the increase in reliability. After consideration, it was decided that
none of the scales should be modified since all alpha coefficients were above or
approaching the acceptable level defined by Peterson (1994).
Data Analysis
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used to analyze
the data. Descriptive statistics including frequencies, means, and standard deviations
were used to report officers’ characteristics, as well as their uniforms, ballistic vests, and
related clothing comfort responses.
For data analysis purposes, information collected regarding participants' marital
status was collapsed into two categories: married and non-married. Participants' ages
were also collapsed into groups of 10 year increments (20 to 29 years, 30 to 39 years, 40
44
to 49 years, and 50 to 59 years). Responses related to temperatures officers would remove
their vests were collapsed into groups as well (85° or below, 86° to 95°, 96° to 105°, 106°
or above, and Never).
To allow for interpretation and comparison of data, some items were reverse
coded. Items related to satisfaction with uniform components were reverse coded during
data analysis so that Dissatisfied=1 and Satisfied=5. Items from the Vest Properties and
Comfort scales were all coded where 1 was the most negative value and 5 was the most
positive value.
Scores for fit when standing and fit when sitting were tallied to create Overall
Standing Fit and Overall Sitting Fit scores that could be compared using T-tests. All fit
scores were tallied to create a Total Fit rating that was used in correlations analyses with
other variables. Likewise, scores for the Vest Properties and Comfort adjective sets were
tallied to create a Total Vest Properties score and an Overall Comfort score. These tallied
scores were computed back to a 5-point scale (1 = most negative, 5 = most positive) and
used for correlations analyses.
To test the hypotheses, this study utilized correlation analysis which allowed for
comparisons to previous research. The Pearson Product Moment correlation was used to
determine the association between clothing comfort and the following independent
variables: clothing system, fit, vest properties, age, weight, and height. Point Bi-Serial
correlations were used to test the relationships of clothing comfort with sex and marital
status. The Point Bi-Serial correlation allows correlation analysis involving nominal
variables (Glass & Hopkins, 1995). Multiple regression analysis was used to determine
the level of predictability for significant relationships identified from the correlation
analysis.
45
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This chapter presents the results of the study and relates the findings to the study's
purpose and objectives. The organization of this chapter follows Branson and Sweeney's
(1991) Clothing Comfort Model; findings are grouped by physical and socialpsychological dimension as Tables 3 and 4 indicate (pp. 32-33). The sample and results
of the survey scales and questions are summarized. A discussion of the hypotheses testing
and research question exploration follows, and officers’ suggestions for ballistic vest
manufacturers are discussed.
Description of the Respondents
The final sample included police officers with various rank and experience levels
who wear ballistic vests. Four ranks were represented in the sample: officers,
investigators, sergeants, and field training officers. The majority of respondents were
officers (64%), but there was a greater distribution of experience levels. Of the 91
participating officers, 73 (80%) had worked exclusively at Tallahassee Police
Department. Other demographic variables that are within the physical or socialpsychological dimensions identified in Branson and Sweeney's (1991) Clothing Comfort
Model are discussed later as they relate to the model. The term officers is used as a
general description for all respondents in the rest of the chapter.
Physical Dimension Attributes
Officers reported on selected attributes included within the physical dimension of
Branson and Sweeney's (1991) Clothing Comfort Model. The attributes explored are
presented below, grouped by their relation to the person, clothing, and environment.
46
Person
Person attributes reported were sex, age, height, weight, race, and activity. The
majority of respondents were male (n=73, 80%) and 17 (19%) were female (Table 8).
Their ages ranged from 22 years to 54 years. The mean age of participants was 34.6
(SD=6.47), and 50% or more of respondents were in the 30-39 age group. These
distributions are representative of the national trends in law enforcement officers. Eightyeight percent of national law enforcement personnel are male and 12% are female, and
the majority of officers (59%) are below the age of 40 (Law & Order, 2006). Height of
the officers ranged from under 5 feet to over 6 ½ feet. The majority of participants (n=52,
57%) reported their height to be between 5'6" and 5'11". Officers also reported a wide
range of weights, from less than 160 pounds to over 220 pounds. Twenty-three officers
(25%) indicated their weight to be between 180 and 199 pounds. The largest group of
participants were Caucasian, although other races were represented in the sample: Black
or African American, Cuban, and Mexican or Mexican American. Table 8 shows the
breakdown of age, height, weight, and race for male and female officers.
Activity
For the purposes of this study, activity was defined as the most common activities
done each week by the officers. Emphasis was placed on activities performed daily.
Officers were asked to report on the types of activities they engage in while on duty, the
type of activities they perform wearing their vest, and how much time each week they
spend doing each activity (Appendix C). Job-related activities included: sitting, standing,
driving/riding in a car, running, climbing, jumping, directing traffic, crowd control, and
shooting a gun, which included shooting practice (Table 9). Other less common activities
listed were eating, fighting, riding a cycle, subduing suspects, mediating civil disputes,
and various training activities. As shown in Table 8, the two most common activities
were driving/riding in a car and sitting, 38 (42%) officers spent 20-29 hours each week in
a car, and another 35 (38.5%) officers spending 20-29 hours each week sitting. The
majority of officers spent less than 10 hours per week doing each activity.
47
Table 8
Age, Height, Weight, and Race
Male
(n=73)
Female
(n=17)
Characteristic
f
%
f
%
Age in Years
20 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
Total
18
40
11
3
72
25
56
15
4
100
6
8
2
0
16
38
50
12
0
100
Height in Inches
Under 60
60 to 65
66 to 71
72 to 77
78 or Above
Total
1
5
38
27
2
73
1
7
52
37
3
100
0
3
14
0
0
17
0
18
82
0
0
100
Weight in Pounds
Below 160
160 to 179
180 to 199
200 to 219
220 or above
Total
4
14
21
16
18
73
5
19
29
22
25
100
11
3
2
0
1
17
65
17
12
0
6
100
Race
Caucasian
Black or African American
Mexican or Mexican American
Cuban
Total
56
9
3
4
72
78
12
4
6
100
12
4
0
0
16
75
25
0
0
100
Note: n = 90 for Height and Weight; n = 88 for Age and Race.
48
Table 9
Distribution of Hours per Week Spent Performing Job-related Duties
Not at all
1-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40 or
more
Total
8
9
33
36
0
0
35
39
10
11
5
5
91
100
Standing
F
%
8
9
61
67
0
0
16
18
2
2
4
4
91
100
Driving/riding
in car
F
%
7
8
8
36
0
0
38
42
8
9
5
5
91
100
28
31
61
67
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
91
100
Climbing
F
%
42
46
48
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
91
100
Jumping
F
%
8
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
91
100
Directing traffic
F
%
8
61
73
80
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
91
100
Crowd control
F
%
8
61
70
77
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
91
100
Shooting gun
F
%
8
61
29
32
60
66
0
0
0
0
1
1
91
100
Activity
Sitting
F
%
Running
F
%
49
Respondents described how their activities were affected by wearing a vest.
Frequent problems noted were decreased activity level (n=13, 14%) and more limited
movement (n=18, 20%). Nine (10%) participants indicated that their activities were
affected by poor heat dissipation. Officers also indicated any job-related activity during
which they considered removing their vest. Forty-one (45%) described various scenarios.
Responses included: directing traffic (n=17, 19%) and crowd control during summer
months (n=4, 4%). Officers were also asked if they remove their vest during any
activities. Nine (10%) participants remove their vest when shooting a gun (including
shooting practice) and five (6%) do so when directing traffic. Two (2%) officers
indicated they remove their vest when sitting, standing, driving/riding in a car, running,
or for crowd control. Only one (1%) officer stated the vest is not worn for climbing and
jumping.
Clothing
Although this study was most concerned with ballistic vest issues, aspects of other
clothing items worn by officers were also examined. Measures of the clothing system,
vest fit, and vest properties were taken by having officers report their perceptions and
experiences when wearing ballistic vests. A report of their responses follows.
Clothing System
Participants reported that their clothing system included a departmentally issued
uniform (shirt, pants, jacket, belt, utility belt), undershirt, and a ballistic vest. Twelve
officers (13%) also wore shorts as part of their uniform. The uniform shirt and
pants/shorts were polyester and the utility belts were either made of leather or nylon
webbing. Participants wore their ballistic vests under the uniform shirt, with an undershirt
beneath the vest. Undershirts were not departmentally issued.
Uniforms.
All but two officers owned at least five patrol uniforms. One officer owned only 4
uniforms and another officer had just one uniform. Issued uniform brands included:
Flying Cross, Propper, Fechheimer, Elbeco, and 5.11® Tactical Gear. Fifty-eight (77%)
officers owned Flying Cross uniforms, six (8%) officers owned Propper brand uniforms
and five (7%) had Fechheimer uniforms. Another four (5%) participants wore the Elbeco
50
brand and two (3%) wore 5.11® Tactical Gear. Eleven (15%) of the officers owned two
brands of uniforms.
Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with individual uniform items
and accessories on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Very Dissatisfied and 5 = Very
Satisfied); results are shown in Table 10. Mean ratings for all items were between 2.91
and 3.51 (Table 11), illustrating that although officers are not dissatisfied with their
current uniform items, they are not extremely satisfied either. These results indicate there
could be changes made to the uniforms to improve the wearing experience.
Officers were the least satisfied with the uniform shorts. As previously indicated,
only 12 (13%) respondents wore shorts as part of their uniform. Of the 12 officers, 4
(33%) were dissatisfied with their shorts. Although participants were not asked to
indicate the source of their dissatisfaction, previous research (Rutherford-Black & Khan,
1995) found that officers did not feel as professional when wearing shorts rather than
pants. In that study, one bicycle patrol officer commented that he did not feel comfortable
performing specific job duties when wearing his shorts, such as attending court hearings.
This may explain why shorts were rated lower than other uniform components in this
study. Future research is needed to determine the exact reasons officers are not satisfied
with their shorts.
Undershirts.
Participants select their own undershirt to wear beneath their ballistic vest. Fiftyfour (60%) officers reported wearing plain short-sleeve cotton T-shirts. Not all officers
disclosed the brand of their T-shirts; some brands mentioned were Fruit of the Loom®,
Hanes®, and Jockey™. The remaining participants (n=36, 40%) wear a specialty shirt
designed to wick moisture away from the body. Commonly worn specialty shirts
included 5.11®, Under Armour®, Cool-dri™, Coolmax™, and Nike® Dri Fit.
51
Table 10
Officer Satisfaction with Uniform Components
Satisfaction*
Dissatisfaction**
Component
Ballistic Vest
f
28
%
30.8
f
38
%
41.8
Jacket
26
28.6
38
41.8
Pants
26
28.6
33
36.3
Leather Utility Belt
24
26.4
38
41.8
Belt
23
25.3
49
53.9
Shirt
17
18.7
41
45.1
Web Utility Belt
17
18.7
30
33.0
4
4.4
3
3.3
Shorts
Note: *Satisfaction scores were tallied from ratings: 4 = "Satisfied", 5 = "Very Satisfied".
**Dissatisfaction scores were tallied from ratings: 1 = "Very Dissatisfied", 2 =
"Dissatisfied" on a 5-point Likert-type scale.
52
Table 11
Mean Ratings for Officer Satisfaction with Uniform Components
Component
Shorts
M
2.91
SD
1.311
Pants
3.18
1.121
Jacket
3.22
1.252
Ballistic Vest
3.23
1.175
Leather Utility Belt
3.29
1.238
Shirt
3.43
1.076
Web Utility Belt
3.48
1.265
Belt
3.51
1.187
Note: 1 = "Very Dissatisfied" and 5 = "Very Satisfied".
53
Ballistic vests.
Officers' ballistic vests were departmentally issued. Tallahassee Police
Department does not require officers to wear their ballistic vests, although it is strongly
recommended. When asked if wearing ballistic vests is required of them, 17 (19%)
officers responded that it was required and 74 (81%) indicated it was not required.
Participants also indicated the number of hours each week they wear their vest. Seventyfive (82%) officers wear their vests at least 40 hours each week, while four (4%)
responded "Not at all." Table 12 shows officers' actual wearing behavior compared to
their ideal wearing behavior.
Seven ballistic vest brands were worn: Safariland®, Point Blank, Second Chance,
American Body Armor™, First Choice, PACA, and Protech. A recent national survey of
over 9,000 law enforcement officers identified these same seven brands to be in the top
eight of the most commonly purchased ballistic vest brands, indicating that this study's
sample concurs with national ballistic vest purchasing trends (Law & Order, 2006). Of
those officers that specified their ballistic vest brand, the majority (n=75, 82%) have
worn Safariland® vests. Other brands worn by participants were Point Blank, Second
Chance, American Body Armor™, Protech, and PACA. Table 13 shows the brands of
ballistic vests and the frequency each brand was worn. Fifteen (16%) officers could not
identify the brand(s) of ballistic vests they have worn. Some officers could indicate only
the brand name, while others specified the style name. Of the 91 respondents, 19 (21%)
identified two brands of vests they have worn and another 4 (4%) have worn three
different vest brands. The majority of officers (n=68, 75%) only own one ballistic vest,
but 71 (78%) officers own two vest carriers for their vest.
Officers were asked to indicate the age, protection level, and size of their current
vest (Table 14). The majority of participants (n=50, 55%) indicated their ballistic vest
was less than 2 years old. This data is concurrent with other surveys which indicated the
majority (38%) of ballistic vests currently worn were less than two years old (Law &
Order, 2006). The mean age of vests in this study was 1.55 years (SD=1.32). Currently, it
is recommended ballistic vests be replaced every five years (NIJ guide 100-01, 2001).
54
Table 12
Actual vs. Ideal Wearing Behavior
Actual
Ideal
f
4
%
4.4
f
0
%
0.0
10
11.0
10
11.0
10-19
0
0.0
0
0.0
20-29
0
0.0
0
0.0
30-39
2
2.2
0
0.0
40 or more
75
82.4
81
89.0
Total
91
100.0
91
100.0
Hours per Week in Vest
Not at all
1-9
55
Table 13
Brands of Ballistic Vests Worn by Officers
Brand
Safariland®
f
75
%
82
Matrix®
20
22
Zero-G®
31
34
Point Blank
14
15
Second Chance
9
10
Monarch
1
1
First Choice
1
1
American Body Armor™
1
1
Protech
1
1
1
1
PACA
1
1
Other
1
1
Don't Know
15
16
Total
91
100
Cover 6™
56
Table 14
Age, Protection Level, and Size of Ballistic Vests
f
%
1 year or less
23
25.3
2 years
27
29.7
3 years
19
20.9
4 years
14
15.4
5 years
6
6.6
6 years or more
2
2.2
91
100.0
Level II
23
25.3
Level IIA
42
46.2
Level III
24
26.4
2
2.2
91
100.0
34
5
5.5
36
10
11.0
38
20
22.0
40
12
13.2
42
18
19.8
44
12
13.2
7
7.7
84
92.3
Vest Characteristic
Age
Total
Protection level
Higher than Level III
Total
Size
46 or larger
Total
57
The most common protection level for currently worn vests was Level IIA (n=42,
46%). The Level II (n=23, 25%) and Level III (n=24, 26%) protection were also
frequently worn. Officers did not wear Level I protection, and only 2 (2%) officers wore
higher than Level III. Other surveys of police officers also report that the majority of
officers (98%) wore either the Level II, IIA, or III vest protection level (Law & Order,
2006).
Vest Fit
For optimal wear comfort and protection, ballistic vests must fit well. To evaluate
officers' perception of fit, respondents were asked to rate the fit of their vest when
standing and sitting on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1=Does Not Fit and 5=Excellent Fit).
As shown in Table 15, fit items included "tightness of neckline", "armhole pinching", "fit
of shoulder area", "fit of chest area", "fit of waist area", and "overall length". Officers
reported experiencing better fit when standing than sitting for all items in the fit scale.
In a previous study of ballistic vests (Fowler, 2003a), officers commented that
ballistic vests bunch up at the waist and/or ride up at the neck when they were seated,
causing discomfort. Responses in this study verified that officers consider the vests riding
up at the neck an issue that influences perceived fit when sitting. Fifty-four (60.7%) of
officers rated their vest fit positively for "tightness of neckline" when standing as
compared to 35 (38.3%) of officers when sitting. In addition, 36 officers indicated they
adjusted their vest after sitting. Of the 36 officers, 23 participants (64%) said they pull the
vest down at the neck, while 5 (14%) pull it down at the waist. Both of these issues are
caused by the vest riding up when officers sit down.
All areas showed higher mean fit ratings for standing than sitting (Table 16). Ttests were run to compare total fit ratings for ballistic vests when standing and sitting.
Officers rated their ballistic vest fit significantly higher when standing than when sitting
(t = 5.09, p = 0.000). Previous investigation of ballistic vest fit supports this phenomenon
(Fowler, 2003a); fit ratings were more negative when officers were sitting than when
standing. These results are disconcerting, since 39% of officers in this study indicated
they spend 20-29 hours each week sitting (p. 43). Although mean fit scores were higher
58
Table 15
Officers' Perceived Vest Fit When Standing and Sitting
Standing
Sitting
f
%
f
%
1
3
3.4
10
11.2
2
8
9.0
22
24.7
3
24
27.0
22
24.7
4
32
36.0
22
24.7
5
22
24.7
13
14.6
Total
89
100.0
89
100.0
1
7
7.9
5
5.6
2
9
10.1
10
11.2
3
20
22.5
20
22.5
4
37
41.6
34
38.2
5
23
25.8
20
22.5
Total
89
100.0
89
100.0
1
2
2.3
5
5.6
2
4
4.5
4
4.5
3
20
22.5
22
24.7
4
41
46.1
37
41.6
5
22
24.7
21
23.6
Total
89
100.0
89
100.0
Vest Area
Tightness of neckline
Armhole pinching
Fit of shoulder area
59
Table 15 - continued
Standing
Sitting
f
%
f
%
1
4
4.5
5
5.6
2
10
11.2
13
14.6
3
21
23.6
24
27.0
4
35
39.3
29
32.6
5
19
21.3
18
20.2
Total
89
100.0
89
100.0
1
7
7.9
8
9.0
2
14
15.7
17
19.1
3
33
37.1
29
32.6
4
26
29.2
28
31.5
5
9
10.1
7
7.9
89
100.0
89
100.0
1
7
7.9
9
10.1
2
13
14.6
15
16.9
3
32
36.0
31
34.8
4
26
29.2
24
27.0
5
11
12.4
10
11.2
Total
89
100.0
89
100.0
Vest Area
Fit of chest area
Fit of waist area
Total
Overall length
Note: 1 = "Does Not Fit" and 5 = "Excellent Fit".
60
Table 16
Mean, Standard Deviations, and T-test Scores for Perceived Vest Fit
Standing
Sitting
Vest Area
Fit of shoulder area
M
3.87
SD
0.919
M
3.73
SD
1.053
Armhole pinching
3.83
0.932
3.61
1.124
Tightness of Neckline
3.70
1.049
3.07
1.241
Fit of chest area
3.62
1.082
3.47
1.139
Overall length
3.24
1.098
3.12
1.136
Fit of waist area
3.18
1.072
3.10
1.088
21.43
4.459
20.10
4.904
Total
Note: 1 = "Does Not Fit" and 5 = "Excellent Fit".
61
t(df)
p
5.089(88)
0.000
for standing than sitting, all mean scores were neutral, indicating that vest fit could be
improved.
Vest Properties
Twelve adjective sets were used to measure general vest properties on a 5-point
semantic differential scale, where "1" was associated with a negative attribute assessment
and "5" was associated with a positive attribute assessment. The bipolar adjective sets
included: "acceptable/unacceptable", "not bulky/bulky", "absorbent/nonabsorbent", "easy
to take off/hard to take off", "safe/unsafe", "lightweight/heavyweight", "sturdy/not
sturdy", "easy to put on/hard to put on", "high quality/low quality",
"functional/nonfunctional", "like/dislike", and "provides protection/lack of protection".
Negative scores were tallied from ratings of 1.0 to 2.5, while positive scores were tallied
from ratings 3.5 to 5.0. A rating between 2.5 and 3.5 was considered neutral. Table 17
shows the frequencies for positive and negative ratings, means, and standard deviations
for each adjective set.
Seven of the adjective sets were rated positively and four were rated as neutral.
The mean for "acceptable/unacceptable" received the only negative score at 2.49 (SD =
0.959). Another adjective set, "not bulky/bulky" received a neutral rating of 2.75 (SD =
1.060). This low rating was expected due to the number of layers of ballistic fabrics in
each vest. The mean is not on the negative side of the scale, however, showing that the
design is not unsuccessful but could benefit from improvements in this aspect.
Only one other adjective set received a neutral rating: "absorbent/nonabsorbent".
The mean score for this adjective set was 2.91 (SD=1.226); 30 (33%) officers rated
ballistic vests positively and 34 (37%) rated the vest negatively. Twenty-seven (30%)
officers gave the vests a neutral score of "3". These results are consistent with previous
studies of ballistic vests, where two vests were evaluated using this scale and received
"absorbent/nonabsorbent" mean scores of 3.1 and 2.8 (Fowler, 2003a, p. 52).
The vests were rated most positively for "easy to take off/hard to take off"
(M=4.11, SD=1.016), "safe/unsafe" (M=4.07, SD=1.015), and "easy to put on/hard to put
on" (M=4.03, SD=1.022). The vests are designed with Velcro® at the sides, which allows
62
Table 17
Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Vest Properties
Negative*
Positive**
Vest Property
Acceptable
f
46
%
50.6
f
11
%
12.1
M
2.49
SD
0.959
Not bulky
38
41.8
21
23.1
2.75
1.060
Absorbent
34
37.4
30
33.0
2.91
1.226
Like
23
25.5
32
35.6
3.06
1.165
Lightweight
17
18.9
28
31.1
3.13
0.927
Sturdy
7
7.8
50
55.5
3.60
0.884
High quality
6
6.7
51
56.7
3.66
0.863
Functional
3
3.3
61
67.8
3.92
0.838
Provides protection
4
4.4
62
68.9
3.96
0.940
Easy to put on
8
8.9
67
74.4
4.03
1.022
Safe
6
6.6
68
75.5
4.07
1.015
Easy to take off
5
5.5
68
74.8
4.11
1.016
Overall Vest Properties
3
3.3
48
52.7
3.56
0.544
Note: *Negative scores were tallied from values 1.0 to 2.5. **Positive scores were tallied
from values 3.5 to 5.0.
63
for ease of donning and doffing; these positive ratings were not surprising. However, it
was not expected that officers would rate "safe/unsafe" as the second most positive aspect
of the vest properties. With recent new reports of ballistic vests degrading in increased
temperature and humidity levels, it was expected that officers would show more
skepticism related to the safety of their vests. This was not the case.
All other adjective sets received positive mean scores (Table 17). The following
adjective sets did not only have a positive mean score but also received a majority of
ratings in the positive scores: "sturdy/not sturdy" (n=50, 55%), "high quality/low quality"
(n=51, 56%), "functional/not functional" (n=61, 67%), and "provides protection/lack of
protection" (n=62, 68%). Each of these ratings shows that ballistic vest designs are
perceived successful in the most fundamental areas. Officers perceive that their vests are
safe and protective, function well and are constructed well.
Scores for each of the 12 adjective sets were totaled to create a total vest
properties score, which was then computed back to the original scale values ("1" =
negative, "5" = positive). Negative scores were again tallied from ratings of 1.0 to 2.5;
positive scores were tallied from ratings 3.5 to 5.0, while a rating between 2.5 and 3.5
was considered neutral. Forty-eight (53%) officers rated the total vest properties
positively, while only 3 (3%) officers rated the total vest properties on the negatively.
The mean score was 3.56 (SD=0.544), illustrating that overall the vest design is
somewhat successful but could use improvements.
Officers' opinions of the vest properties were examined in other ways beside the
12 adjective sets. For instance, one participant in the study indicated that he/she had been
shot in the chest while wearing a ballistic vest. The officer commented that the
experience was "very unpleasant". The officer described the performance of his ballistic
vest in this situation as "Fair", and indicated that the experience did not affect his/her
attitude toward wearing ballistic vests.
Participants were also asked to describe any problems the vest caused with their
uniform items. Table 18 shows the frequencies and percentages of officers that
experienced negative interactions between their vest and uniform. The following lists the
common negative interactions:
64
Table 18
Negative Interaction of Ballistic Vests with Uniform Components
Uniform Component
Shirt
f
19
%
20.9
Leather Utility Belt
17
18.7
Web Utility Belt
11
12.1
Belt
7
7.7
Jacket
5
5.5
Shorts
2
2.2
Pants
1
1.1
Note: N = 91.
65
•
bulk of vests causing jackets and shirts to fit too tightly
•
vests catching on belts/utility belts or uniform pins/accessories
•
Velcro® straps on vests rubbing and abrading uniform shirts
•
vests twisting and/or pulling uniform shirts up
Officers also reported that their vests changed shape since purchase (n=46, 50%).
Shape changes included having the bottom of the vest curl up or the vest molding to their
torso shape. Changes may influence the vest/uniform interaction or may have been
caused by the vest/uniform interaction. For instance, one officer commented that his/her
vest rolls up when it hits the utility belt and gear. Other officers indicated that when their
vest rolls up, it causes their uniform shirt to look "disheveled" or become "twisted". More
investigation is needed to determine ways to avoid such negative shape changes in
ballistic vests.
Officers' comments regarding their vest properties show the same attitude
reflected in the results above. Overall, officers rate their vests positively for function and
design, but their comments do not illustrate enthusiasm toward or satisfaction with the
vest properties. Rather, their comments show frustration and discontent with many
attributes of the vest. More research is needed to examine the ballistic vest as part of the
uniformed officers' entire clothing system so that improvements can be made in this area.
Environment
Officers were asked questions that related their ballistic vest wearing behavior to
temperatures, time of year, and occasions. This information was compared to temperature
and humidity records for the region the officers were working in.
Temperature
Participants indicated months during which they are inclined not to wear their
ballistic vest (Table 19). During the months of January, February, and March, 10 (11%)
officers said they do not want to wear their vests. In April, 13 (14%) participants
indicated they do not want to wear their vests. The percentage of officers who are not
inclined to wear their vests gradually increased each month until July. In July, 34 (37%)
officers do not want to wear their vests. Not surprisingly, the responses for August were
very similar to those for July (n=33, 36%). The percentage then decreases gradually each
66
Table 19
Months Officers are Inclined to Remove Vest
Would
Remove
Would Not
Remove
Month
January
Average Temperature
50
Humidity
57
f
10
%
11.0
f
81
%
89.0
February
53
54
10
11.0
81
89.0
March
60
51
10
11.0
81
89.0
April
66
47
13
14.3
78
85.7
May
74
50
16
17.6
75
82.4
June
80
56
23
25.3
68
74.7
July
81
61
34
37.4
57
62.6
August
81
61
33
36.3
58
63.7
September
78
58
23
25.3
68
74.7
October
69
53
11
12.1
80
87.9
November
60
54
10
11.0
81
89.0
December
53
57
10
11.0
81
89.0
Note: Average temperatures and humidity levels for Tallahassee, Florida in 2005.
67
month until November and December, when 10 (11%) officers are still inclined not to
wear their vests.
As shown in Table 19, for any given month, 10 (11%) officers do not want to
wear their vests, which could put these officers in jeopardy. Another 26% of officers are
inclined not to wear their vests as the temperature and humidity levels increase. Thus,
temperature and humidity affect officers' desire to wear their vests. This attitude is
reflected in respondents' comments. Officers were asked to specify a temperature when
they would consider removing their vests. Table 20 shows the range of temperatures
when officers would consider removing their vests, as well as the frequency, percentage,
and cumulative percentage for each range. Thirty-one percent of participants would think
of removing their vests when temperatures are above 85° F. Therefore, improvements are
needed in thermal acceptability of ballistic vests so that more officers will want to wear
their vests.
Although almost one-third of officers would think about removing their vest if
uncomfortable temperatures were experienced, another 62 (68%) officers indicated they
would never remove their vest. Several officers showed absolute resolve to wear their
vests at all time, making comments such as: "I would not consider working without my
vest" or "I haven't felt enough heat to not wear it if I was in the field". Others showed the
same resolve while still acknowledging their discomfort. One participant wrote, "If I'm in
uniform the vest is on (I may not get out of the car however)". Another response to the
question "At what temperature would you consider removing your vest?" was: "Never –
[I] just suffer". These comments indicate that some officers feel the protection provided
by wearing their ballistic vests compensates for any discomfort they may experience
when wearing their vests. However, the 31% of officers that consider removing their
vests in certain temperatures should not be ignored. If officers experienced higher levels
of thermal acceptability when wearing ballistic vests, this percentage might be decreased.
This decrease would have a positive impact on the number of officers wearing their vests
year-round.
68
Table 20
Temperature Officers Consider Removing Vests
Temperature
85° or below
F
3
%
3.3
Cumulative %
3.3
86° - 95°
12
13.2
16.5
96° - 105°
9
9.9
26.4
106° or above
5
5.5
31.9
None
62
68.1
100.0
Total
91
100.0
69
Officers were asked to rate how often their vest gets wet enough to consider
removing it ("always", "sometimes", "seldom", "never"). The majority of officers chose
"never" (n=46, 50%), although 23 (25%) selected "seldom" and 15 (16%) chose
"sometimes". Three (3%) officers said their vest is "always" wet enough to consider
removing it. Some officers described experiences when they wanted to remove their vest
due to wetness:
•
"During rain storm vest filled with water and became uncomfortable"
•
"Hot summer days in Tallahassee, FL you're soaked"
•
"In July, August, September when you sweat or when it is raining so hard you
can't see"
•
"It's always wet whenever I take it off, to the point my skin is raw"
These experiences were caused either by officers' excessive perspiration when
wearing vests or when officers were unprotected during a rainstorm. Officers also
recorded their most uncomfortable experience when wearing their vests. The majority of
responses related to hot temperatures (n=52, 74%), further emphasizing the importance of
evaluating the effect of environmental conditions on ballistic vest wearer comfort.
Social-psychological Dimension Attributes
This study's emphasis was on attributes that affected the function of ballistic vests
and physical comfort of wearers, but certain attributes within the social-psychological
dimension of Branson and Sweeney's (1991) Clothing Comfort Model were also
assessed. Discussion of the attributes is organized by their relation to the person and
environment.
Person
Person attributes of the social-psychological dimension can include state of being,
self concept, personality, body image/cathexis, values, attitudes, interests, awareness,
religious and political beliefs. The two attributes determined to be most relevant to
ballistic vest wearers are their values and attitudes, thus this study focused on these two
attributes.
70
Values
Core values of participants were measured using a scale developed by Kahle
(1983). Officers were asked to rate the importance of nine values in their daily lives.
Value items were measured on a 9-point Likert-type scale (1="Not at all important" to
9="Extremely important"). The values included: "sense of belonging", "excitement",
"warm-relationships with others", "self-fulfillment", "being well respected", "fun and
enjoyment of life", "security", "self-respect", and "a sense of accomplishment." Mean
scores and standard deviations are listed in Table 21. All mean scores were higher than
6.0, indicating that officers find all of the values important to them. Seventy-eight percent
(n=69) of officers rated "self-respect" as important to them (M=7.95). "Fun and
enjoyment of life" was scored as the next most important (M=7.87). The two items that
were rated the least important were "sense of belonging" (M=6.49) and "excitement"
(M=6.50).
Attitudes
Data was collected regarding officers' attitudes toward their vests and uniforms.
Participants' attitudes toward their uniform and ballistic vests were measured using eight
statements designed to elicit agreement or disagreement from the officers. Each officer
rated their opinions regarding the statements on a 5-point scale where 1 = "Strongly
Disagree" and 5 = "Strongly Agree" (Table 22). This data was not computed to create an
overall attitudes scale because factor analysis did not reveal enough related items. These
items might be further developed into an attitude scale for future studies.
The officers did not object to wearing ballistic vests (M=2.33); the low mean
indicated that they disagreed with the statement, "I dislike wearing my ballistic vest".
They agreed that the fit of their uniforms (M=3.56) and vests (M=3.78) should be
improved and also that more styles of vests should be made available to them (M=3.71).
Two conflicting statements were included in the measure of officer attitudes: (1) "It is
more important that my uniform and vest look professional than keep me comfortable"
and (2) "I don't care how my uniform and vest look as long as I am comfortable". The
71
Table 21
Means and Standard Deviations for Officer Values
Value
Sense of belonging
M
6.49
SD
1.719
Excitement
6.50
1.626
Warm-relationships with others
7.06
1.590
Being well respected
7.41
1.709
Security
7.51
1.756
Self-fulfillment
7.64
1.486
A sense of accomplishment
7.81
1.512
Fun and enjoyment of life
7.87
1.463
Self-respect
7.95
1.494
Note: Values were measured on a 9-point Likert-type scale where 1 = "Not at all
Important" and 9 = "Extremely Important".
72
Table 22
Officer Attitudes Related to the Uniform and Vest
M
SD
It is more important that my uniform and vest
look professional than keep me comfortable.
2.29
1.078
I don't care how my uniform and vest look as
long as I am comfortable.
2.49
1.311
The overall fit of my uniform should be
improved.
3.56
1.284
The fit of vests should be improved.
3.78
1.162
I dislike wearing my ballistic vest.
2.33
1.383
More styles of vests should be offered to me.
3.71
1.138
I am more likely to take risks when wearing my
vest.
2.00
1.333
I feel safer when wearing a ballistic vest.
4.45
1.078
Statement
Note: 1 = "Strongly Disagree" and 5 = "Strongly Agree".
73
majority of officers disagreed with both statements (M=2.29 and M=2.49, respectively),
illustrating the conflict police officers have between looking professional and maintaining
an acceptable comfort level. This finding reflects the results of previous studies (Fowler,
2003a; Rutherford-Black & Khan, 1995). In a prior wear study (Fowler, 2003a) police
officers resisted performing certain tasks that had potential to affect their uniform
appearance (i.e., crawling on hands and knees). This social-psychological phenomenon
should be examined further to determine how best to meet officers' uniform needs.
Although some police administrators indicate a concern that officers will take
unnecessary risks when wearing their ballistic vests (Fowler, 2003a), participants in this
study stated the opposite. When asked to respond to the statement "I am more likely to
take risks when wearing my vest", the majority of officers disagreed or strongly
disagreed (M=2.00, n=64, 70%). Seventy-six officers (84%) strongly agreed or agreed
that they feel safer when wearing their ballistic vest (M=4.45).
Environment
Social-psychological attributes included in Branson and Sweeney's (1991)
Clothing Comfort Model include: occasion/situation of wear, significant other, reference
group, social norms, cultural patterns, historical precedence, and geographic locale. Of
these attributes, significant other and reference group, in the form of education level,
were most applicable to ballistic vest wearers.
To evaluate the attribute of significant other, participants were asked to indicate
their marital status. The majority of respondents were married (n = 60, 69%), while other
respondents were single (n = 21, 24%). Five (5%) respondents indicated they were
divorced and one (1%) respondent was separated (Table 23).
Officers were also asked to indicate their highest education level. Fifty-four
(62%) received a Bachelor's degree, while another 24 (27%) had some college education.
Another 7 (8%) officers had completed some graduate work, and 3 (3%) had a graduate
degree. Table 23 shows the marital status and education level of male and female
participants.
74
Table 23
Marital Status and Highest Education Level
Male
(n=73)
Female
(n=17)
Characteristic
f
%
f
%
Marital Status
Single
Married
Divorced
Separated
Total
16
53
2
1
72
22
74
3
1
100
5
7
3
0
15
33
47
20
0
100
Highest Education Level
Some College
Bachelor's Degree
Some Graduate Work
Graduate Degree
Total
18
46
6
1
71
25
65
9
1
100
6
8
1
2
17
35
47
6
12
100
Note: n = 87 for Marital Status; n = 88 for Highest Education Level.
75
Comfort
Comfort was measured by having participants rate 13 bipolar adjective sets on a
5-point semantic differential scale ("1" = negative, "5" = positive). The adjective sets
included: "flexible/rigid", "easy to move in/hard to move in", "cold/hot", "soft to
skin/harsh to skin", "freedom of movement of arms/restricted movement of arms",
"breathable/not breathable", "feels soft/feels stiff", "freedom of movement of
torso/restricted movement of torso", "non-irritating/irritating", "fits well/does not fit
well", "ease of movement/confining", "loose/tight", and "overall satisfied/dissatisfied".
An additional adjective set of "comfortable/uncomfortable" was included to compare
with the overall comfort score. Positive and negative scores were tallied for each
adjective set. Table 24 lists these scores, as well as the means and standard deviations.
The ballistic vests received positive ratings for four adjective sets: "flexible/rigid"
(M=3.20, SD=0.885), "easy to move in/hard to move in" (M=3.12, SD=0.841), "freedom
of movement of arms/restricted movement of arms" (M=3.60, SD=1.063), and "overall
satisfied/overall dissatisfied" (M=3.21, SD=1.076). From the scores for "flexible/rigid",
"easy to move in/hard to move in", and "freedom of movement of arms/restricted
movement of arms", it appears that officers are experiencing appropriate mobility when
wearing their vests. However, there were two other measures of mobility included in the
comfort scale: "freedom of movement of torso/restricted movement of torso" and "ease of
movement/confining", which received slightly lower ratings (M=2.86, SD=1.055 and
M=2.83, SD=1.030, respectively). Based on respondents' comments related to their vest
fit, it is not surprising that participants are reporting more restrictive movement in their
torsos than their arms. Although these scores are not as positive as others related to
mobility, they are not negative scores, which indicates that overall officers have
acceptable mobility when wearing their vests.
One adjective set, "cold/hot", received a negative rating associated with the
wearer being hot (M=1.78, SD=0.892). This is consistent with officers' responses to
questions related to wearing their vest in certain environmental conditions. Eleven
percent of participants noted that they are
76
Table 24
Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Comfort Measures
Negative
Positive
Comfort Measure
Cold
f
2
%
2.2
f
67
%
73.6
M
1.78
SD
0.892
Breathable
9
10.0
63
70.0
2.07
1.130
Feels soft
16
17.8
39
43.3
2.69
1.013
7
7.8
34
37.8
2.70
0.841
Non-irritating
20
22.2
38
42.3
2.73
1.149
Ease of movement
18
20.0
34
37.8
2.83
1.030
Freedom of movement of
24
26.4
35
38.9
2.86
1.055
Soft to skin
20
22.0
25
27.5
2.92
1.014
Fits well
29
32.2
32
36.6
2.97
1.075
Easy to move in
26
28.6
21
23.1
3.12
0.841
Flexible
31
34.1
16
17.6
3.20
0.885
Overall satisfied
35
38.9
21
23.4
3.21
1.076
Freedom of movement of
55
60.5
17
18.7
3.60
1.063
8
8.8
27
29.6
2.83
0.573
Loose
torso
arms
Overall Comfort Measure
Note: Negative scores were tallied from ratings 1.0 to 2.5; Positive scores were tallied
from ratings 3.5 to 5.0; Neutral scores were tallied from ratings between 2.5 and 3.5.
77
inclined to not wear their vest year round, while an additional 20% are not inclined to
wear their vests as the temperature rises. Officers also commented that the vest was hot to
wear, particularly during the summer months when directing traffic, standing in the sun,
and/or performing crowd control duties. These findings are also similar to those in a
previous study, where participants rated ballistic vests most negatively for thermal
acceptability (Fowler, 2003a, p. 47).
The scores for each of the 13 adjective sets were tallied to create a total comfort
score, which was computed back to the original 5-point scale values ("1" = most positive,
"5" = most negative). Eight (8%) officers rated their ballistic vest positively for comfort,
while 27 (30%) rated their vests negatively. The mean comfort score was 2.83
(SD=0.573), which is slightly negative. This reflects that officers are more likely to be
dissatisfied with the comfort of their ballistic vests. Officers also rated the adjective set
"comfortable/uncomfortable" neutrally (M=2.98, SD=1.075), further illustrating officers'
mixed responses to their ballistic vests.
Testing of Hypotheses
Correlations were calculated for clothing comfort and the physical dimension
attributes (sex, clothing system, fit, vest properties, age, weight, height) and the socialpsychological dimension attribute, significant other. Positive relationships were expected
between all attributes except age, weight, and height. Tables 25 and 26 show the
correlation matrices for attributes grouped by either the physical or social-psychological
dimension.
Clothing Comfort and Physical Dimension Correlations
Hypotheses 1 proposed the relationship between physical dimension attributes
and clothing comfort, as suggested by Branson and Sweeney's Clothing Comfort Model
(1991). Although the model suggests the correlations exist, in this study some attributes
were expected to be positively correlated, while a negative relationship was expected for
others.
78
Table 25
Correlations between Clothing Comfort and Physical Dimension Attributes
Variable
1. Comfort
1
2. Sex
0.015
3. Clothing
0.168
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.142
System
4. Fit
0.477**
-0.086
0.259
5. Vest
0.523**
0.045
0.170
0.464**
6. Age
-0.154
0.187
-0.230
-0.224*
-0.154
7. Weight
0.006
0.505**
0.222
-0.096
0.006
0.025
8. Height
-0.160
0.289**
0.250
-0.150
-0.160
0.073
properties
Note. n = 88. **p < .01. *p < .05, two-tailed.
79
0.444**
Table 26
Correlations between Clothing Comfort and Social-psychological Dimension Attribute
Variable
1. Comfort
2. Significant Other
Note. n = 88. **p < .01. *p < .05, two-tailed.
80
1
2
-0.066
0.038
•
H1a: A correlation exists between clothing comfort and sex.
•
H1b: A positive correlation exists between clothing comfort and clothing
system.
•
H1c: A positive correlation exists between clothing comfort and vest fit.
•
H1d: A positive correlation exists between clothing comfort and vest properties.
•
H1e: A negative correlation exists between clothing comfort and age.
•
H1f: A negative correlation exists between clothing comfort and weight.
•
H1g: A negative correlation exists between clothing comfort and height.
Point Bi-serial Correlations were used to test the relationship between clothing
comfort and sex. Sex was not significantly correlated with clothing comfort (r = 0.015, p
= 0.889), thus hypothesis 1a was not supported.
Pearson Product Moment Correlations were used to test relationships between
clothing comfort and clothing system, fit, and vest properties. The relationship between
clothing comfort and the clothing system attribute was not significant (r = 0.168, p =
0.622). Therefore, hypothesis 1b was not supported.
Hypotheses 1c and 1d were supported by the findings. As predicted, significant
positive correlations were noted between clothing comfort and physical dimension
attributes of fit (r = 0.477, p = 0.000) and vest properties (r = 0.523, p = 0.000).
Therefore, as fit improved, the officers reported increased comfort. Likewise, officers
experienced greater comfort as their ratings for vest properties increased.
Pearson Product Moment Correlations were run to test the relationship between
age, weight, height and clothing comfort. In fact, age, weight, and height attributes
showed non-significant relationships (age: r = -0.154, p = 0.155; weight: r = 0.006, p =
0.914; height: r = -0.160, p = 0.134) with clothing comfort, while weight was positively
correlated with clothing comfort. It is generally expected that as a person's size increases
in weight and/or height, their comfort will decrease, due to increased fitting problems, but
this phenomenon was not evident in this study. Thus, hypotheses 1e, 1f, and 1g were not
supported.
The results of the first hypothesis testing indicate that attributes listed in the
physical dimension of Branson and Sweeney's Clothing Comfort Model (1991) can affect
81
clothing comfort. This study found significant relationships between clothing comfort
and attributes of fit and vest properties.
Clothing Comfort and Social-psychological Dimension Correlations
The second hypothesis evaluated the proposed relationship between socialpsychological dimension attribute, significant other, and clothing comfort within Branson
& Sweeney's model (1991).
•
H2: A correlation exists between clothing comfort and significant other.
Point Bi-Serial Correlation was used to analyze the correlation between
significant other and clothing comfort. A non-significant correlation was found between
officers' clothing comfort and their significant other status (r = -0.066, p = 0.546).
Hypothesis 2b was thus rejected.
Influence of Significant Factors on Clothing Comfort
After Pearson Product Moment Correlations showed significant relationships between the
dependent variable, clothing comfort, and two independent variables, fit and vest
properties, multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine the influence of the
significant independent variables on clothing comfort (Table 27). R2 shows that 34% of
the variance in clothing comfort is explained by the independent variables, fit and vest
properties. The adjusted model (R2) explains 32% of the variance in clothing comfort.
The F test revealed a significant relationship between the independent variables (fit and
vest properties) and clothing comfort: F(2, 86) = 21.538, p < 0.05. Thus, the equation for
estimating clothing comfort is:
Clothing Comfort = 0.668 + 0.019 (Fit) + 0.383 (Vest properties)
As fit ratings increase by one incremental value, comfort ratings are expected to
be 0.019 higher, if the vest properties rating remains the same. Likewise, as vest
properties ratings increase by one incremental value and fit remains the same, comfort
ratings are expected to increase by 0.383. Comfort experienced by officers wearing
ballistic vests is dependent on both vest fit and vest properties, but vest properties are
more influential on clothing comfort than vest fit as measured in this study.
82
Table 27
Multiple Regression Analysis for Influence of Fit and Vest Properties on Clothing
Comfort
β
t
p
Fit
0.019
3.050
0.003**
Vest Properties
0.383
3.734
0.000**
Constant
0.668
1.980
Variable
Clothing Comfort
df
85
Adjusted R2
0.321
F
R2
21.538** 0.336
Note: n = 86. ** p < 0.01.
83
Research Questions
In addition to the aforementioned hypotheses, the following research questions
were explored:
•
Do ballistic vest wearers employ wearer comfort adjustments to increase their
comfort?
•
If so, what are the techniques commonly used?
This study defined wearer comfort adjustments as adaptations or accommodations
wearers make to themselves, their clothing, or their environment to improve their wearing
experience. To answer the research questions, participants reported ways they washed,
stored, and used their vests. They also responded to items concerning adjustments they
make to their vests or their behaviors to improve their comfort level.
Officers described their methods for washing the vest carriers. Ninety-one percent
(n=80) of officers wash the carrier in the washing machine. The remaining officers (n=8,
9%) indicated they either hand wash the carrier or used a cloth to wipe it down. Only 26
officers indicated how they dried their vest carrier. Of these 26, 18 (69%) hung the carrier
up to dry, while eight (31%) used a clothes dryer to dry the carrier. One officer indicated
that the carrier's Velcro® straps were damaged by the heat of the dryer.
Participants also explained how they usually store their vests when they are not
worn (Table 28). The majority of officers hung their vests, either on a hanger (n=40,
43%) or the back of a chair (n=9, 9%). The next most common storage method was to lay
the vest flat (n=33, 36%), and another method was to stand the vest upright, propped
against something (n=4, 4%). Five (5%) officers indicated that they store their vests in
their patrol vehicles, despite recent warnings issued from the National Institute of Justice
that this storage method can cause ballistic fabrics to deteriorate (NIJ Status Report,
2004).
Officers were also asked about adjustments they make to the vest when wearing it
to examine whether any adjustments were made that could negatively affect the
protection provided by their ballistic vest. When participants were asked to report any
adjustments they make when their vest fits too tightly or loosely, they overwhelmingly
responded that they adjust the shoulder and/or side Velcro® straps. This could be
84
Table 28
Wearer Comfort Adjustments: Storage Methods for Ballistic Vests
f
9
%
9.9
Hang on clothes hanger
40
43.9
Lay flat
33
36.3
Stand up
4
4.4
In vehicle
5
5.5
91
100.0
Storage Methods
Hang on chair
Total
85
detrimental if officers are loosening the vests too much, causing reduced side coverage.
Fifty-one (57%) officers made general statements indicating that they adjust the straps.
Seventeen (19%) commented that they make adjustments to the side straps, only three
(3%) adjust the shoulder straps, and nine (10%) specifically said they adjust both the
shoulder and side Velcro® straps. One participant remarked that he/she "deal[s] with it",
while another exchanged his/her vest for a larger size. Two respondents commented that
they pull down on the neck. Other responses of interest included: "[I] adjust straps but
they don't always stay attached", "side Velcro® adjustment not very helpful", and "the
vest has to be taken off to adjust". Each of these comments illustrates the officers'
discontent with the Velcro® adjustment in the vest properties. Further investigation is
needed to determine a better adjustment system for ballistic vests.
Respondents were also asked to describe any adjustments made to their vests
when they became too hot. Nine officers stated that they move to an air conditioned area
(10%), and 14 (16%) loosen the vest using the Velcro® straps at the shoulder and/or
sides. The majority of respondents indicated that they reposition the vest to allow for
more air circulation (n=22, 25%) or make no adjustment at all (n=20, 23%). One (1%)
officer poured water down his/her shirt to cool off. Responses to this question reflected
participants' extreme discomfort when wearing their vests. Common examples are: "I
suffer" and "Turn AC up, pull vest away from your chest and blow cool air into the chest
area. Very small improvement!" Some officers mentioned that they pull the vest away
from their neck to allow hot air to escape, indicating that ballistic vests need to be more
breathable.
Participants described adjustments to improve their mobility when wearing
ballistic vests. Sixty-seven of 91 (73%) officers do not make any adjustments to their
vests. Fourteen (15%) loosened their vests using the Velcro® straps. Only one (1%)
respondent pulled the vest down at the neck. Others described behavioral changes that
they have made because the vest inhibits their mobility. Some changes include: sitting
very uprightly, wearing a different type of undershirt, and holding shotguns in different
locations on their shoulders when shooting.
Officers also indicated that their vests inhibited their movement during a number
86
of activities. These included bending over, climbing, jumping fences, pursuing suspects
by foot, getting out of the vehicle quickly, sitting, turning, shooting shotguns, and
driving. Each of these activities is pertinent to police duties and officers are required to
perform many of them on a daily basis. It is disconcerting that officers are experiencing
limited movement while performing daily job-related tasks. More research is needed to
determine ways to improve officer mobility when wearing ballistic vests.
Officers' Suggestions for Ballistic Vest Manufacturers
Participants were asked what they would tell ballistic vest manufacturers about
their vests. Officers (n = 54) made various comments that could be related to six different
themes using content analysis: fit, comfort, protection, quality, thermal acceptability, and
design.
Comments indicated a desire for fit that is more customized and form fitting:
"…bad fit, more variety in shape, more consistency in fit" and "should be more form
fitting". Other officers wanted increased comfort and provided suggestions for improving
the comfort. One participant wrote, "Make it lighter and more flexible if possible".
Officers were also concerned with the protection provided by their vests.
Common responses included the following:
•
"It routinely gets wet – heard this can affect its ballistic resistance – if it does
can it be protected from this?"
•
"It should also be able to stop a bladed attack (knives and such)"
•
"Need more protection such as side-underarm and shoulder protection"
Other officers wanted improvements in the quality of their vests. Specifically,
officers were concerned that the vest carriers are not constructed to withstand the stress of
normal wear. Two officers indicated that the Velcro® strips on vest carriers wear out
particularly fast in comparison to the rest of the vest carrier.
Respondents also want the vests to be cooler and more breathable, making
suggestions such as "Work towards improving ventilation/circulation" and "[create] a part
to blow air into". Some offered no suggestions at all, simply commenting on how hot the
vest is to wear.
87
The highest percentage of responses was related to the vest design. Recurrent
themes included the following improvements to the vest: adding pockets, stiffening the
bottom to prevent the vest from rolling up, making it washable and lightweight.
Despite any perceived shortcomings in the vest, seven officers indicated they
were satisfied with their vests. One officer commented, "Fits well, easy to put on and take
off. Overall it is comfortable." Other statements included "I like it!" and "I'm pleased
with my ballistic vest". However, further examination of the design of ballistics vests is
needed to properly address the concerns of the other 54 respondents.
It is recommended that manufacturers work to improve their ballistic vests as
related to the six themes outlined above (fit, comfort, protection, quality, thermal
acceptability, and design), placing the most emphasis on vest design. Findings from this
study could be used to shape these improvements.
88
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Based on the findings of this study, a revised clothing comfort model is presented
that includes wearer comfort adjustments. The results of this study are related to findings
from previous research. The study is summarized and recommendations are made for
future research.
Attributes Influencing Clothing Comfort
Person, clothing, and environment attributes were evaluated to determine their
relationship with clothing comfort. A discussion of the correlations of person, clothing,
and environmental attributes to clothing comfort follows, organized by the physical or
social-psychological dimensions of the model. These correlations are also related to
findings of previous research.
Physical Dimension Attributes
Within the physical dimension, attributes of the person and clothing were
measured. These attributes are discussed below.
Person
Person attributes measured included sex, age, height, and weight. No significant
correlations were noted between clothing comfort and a person’s sex (r = 0.015, p =
0.889), age (r = -0.154, p = 0.155), height (r = -0.160, p = 0.134), and weight (r = 0.006,
p = 0.914). An earlier study suggested that age could be a factor in clothing comfort.
Older officers found modern ballistic vests less comfortable than younger officers
because they were used to previous vests, which were more rigid and thicker (Fowler,
2003a). It is possible that surveying a larger number of officers who wear ballistic vests
would reveal that this relationship is significant. Likewise, the relationship between
comfort and weight may be significant in a larger sample size. A previous study
89
(Horridge et al., 2002) found a negative correlation; as weight decreased, comfort
improved. The relationship between clothing comfort and weight still needs further
investigation to determine whether it is consistently significant.
While this study examined person and clothing attributes within the physical
dimension, previous research tested relationships of person and environmental attributes
with clothing comfort and found that person attributes were most influential on clothing
comfort decisions (Horridge et al, 2002). Since this study did not find any significant
correlation between comfort and person attributes, further testing of the model is needed
to determine if the model needs to be revised or if the variables examined in this study
are not the most critical for ballistic vest wearer comfort.
Clothing
The clothing system, vest fit, and vest properties were evaluated for significant
relationships with clothing comfort. Clothing system and clothing comfort had an
insignificant relationship. Significant positive correlations were identified between
clothing comfort and fit (r = 0.477, p = 0.000) and vest properties (r = 0.523, p = 0.000),
thus supporting H1c and H1d respectively. Previous research supports these findings
(Horridge et al., 2002; Huck et al., 1997; Rutherford-Black & Khan, 1995; Watkins,
1977; Wheat & Dickson, 1999).
Barker (2002) also found that comfort was influenced by design, fit, and end-use
conditions, noting that garment properties (i.e. fabric) were crucial to perceived comfort.
A study of bicycle patrol uniforms (Rutherford-Black & Khan, 1995) identified a number
of design problems that could influence comfort, such as poor pocket design, inadequate
breathability, and abrasiveness of Velcro®. These same design issues were noted by
participants in this study. Rucker et al. (2000) found that protective clothing for
firefighters did not include adequate adjustment methods for thermal acceptability.
Officers in this study made similar comments, complaining that the Velcro® shoulder
and side straps did not allow easy adjustment. Addressing some common design issues
with protective clothing will allow wearers to experience improvements in comfort.
Although this study evaluated ballistic vest fit separately from ballistic vest
properties, they are closely related, which may explain why both relationships proved
90
significant. For example, a study of gloves (Tremblay-Lutter et al., 1996) identified
significant differences in fit based on polymer type, fabric thickness, and glove shape.
This study also showed that gloves that fit better improved wearer dexterity (mobility).
These findings relate to this study’s findings. Participants commented that fabric bulk and
shape changes in their vests affected their fit and comfort, particularly when sitting. It
may be beneficial to examine these specific vest properties features to evaluate their
influence on vest fit.
Social-psychological Dimension Attribute
The attribute of significant other was evaluated for positive relationships with
clothing comfort. Significant other was not significantly correlated with clothing comfort
(r = -0.066, p = 0.546).
Officers who had a significant other were expected to be more tolerant of comfort
issues caused by the vest than officers without a significant other. Thus, those officers
who had a significant other would presumably report that they were more comfortable
when wearing a vest than officers who did not have a significant other. The findings did
not support this, therefore more research is needed to explain the non-significant
relationship between significant other and clothing comfort. It is possible that there was
not enough variation in participants’ marital status (74% were married) to properly
measure this relationship.
Clothing Comfort
After fit and vest properties were found to be significantly correlated with
clothing comfort, regression analysis was used to identify the nature of the relationship.
Fit and vest properties were found to be significant predictors in determining clothing
comfort. Vest properties were found to be more influential than fit (Table 27). Previous
research has identified the relationship of wearer satisfaction with fit (Black, 1988;
Hogge, Baer, & Kang-Park, 1988; Yoo, 1996) and garment properties (Horridge et al.,
2002; Huck et al., 1997; Rutherford-Black & Khan, 1995; Watkins, 1977; Wheat &
Dickson, 1999), while other research has identified a relationship between wearer
satisfaction and clothing comfort (Huck & Kim, 1997; Huck et al., 1997; Rucker et al.,
2000; Watkins, 1977; Wheat & Dickson, 1999). These studies, however, did not examine
91
fit and garment properties related to comfort. Thus, this study has identified fit and
garment properties as predictors of clothing comfort that were not identified in other
studies.
Although this study found fit and vest properties to be positively correlated with
and predictors of clothing comfort, this relationship may not be supported in other
situations. The strength of the relationship may be affected by the population, garment
type, and wear situation. More research is needed to verify this relationship in other
clothing situations.
Previous research has noted that physical dimension is more influential than the
social-psychological dimension. Sontag (1985-1986) found that in more extreme
environmental conditions, physical aspects of comfort are more correlated with overall
garment evaluation than psychological aspects of comfort. She also found this to be the
case with concealed garments. This study’s findings support Sontag’s findings. The
concealable ballistic vests were analyzed in the study by participants who wear them in
extreme heat and humidity, thus explaining the stronger correlations between physical
attributes (fit and vest properties) with clothing comfort.
This study evaluated more attributes within the physical dimension than the
social-psychological dimension of comfort. However, social-psychological factors should
not be ignored when considering wearer comfort. Shanley et al. (1993) stated that
psychological comfort was still critical if maximum performance efficiency was desired.
Physical performance may improve by determining ways to improve ballistic vest
wearers’ social-psychological comfort.
Revised Clothing Comfort Model
Findings of the study show that ballistic vest wearers apply specific wearer
comfort adjustments. Previously developed clothing comfort models do not account for
these accommodations and/or adaptations made by the wearer. Therefore, based on the
findings of the study, wearer comfort adjustments were conceptualized as part of the
clothing comfort model.
92
It is proposed that judgments of clothing comfort are not only dependent upon
physical and social-psychological dimensions, the response to the clothing, and the filter,
but also upon the techniques employed by the wearer to improve their wearing
experience. Wearer comfort adjustments are utilized by the wearer after experiencing the
physical and social-psychological dimensions of comfort, responding to attributes within
these dimensions, and filtering responses through their stored modifiers. An initial
clothing comfort judgment is made, and based upon this judgment, the wearer determines
and employs wearer comfort adjustments to increase their comfort.
Wearer comfort adjustments occur after the clothing comfort judgment, when the
user is not comfortable and makes changes to themselves, their clothing, or their
environment in an attempt to improve their comfort. By employing wearer comfort
adjustments, the wearer modifies the person, clothing, or environmental dimensions, then
reassesses their comfort based on these changes. After wearer comfort adjustments are
employed, a second clothing comfort judgment is made to determine if further wearer
comfort adjustments need be applied. Just as Branson and Sweeney (1991) indicated, the
process is still considered to be continual, allowing the wearer to change their clothing
comfort judgments as wearer comfort adjustments are applied or changes in physical and
social-psychological dimensions occur. Thus, the model represents the cyclical process of
clothing comfort and wearer comfort adjustments. Figure 4 illustrates the proposed model
of wearer comfort adjustments related to clothing comfort.
Wearer Comfort Adjustments
Wearer comfort adjustments incorporate all aspects of the triad (Fourt & Hollies,
1970) within the physical and social-psychological dimensions as described by Branson
and Sweeney (1991). The adaptations and/or accommodations could be made to the
physical dimension of the person, clothing, and environment, but can also be made to the
social-psychological dimension of the person, clothing, and environment. For example, if
a person wearing a long-sleeved shirt determines he is too hot for comfort, he may decide
to roll up his shirt sleeves. This wearer comfort adjustment would increase the
93
Social-psychological
Dimension Triad
Physiological/Perceptual Response
Filter
Clothing Comfort Judgment
Figure 4. Revised clothing comfort model.
94
Wearer Comfort Adjustments
Wearer Comfort Adjustments
Physical Dimension Triad
person’s exposed surface area and allow him to cool off, improving his comfort level
through a modification of the physical dimension. A person could also modify the socialpsychological dimension using wearer comfort adjustments. For instance, if someone
attends a party and finds she is dressed too casually, she may feel uncomfortable and
choose to leave. Once she leaves the party, she is comfortable in her clothes. By
changing the situation of wear, she has improved her comfort. Thus, wearer comfort
adjustments can occur in the physical dimension and the social-psychological dimension.
The model illustrates that wearer comfort adjustments can apply to both dimensions.
Aspects of each dimension are described below.
Physical Dimension of Wearer Comfort Adjustments
As previously discussed, the physical dimension of wearer comfort adjustments
incorporates the person, clothing, and environment. Thus, attributes within the physical
dimension modified by wearer comfort adjustments were categorized by person, clothing,
or environment, based on the findings of the study (Table 29).
Officers commented that their ballistic vests caused them to change their posture
by sitting more uprightly (p. 83). Participants also noted that they held their shotguns
differently when wearing their vests (p. 83). Other officers adjusted to limited mobility
and decreased activity levels when wearing their vests (p. 45). In a previous study, some
officers commented that they open up their shirts when they get too hot (Fowler, 2003b),
exposing more of their skin. Therefore, adaptations by and/or modifications made to the
person included posture, mobility, activity, and exposed surface area.
Participants also noted adaptations and modifications associated with either
specific garments or their entire clothing system. For instance, when experiencing
negative effects from their ballistic vest fit, officers would pull their vests down at the
neck (p. 53). They also pulled their vests out at the neck to improve air circulation (p.
82). Officers experienced problems caused by shape changes in their vests (p. 56) and
thus made efforts to minimize these shape changes by storing their vests in various ways
(i.e., hanging on the back of a chair or standing against the wall). To improve their
95
Table 29
Physical Dimension of Wearer Comfort Adjustments
Physical Dimension Triad
Person Attributes
Clothing Attributes
Posture
Garment/Clothing System
Mobility
Fit
Activity
Design
Exposed Surface Area
Shape
Fabric
Components
Air Permeability
Care Methods
Storage
Open Circulation
Closed Circulation
96
Environment Attributes
Air Temperature
Humidity
comfort, officers wore undershirts made of moisture-wicking fabrics (p. 46) or adjusted
their vest size (p. 81). Officers also removed components of their clothing system, such
as their ballistic vests, when they were uncomfortable (p. 45). Thus, changes made to the
garment or clothing system included fit, design, shape, fabric, components, and air
permeability.
Garment care and storage methods were also considered wearer comfort
adjustments since garment function, fit, and shape can be affected by ways a garment is
laundered and stored. For example, one officer commented that drying the ballistic vest
carrier damaged the Velcro® straps (p. 81). Other officers stored their vests hanging or
laying flat in order to retain the original shape (p. 81). In a previous study (Fowler,
2003b), officers who stored their vests in their vehicle trunks (closed circulation)
commented that their vests often had a foul odor. And, as previously mentioned, the
National Institute of Justice is investigating the degradation of ballistic protection when
vests are stored in high heat and humidity, which often occurs in vehicles (NIJ Status
Report, 2004).
Officers also commented that they change their environment when uncomfortable,
particularly when hot. Participants would move into an air conditioned location when
possible (p. 82). One officer was less likely to get out of the patrol vehicle on hotter days
(p. 82). Thus, air temperature and humidity are environmental attributes that wearers seek
to modify.
Social-psychological Dimension of Wearer Comfort Adjustments
Similar to the physical dimension, the social-psychological dimension of wearer
comfort adjustments incorporates the person, clothing, and environment. The socialpsychological dimension of wearer comfort adjustments was categorized by the person,
clothing, or environment, based on the findings of the study (Table 30).While not all of
the wearer comfort adjustments discussed below were exhibited in this study's findings,
they could be used to improve the wearer's comfort.
Social-psychological attributes of the person that may be modified or adapted to
increase comfort include attitudes, awareness, and behavioral patterns. In a previous
97
Table 30
Social-psychological Dimension of Wearer Comfort Adjustments
Social-psychological Dimension Triad
Person Attributes
Attitudes
Awareness
Behaviors
Clothing Attributes
Fabric/Clothing System
Aesthetics
Style
Design
98
Environmental Attributes
Occasion/Situation of Wear
Geographic Locale
study (Fowler, 2003b), one officer gave an example of a behavioral change he made to
improve his comfort. When wearing a ballistic vest, he sweat so profusely that his
undershirt would become saturated and chafe his skin. To remedy this, he would go
home during his lunch break to change his undershirt.
Participants in this study did not relate any examples of wearer comfort
adjustments applied to clothing attributes within the social-psychological dimension.
Clothing attributes that could be changed to improve wearer comfort include the
aesthetics, style, and design of the clothing system.
Social-psychological environmental attributes that were modified by officers
included occasion/situation of wear and geographic locale. Participants noted that they
did not wear their ballistic vests for all job-related situations (p. 45), like crowd control or
directing traffic. One participant in a previous study (Fowler, 2003b) noted that he wore
his vest in certain patrol areas but not in others.
Summary of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the needs of ballistic vest wearers,
identify aspects of ballistic vests that influenced wearer comfort, and examine wearer
comfort adjustments used to improve comfort. Emphasis was placed on the physical and
social-psychological comfort dimensions when wearing ballistic vests. Branson and
Sweeney's (1991) Clothing Comfort Model was used as a foundation for the research
project. As defined by this model, attributes of comfort related to the person, clothing,
and environment were investigated within both the physical and social-psychological
dimensions to determine each factor's influence on ballistic vest wearers' overall comfort
levels.
Survey research methods were used to assess officers' satisfaction with current
ballistic vests as related to this study's purpose and hypotheses. Survey items related to
officer demographics, uniform and ballistic vest wearing experiences and satisfaction
levels, and wearer comfort adjustments. The survey was completed by male and female
officers who wear ballistic vests. These officers' were employed in a major city in the
state of Florida, where environmental conditions are extremely hot and humid.
99
This study examined significant relationships (positive or negative) between
clothing comfort and attributes within the physical and social-psychological dimensions.
In all, ten attributes were examined. Only two person attributes showed significant
correlations (positive) to clothing comfort: fit and vest properties. These two variables
were examined further and found to predict clothing comfort decisions. Thus, Branson
and Sweeney's Clothing Comfort Model (1991) was partially supported as measured in
this study.
This study explored another possible dimension affecting clothing comfort:
wearer comfort adjustments. Wearer comfort adjustments were defined as adaptations or
modifications the wearer makes to themselves, their clothing, or their environment to
improve their wearing experience. Findings of the study indicate that ballistic vest
wearers do employ specific wearer comfort adjustments in an attempt to improve their
comfort. Existing clothing comfort models do not account for these accommodations
and/or adaptations made by the wearer. Thus, a revised clothing comfort model was
developed that incorporates wearer comfort adjustments.
It was proposed that judgments of clothing comfort are dependent upon the
techniques employed by the wearer to improve their wearing experience. Wearer comfort
adjustments are utilized by the wearer after an initial clothing comfort judgment is made
to increase their comfort. After wearer comfort adjustments are employed, the wearer
makes a second clothing comfort judgment to determine if further wearer comfort
adjustments need be applied. The process is continual, allowing the wearer to change
his/her clothing comfort judgments as wearer comfort adjustments are applied or changes
in physical and social-psychological dimension occur.
Common wearer comfort adjustments were reviewed and categorized based on
their relation to physical or social-psychological dimension of clothing comfort. Those
adjustments related to the physical dimension included:
• Person attributes: posture, mobility, activity, and exposed surface area
• Clothing attributes: garment/clothing system characteristics (fit, design, shape,
fabric, components, air permeability), care methods and storage methods
• Environment attributes: air temperature and humidity.
100
Wearer comfort adjustments related to the social-psychological dimension were
identified as:
• Person attributes: attitudes, awareness, behaviors
• Clothing attributes: fabric/clothing system characteristics (aesthetics, style,
design)
• Environment attributes: occasion/situation of wear, geographic locale.
This list of wearer comfort adjustments was not designed to be comprehensive,
but rather serves as a foundation for future research and discussion related to the concept
of wearer comfort adjustments. It is anticipated that wearer comfort adjustments will vary
widely between different wearers and clothing systems. Although the relationship of
wearer comfort adjustments to clothing comfort has been conceptualized through this
study, further research will be needed to test this relationship and any determining
comfort factors that cause wearer comfort adjustments to be employed.
Recommendations for Further Research
This study focused on the relationships between select attributes within the
physical and social-psychological dimensions and clothing comfort as proposed by
Branson and Sweeney (1991). Some relationships were supported by this study's
findings. Although most of the relationships were not found significant in this study,
these relationships are expected to be significant with other samples, clothing types, and
wear situations. Additional research is needed to fully examine all attributes of Branson
and Sweeney's Clothing Comfort Model (1991).
• Physical condition and exposed surface area were not considered in this study
but could be examined in an expanded study. An officer's physical condition
may have an effect on his/her overall tolerance to ballistic vest issues (i.e. heat
tolerance, sweat rate).
• Fabric characteristics (fiber content, yarn, fabric structure, finishes, color) were
not measured, but could play an integral role in ballistic vest wearers' comfort.
• Officers also expressed a need for improvements in the thermal acceptability of
their vests. Further testing with more variation in environmental conditions
101
may be needed to determine the improvements necessary. It would be
necessary to examine officers' physiological responses to their vests in varied
environmental conditions, as well as their subjective comfort responses.
• Respondents also reported problems with the interaction between their uniform
and vests. Research is needed to examine the components of the clothing
system that are most conflicting and find ways to improve the interaction.
This study also expanded on Branson and Sweeney's Clothing Comfort Model
(1991) to include wearer comfort adjustments. Although the relationship between
comfort and wearer comfort adjustments was proposed in this study, this relationship will
need to be verified through future research. It is expected that the suggested list of wearer
comfort adjustments could be expanded through evaluation of other clothing types and
wear situations. Future research could examine the direct relationship of wearer comfort
adjustments on clothing comfort judgments and evaluate the most successful techniques.
There is also concern that wearer comfort adjustments may detrimentally effect
protection at the expense of comfort. Future research could evaluate the specific wearer
comfort adjustments used by officers and evaluate whether these techniques affect the
protective properties of ballistic vests.
102
APPENDIX A
Initial Contact Letter to Police Chief
103
College of Human Sciences
. Department of Textiles and Consumer Sciences . Tallahassee, Florida 32306
Web Site: www.chs.fsu.edu/tcs
Dear Chief:
I am a graduate student in the Department of Textiles and Consumer Sciences, working
under the direction of Dr. Catherine Black. I am conducting a research study to assess
officer comfort and needs when wearing ballistic vests.
I would appreciate the participation of patrol officers from your department in this study,
which involves completing a questionnaire. Participation in this research project will
allow officers to state their opinions and experiences regarding ballistic vests. This study
will help find solutions to common problems associated with ballistic vests. It will also
provide ballistic vest manufacturers and purchasers with important information about
officers' needs, comfort and satisfaction related to their ballistic vests. In order for this
study to be successful, I need your assistance. As a participant in the study, you will
receive the Executive Summary for the study. The Executive Summary will provide
specific information about the officers' ballistic vest wearing behavior and associated
comfort from all participating police departments. Also, at your request, I will provide
you with details on any aspects of the completed study.
A copy of the questionnaire is enclosed for your review. It will take officers
approximately 20 minutes to complete the survey. The Human Subjects Committee at
Florida State University has approved this research and may be contacted at 850-6448673. If you have any questions concerning the research study, please contact me at 850264-9173 or [email protected].
Please indicate whether you would like the Tallahassee Police Department to participate
in the study by completing and returning the enclosed response card. If I do not hear from
you by [date], I will send a reminder to complete and return the response card. I look
forward to working with you. Thank you for your time and assistance.
Yours truly,
Jessica Barker
Ph.D. Candidate
Catherine Black
Associate Professor
104
APPENDIX B
Cover Letter to Participants
105
College of Human Sciences
. Department of Textiles and Consumer Sciences . Tallahassee, Florida 32306
Web Site: www.chs.fsu.edu/tcs
Dear Officer:
I am a graduate student in the Department of Textiles and Consumer Sciences, working
under the direction of Dr. Catherine Black. I am conducting a research study to assess
your comfort and needs when wearing a ballistic vest.
I would appreciate your participation in this study, which involves completing the
following survey. It will take approximately 20 minutes.
Your participation in this research project will allow you to state your opinion and
experiences regarding ballistic vests. This study will help find solutions to common
problems associated with ballistic vests. It will also provide ballistic vest manufacturers
and purchasers with important information about the officers who wear ballistic vests and
their needs.
Your participation in this study is voluntary and you may withdraw from the study at any
time without penalty. The questionnaire is anonymous. The results of the study may be
published but your name will not be known. Information obtained during the course of
the study will remain confidential, to the extent allowed by law. All records will be stored
in a locked cabinet in the researcher's office until January 2016, when they will be
destroyed. Completion of the questionnaire will be considered your consent to
participate.
If you have any questions concerning the research study, please contact me at (850) 2649173 or [email protected]. If you have questions about your rights as a participant
in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of
the Human Subjects Committee, Institutional Review Board, through the Office of the
Vice President for Research, at (850) 644-8633. Thank you for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Jessica Barker
Doctoral Candidate
Catherine Black
Associate Professor
106
APPENDIX C
Questionnaire
107
Please answer all questions as they pertain to your current ballistic vest unless
otherwise indicated. For the purposes of this study, the term BALLISTIC VEST
refers to a protective garment consisting of an outer vest carrier and ballistic panel
inserts. Place a check (9) in the box next to your answer.
1. How long have you been a law enforcement officer?
†
†
†
†
†
Under 5 years
5-9 years
10-14 years
15-20 years
20 years or more
2. What is your current rank?
3. What other Florida police departments have you served in?
4. How many uniforms do you own?
†
†
†
†
†
1
2
3
4
5 or more
5. What brand(s) of uniform(s) do you currently wear? Include all brands worn.
6. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following uniform items and
accessories, where 1= Satisfied and 5=Dissatisfied.
Shirt
Shorts
Pants
Jacket
Belt
Leather Utility Belt
Web Utility Belt
Ballistic Vest
1
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
108
2
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
3
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
4
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
5
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
7. Please indicate your opinion concerning the following statements, where
1=Strongly Agree and 5=Strongly Disagree.
It is more important that my uniform and vest
look professional than keep me comfortable.
The overall fit of my uniform should be improved.
I feel safer when wearing a ballistic vest.
I dislike wearing my ballistic vest.
I am more likely to take risks when wearing my
ballistic vest.
More styles of vests should be offered to me.
The fit of vests should be improved.
I don't care how my uniform and vest look as long
as I am comfortable.
1 2 3 4 5
† † † † †
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
† † † † †
† † † † †
† † † † †
8. What brand(s) of ballistic vest(s) have you worn, beginning with the most
current?
9. What type of undershirt do you most commonly wear with your vest?
10. How old is your current ballistic vest?
†
†
†
†
†
†
1 year or less
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years or more
11. What protection level is your current ballistic vest?
†
†
†
†
Level I
Level II
Level IIA
Level III
† Higher than Level III
109
12. What size is your current ballistic vest?
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
34 or smaller
36
38
40
42
44
46 or larger
13. Are you required to wear your ballistic vest?
† Yes
† No
14. Recognizing that a ballistic vest is composed of both a carrier and a set of
ballistic panel inserts, how many do you currently own that meet your
department requirements?
†
†
†
†
†
1 carrier, 1 set of panels
1 carrier, 2 sets of panels
2 carriers, 1 set of panels
2 carriers, 2 sets of panels
Other:
15. If you own multiple vests, were these purchased at the same time?
† Yes
† No
16. Please describe how you wash your vest carrier.
17. Please describe how you store your vest when you are not wearing it.
110
18. Indicate the number of hours each week that you actually wear your ballistic
vest?
†
†
†
†
†
†
Not at all
Under 10
10-19
20-29
30-39
40 or more
19. Indicate the number of hours each week you should wear your ballistic vest?
†
†
†
†
†
†
Not at all
Under 10
10-19
20-29
30-39
40 or more
20. What types of duties do you perform when wearing your vest?
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
Sitting
Standing
Driving/ riding in a car
Running
Climbing
Jumping
Directing traffic
Crowd control
Shooting gun (including shooting practice)
Other:
21. In an average week, how much time did you spend doing the following activities?
Not at all Under 10 10-19
Sitting
Standing
Driving/riding in car
Running
Climbing
Jumping
Directing traffic
Crowd control
Shooting gun
Other
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
111
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
20-29
30-39
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
40 or more
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
22. Please describe any other activities you do:
23. Please rate how your current vest fits when you are standing and sitting, where
1=Does Not Fit and 5=Excellent Fit.
Tightness of neckline
Armhole pinching
Fit of shoulder area
Fit of chest area
Fit of waist area
Overall length
1
†
†
†
†
†
†
Standing
2 3 4
† † †
† † †
† † †
† † †
† † †
† † †
5
†
†
†
†
†
†
1
†
†
†
†
†
†
Sitting
2 3 4
† † †
† † †
† † †
† † †
† † †
† † †
5
†
†
†
†
†
†
24. Please rate your ballistic vest according to how YOU perceive it to perform.
Indicate your reaction to each item as it might be used to describe your vest.
Comfortable
Acceptable
Rigid
Easy to move in
Cold
Bulky
Soft to skin
Nonabsorbent
Free movement of arms
Hard to take off
Unsafe
Breathable
Feels soft
Lightweight
Not sturdy
Free movement of torso
Easy to put on
High quality
Irritating
Nonfunctional
Fits well
Ease of movement
Like
Lack of protection
Loose
Overall satisfied
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
112
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
Uncomfortable
Unacceptable
Flexible
Hard to move in
Hot
Not bulky
Harsh to skin
Absorbent
Restricted movement of arms
Easy to take off
Safe
Does not breathe
Feels stiff
Heavyweight
Sturdy
Restricted movement of torso
Hard to put on
Low quality
Non-irritating
Functional
Does not fit well
Confining
Dislike
Provides protection
Tight
Overall dissatisfied
25. During which months are you most inclined not to wear your ballistic vest?
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
26. At what temperature would you consider removing your vest?
27. What activity were you doing the last time you considered removing your vest?
28. When your vest was fitting too tightly or too loosely, what adjustments did you
make to your vest?
29. When you become too hot, what adjustments did you make to your vest?
30. When has your vest inhibited your movement and what adjustments did you
make?
31. What changes do you make to your vest when you go from standing to sitting?
32. How are certain activities affected when you are wearing your vest?
113
33. Please indicate if there are any problems the vest causes with the following
uniform items.
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
Shirt
Shorts
Pants
Jacket
Belt
Leather Utility Belt
Web Utility Belt
34. Please explain the problems you experienced.
35. Since purchase, has there been any change in the shape of your vest?
† Yes
† No
36. Please explain the changes in your vest and any problems that occurred due to
the changes.
37. Are there any specific activities during which you do not wear your vest?
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
Sitting
Standing
Driving/ riding in car
Running
Climbing
Jumping
Directing traffic
Crowd control
Shooting gun (including shooting practice)
38. Please explain why you do not wear your vest for the activities you indicated
above.
114
39. Does wearing your ballistic vest cause you to make changes to your uniform?
40. How often does your vest get wet enough to consider taking it off?
†
†
†
†
Always
Sometimes
Seldom
Never
41. Describe your most recent experience.
42. Describe your most uncomfortable experience wearing your vest.
43. Have you ever been shot while wearing a ballistic vest?
† Yes
† No -- (Skip to question #48.)
44. If so, what part of your body was hit?
†
†
†
†
†
Head
Chest
Back
Arms
Legs
45. Please describe the experience.
46. How satisfied were you with the performance of your vest in this experience?
115
47. How did this experience affect your attitude towards wearing the vest?
48. If you could speak to a ballistic vest manufacturer, what would you like them to
know about your vest?
49. The following is a list of things that some people look for or want out of life.
Please study the list carefully and then rate each thing on how important it is in
your daily life, where 1= not at all important and 9= extremely important.
1
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
Sense of Belonging
Excitement
Warm-relationships with others
Self-fulfillment
Being well respected
Fun and enjoyment of life
Security
Self-respect
A sense of accomplishment
50. Please indicate your sex.
† Male
† Female
51. What is your present marital status?
†
†
†
†
†
Single
Married
Divorced
Separated
Widowed
52. What is your present age?
53. Please indicate your height (in feet & inches).
116
2
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
3
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
4
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
5
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
6
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
7
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
8
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
9
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
Under 5'0"
5'0" - 5'5"
5'6" - 5'11"
6'0" - 6'5"
6'6" or above
54. Please indicate your weight (in pounds).
†
†
†
†
†
Below 160
160 - 179
180 - 199
200 - 219
220 or above
55. What is your race?
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
Caucasian
Black or African American
Mexican or Mexican American
Puerto Rican
Cuban
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian Indian
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Vietnamese
Native Hawaiian
Guamanian
Other Asian or Pacific Islander
Some other race
56. What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
†
†
†
†
†
Completed High School
Some College
Bachelor's Degree
Some Graduate Work
Graduate Degree
57. If you would like to receive a copy of the results from this study, please give your
e-mail address.
117
APPENDIX D
Human Subjects Approval Letters
118
119
120
REFERENCES
Adams, P. S. & Keyserling, W. M. (1996). Methods for assessing protective clothing
effects on worker mobility. In J. S. Johnson & S.Z. Mansdorf (Eds.),
Performance of protective clothing: Fifth volume, ASTM STP 123 (pp. 311-326).
Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
Adams, P., Slocum, A., & Keyserling, W. (1994). A model for protective clothing
effects on performance. International Journal of Clothing Science and
Technology, 6(4), 6-16.
Ashdown, S. (1989). An analysis of task-related movement of asbestos abatement crews
as a basis for the design of protective coveralls. Unpublished master's thesis,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Ashdown, S. (2001). Sizing systems in the apparel industry. Retrieved November 12,
2001, from http://www.human.cornell.edu/txa/faculty/SizingSystems/index_flash.
Ashdown, S. & DeLong, M. (1995). Perception testing of apparel ease variation. Applied
Ergonomics, 26, 47-54.
Barker, R. L. (2002). From fabric hand to thermal comfort: The evolving role of
objective measurements in explaining human comfort response to textiles.
International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 14, 181-200.
Beatty, S. E., Kahle, L. R., Homer, P., & Misra, S. (1985). Alternative measurement
approaches to consumer values: The List of Values and the Rokeach Value
Survey. Psychology and Marketing, 2, 181-200.
Bergon, M. E., Capjack, L., McConnan, L. G., & Richards, E. (1996). Design and
evaluation of clothing for the neonate. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,
14, 225-233.
Black, C. (1988). An intergenerational investigation of women's clothing problems.
Unpublished master's thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Brandt, B. & Cory, E. M., (1989). Garments worn by production workers in cleanrooms:
A needs assessment. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 7, 27-34.
121
Branson, D. H. & Sweeney, M. (1991). Conceptualization and measurement of clothing
comfort: Toward a metatheory. In S. Kaiser & M. L. Damhorst (Eds.), Critical
linkages in textiles and clothing: Theory, method and practice (pp. 94 – 105).
Monument, CO: International Textile and Apparel Association.
Casselman-Dickson, M. A. & Damhorst, M. L. (1993). Female bicyclists and interest in
dress: Validation with multiple measures. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, 11, 7-17.
Chae, M. (2002). An assessment of women's tennis wear. Unpublished master's thesis,
Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.
Chocron-Benloulo, I., Rodriguez, J., & Sanchez-Galvez, V. (1997). A simple analytical
model to simulate textile fabric ballistic impact behavior. Textile Research
Journal, 67, 520-528.
DeJonge, J. O. (1984). Forward: The design process. In S. M. Watkins, Clothing: The
portable environment (pp. vii – xi). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
DuPont. (2001). What is Kevlar®? Retrieved on April 17, 2002, from
http://www.dupont.com/Kevlar®/whatisKevlar®/whatisKevlar®_main.html.
Edwards, T. (1995). Soft body armor. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 64(3), 17-23.
English, F. W. & Kaufman, R. A. (1975). Needs assessment: A focus for curriculum
development. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (November 2001). Law enforcement officers killed and
assaulted, 2000. Retrieved March 20, 2002, from
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/00leoka.pdf.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (November 2004). Law enforcement officers killed and
assaulted, 2003. Retrieved April 4, 2005, from
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/leoka03.pdf.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2005). Law enforcement officers killed and assaulted,
2004. Retrieved July 11, 2006, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005.
Fourt, L. & Hollies, N. R. S. (1970). Clothing: Comfort and function. New York:
Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Flugel, J. C. (1950). The psychology of clothes. London: The Hogarth Press, Ltd.
122
Fowler, J. (2003a). The evaluation and testing of two ballistic vests: A comparison of
comfort. Unpublished master's thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee,
Florida.
Fowler, J. (2003b). [User adaptations and accommodations for ballistic vests].
Unpublished raw data.
Frisancho, A. R. (1995). Human adaptation and accommodation. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Glass, G. & Hopkins, K. (1995). Statistical methods in education and psychology (3rd
ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Goldsmith, R. E. (1988). Social values and innovative purchasing: An exploratory study.
In J. H. Summey & P. J. Hensel (Eds.), Southern Marketing Association
Proceedings (pp. 194-197).
Goldsmith, R., Heitmeyer, J. & Freiden, J. (1991). Social values and fashion leadership.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10(1), 37-45.
Hogge, V. & Baer, M. (1986). Elderly women's clothing: Acquisition, fit, and
alternations of ready-to-wear garments. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home
Economics, 10, 333-341.
Horridge, P. E., Cadel, D. K., & Simonton, J. L. (2002). Texas trooper uniforms:
Assessment of fabrics, comfort, and wear. Family and Consumer Sciences
Research Journal, 30, 350-381.
Huck, J. & Kim, Y. (1997). Coveralls for grass fire fighting. International Journal of
Clothing Science and Technology, 9, 346-359.
Huck, J., Maganga, O., & Kim, Y. (1997). Protective overalls: Evaluation of garment
design and fit. International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 9, 4561.
Justnet (2004). Ballistic-resistant Armor. Retrieved January 18, 2005 from
http://www.nlectc.org/testing/bodyarmor.html.
Kaiser, S. B. (1990). The social psychology for clothing (2nd ed.). New York:
Macmillan.
Kamakura, W. A. & Novak, T. P. (1992). Value-system segmentation: Exploring the
meaning of LOV. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 119-132.
123
Kemp, S. (June 1971). The consumer's requirement for comfort. Third Shirley
International Seminar: Textiles for Comfort.
Kim, E. & Farrell-Beck, J. (2005). Fashion in context: Apparel styles worn by young
women in the United States and South Korea in the 1970s. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, 23, 180-202.
Kreighbaum, E. & Barthels, K. M. (1985). The skeletal system and its movements. In
Biomechanics: A qualitative approach for studying human movement (2nd ed.)
(pp. 19-64). Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing Company.
Law and Order Magazine (2006). Body armor survey. Retrieved October 10, 2006, from
http://www.secondchance.com/pdf/200609bodyarmorsurvey.pdf.
Lawson, L. & Lorentzen, D. (1990). Selected sports bras: Comparisons of comfort and
support. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8(4), 55-60.
Lesce, T. (1998). Ultima body armor: New from second chance. Law and Order, 46, 7980.
Maher, P. M. & Sontag, S. (1986). Insulative clothing for older women functioning at
reduced household temperatures. Home and Family Living Technical Information
Research Report (March), 1-23, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University Agricultural Experiment Station.
Malhotra, N. K. (1981). A scale to measure self-concepts, person concepts, and product
concepts. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 456-464.
Mullet, K. K. (1984). Kayaker's paddling jacket: A needs assessment. Unpublished
master's thesis, The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blackburg, Virginia.
National Institute of Justice. (November 2000). Ballistic resistance of personal body
armor, NIJ standard-0101.04. Retrieved January, 28, 2002, from
http://www.nlectc.org/pdffiles/0101.04RevA.pdf
National Institute of Justice. (November 2001). Selection and application guide to
personal body armor, NIJ guide 100-01. Retrieved January, 28, 2002, from
http://www.nlectc.org/pdffiles/selectapp2001.pdf
National Institute of Justice. (July 2003). NIJ's bullet-resistant vest standard reaches
milestone. NIJ Journal, 24-27.
124
National Institute of Justice. (November 2004). Personal protective equipment:
Solicitation for concept papers. Retrieved March, 30, 2005, from
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/sl000688.pdf
National Institute of Justice. (2004). Status Report to the Attorney General on Body
Armor Safety Initiative Testing and Activities. Retrieved January 18, 2005 from
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC).
Concealable body armor. Retrieved February 20, 2002, from
http://www.nlectc.org/techproj/nij_p39.html
Olsen, R. (1981). How not to write a bulletproof vest statute: The case of New York
state. Law and Order, 29(8), 26-32.
Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach's coefficient alpha. The Journal of
Consumer Research, 21(2), 381-391.
Pontrelli, F. J. (1977). Partial analysis of comfort's gestalt. In N. R. S. Hollies & R. F.
Goldman (Eds.), Clothing comfort: Interaction of thermal, ventilation,
construction, and assessment factors (pp. 71-80). Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor
Science Publishers.
Pratt, L. (January 2004). Comfortable protection. Industrial Fabric Products Review,
22-25.
Rholes, F. H. (1978). Psychological aspects of thermal comfort. ASHRAE Journal, 13,
86-90.
Rucker, M., Anderson, E., & Kangas, A. (2000). Evaluation of standard and prototype
protective garments for wildland firefighters. In C. N. Nelson & N. W. Henry III
(Eds.), Performance of Protective Clothing: Issues and Priorities for the 21st
Century: Seventh Volume (ASTM STP 1386), 546-556. West Conshohocken, PA:
American Society for Testing and Materials.
Ruckman, J. E., Murray, R., & Choi, H. S. (1999). Engineering of clothing systems for
improved thermophysiological comfort: The effect of openings. International
Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 11, 37-52.
Rutherford-Black, C. & Khan, S. (1995). Texas Tech police bicycle patrol: Encounter
with a uniform. Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 25(1), 26-28.
Slater, K. (1985). The meaning of comfort. In Human Comfort (pp. 3-11). Springfield,
IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
125
Shanley, L., Slaten, B., & Shanley, P. (1993). Military protective clothing: Implications
for clothing and textiles curriculum and research. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, 11(3), 55-59.
Shishoo, R. (2002). Recent developments in materials for use in protective clothing.
International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 14, 201-215.
Sontag, M. S. (1985-86). Comfort dimensions of actual and ideal insulative clothing for
older women. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 4(1), 9-17.
Tan, Y., 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, 47-55.
Tremblay-Lutter, J., Crown, E., & Rigakis, K. (1996). Evaluation of functional fit of
chemical protective gloves for agricultural workers. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, 14, 216-224.
Turk, J. (2002). Functional clothing design for dance practicewear: A needs assessment.
Unpublished master's thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.
Turpin-Legendre, E. & Meyer, J. P. (2003). Comparison of physiological and subjective
strain in workers wearing two different protective coveralls for asbestos
abatement tasks. Applied Ergonomics, 34, 551-556.
Veghte, J. H. & Storment, S. (1992). Field test evaluation of ASTM Standard F-1154
with chemical protective suit ensembles. In J. P. McBriarty & N. W. Henry
(Eds.), Performance of Protective Clothing: Issues and Priorities for the 21st
Century: Fourth Volume (ASTM STP 1133), 311-321. West Conshohocken, PA:
American Society for Testing and Materials.
Walde-Armstrong, K. M., Branson, D. H., & Fair, J. (1996). Development and
evaluation of a prototype athletic girdle. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,
14, 73-80.
Watkins, S. (1977). The design of protective equipment for ice hockey. Home
Economics Research Journal, 5, 154-166.
Watkins, S. M. (1995). The design process. In Clothing: The portable environment (2nd
ed.) (pp. 334-355). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Wheat, K. L. & Dickson, M. A. (1999). Uniforms for collegiate female golfers: Cause for
dissatisfaction and role conflict? Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 17, 110.
126
Yoo, S. (1996). Investigation of petite and tall sized women's clothing needs: Fashion
involvement versus pre-purchase clothing satisfaction. Unpublished master's
thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
127
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Jessica Fowler Barker was born and raised in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. She
received her Bachelor's of Science from Louisiana State University in 2000 and later
worked for an outerwear company as a patternmaker and computer-aided designer. In
2003, Jessica received her Master's degree in Apparel Product Development from Florida
State University. She also completed her Ph.D. at Florida State University in Apparel
and Textile Product Development. During her time at Florida State University, Jessica
taught courses related to patternmaking, computer-aided design, apparel construction, and
textile science. In the fall of 2006, she joined the faculty of Iowa State University.
128