Development of a Consumer-Based Quality Scale for Artisan Textiles: A Study with Scarves/Shawls

Abstract

Modern textile consumers are increasingly becoming more watchful of the quality of the textiles that they purchase. This has increased the need for textile producers, especially artisan textile makers (e.g., knitters, tailors, dressmakers, seamstresses, and quilters), to improve the quality of their textile products. Information on several analytical tools that are commonly used for assessing the quality of textiles is abundant, but consumer-based tools for evaluating the quality of textiles remain limited. A consumer-based artisan textile-quality scale was developed using data collected from two focus groups (Phase 1) and a consumer quantitative study, n = 196 (Phase 2). Ten scarves and shawls were evaluated in the quantitative study and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the differences between the mean textile ratings for all the statements. Coefficient alpha (final raw alpha = 0.87) was also used to assess if the statements were consistent in the way they measured the quality of the textiles. Pearson correlation tests were used to validate the six-statement quality scale that included statements such as overall attention to detail, the fabric is durable, and stitching is even and consistent. Artisan textile makers in the USA can use this scale to better meet the functional needs of their customers. Additionally, the process that was employed in the development of the six-statement quality scale can be used by researchers in other countries to understand better the key quality characteristics of artisan as well other textile products.

1. Introduction

History shows that men and women have always been involved in the production of textiles for various uses. However, the role of women often has been greater than men in different cultures or countries such as the USA [1,2], Nigeria [3], Britain [4], Guatemala [5,6,7], China [8,9], and India [10,11]. For example, in the Owe region in Nigeria (Africa), while the men prepared the soil for planting (clearing and tilling), the women planted and removed weeds from the cotton fields. Both men and women took part in the harvesting process, but the women processed the cotton to the point it was ready for weaving. Men and women shared roles during cloth weaving with the men using the horizontal loom while the women used the vertical loom [3]. The cotton textile products that the families produced in the Owe region were primarily used as needed by the households, though later (during colonial rule), men engaged more in the selling of cotton and textiles as their production capacities increased.

Based on Marketline [12], the revenues for global textiles (e.g., fabrics and yarns) grew between the years 2014 to 2018, with this industry (textile mills) attaining a total of USD 676.3 billion in 2018. The textile mills industry in the United States of America accounted for USD 81.5 billion of the total global revenues the same year, which placed the USA in third position after China and India [12]. Consumer preferences for textiles are mainly based on the functional and emotional properties of the textile products [6,13,14,15,16]. Additionally, current trends in the textile industry show more segmentation among consumers based on population demographics and psychographics. For example, 27% of children and teens (particularly females) in the USA spend a significantly larger portion of their allowance on clothing as compared to other expenses, mainly because it is fashionable (it is what is offered and worn by most peers at the time) and not because it is unique [17].

Artisan textiles are gaining in value, in part because of the support for fair-trade and sustainable markets. However, those textile products still make up a small part of the market and some reports suggest that artisans themselves are becoming more scared because of economic, social, cultural, or environmental sustainability issues [18]. These result in a lack of market access or marketability of some artisan products. One potential reason for this is that artisans often do not have knowledge of the product preferences of their target consumers. Thus, it is necessary to help artisans understand the needs and wants of their consumers [19].

Sender [20] reported that the COVID-19 outbreak has been characterized by a significant reduction in production and marketing (closure of warehouses and stores) by large fashion retailers as they veered towards more sustainable strategies amidst the nation-wide lockdowns. Conversely, local and smaller fashion businesses adapted to the crisis and have thrived as shown by the fact that 26% of consumers were purchasing their textiles more from local businesses since the start of the pandemic [20]. Sales by smaller local textile businesses are likely to increase in the long run as textile consumers, particularly those interested in artisan products, may want to source locally in support of their communities and those retailers that are more environmentally friendly [16,20].

Koca and Koc [21] emphasized the impact of demographic aspects such as gender on the way consumers purchased textiles, with men’s liking persuaded by brand name, while women were influenced by fashion. DeSalva [22] reported that women in the USA are motivated to purchase textiles because they need the items as replacements for those that are worn out and also in preparation for the upcoming season(s). Additionally, one study in Bangladesh found that young men and women were driven to purchase casual clothes by different fashion attributes [23]. Men have been reported to go textile shopping mainly because they are hunting for a particular item that they need in addition to other non-textile products that they may need [24,25]. DeSalva [25] reported that >80% of men (aged 18 +) in the USA shopped for clothes at any retailer available whether online or face-to-face, indicating that men had limited loyalty to retailers.

Another major reason for purchase of textiles or clothing, particularly among women, is for pleasure (“to indulge oneself”), not because they “needed” them [24]. In addition, 40% of women in the USA purchased clothing four or fewer times in the year 2018. This indicated a need for textile producers and retailers to better appeal to the functional and emotional needs of their textile consumers if they were to drive up sales by increasing potential consumers’ willingness to purchase. Mintel’s online survey with women aged 18 + found that 66% of women in the USA preferred casual clothing (e.g., jeans and active wear) and 37% of them would be willing to purchase textiles if they were given the try-before-you-buy option [22].

Literature on instrumental approaches to determine textile quality is abundant [26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. There also is consumer-based research on people’s perceptions of the quality of textiles, but this type of research is quite limited [33]. Benkirane et al. [34] developed a multi-attribute ranking method based on an overall quality score to rank and determine perceived quality. Li et al. [14] noted that consumers identified brand and fashion as the least important characteristics of tight-fit garments, while comfort and garment fit were pinpointed as the most important characteristics. These results in part supported earlier work by Kwok et al. [35], who had identified comfort and fabric quality as the most important quality characteristics when choosing children’s denim garments. Hatch et al. [36] also stated that consumers focused on intrinsic properties (e.g., functional and compositional characteristics) but not external aspects such as price when evaluating the quality of textiles. Furthermore, Earl et al. [37] stated that textile colorfastness, durability, the status of seams, and fabric construction were among other aspects that needed to be controlled if textiles were to meet the requirements of consumers.

Several consumer textile-quality values have been based on online surveys that used ideal (non-physical) textiles or pictures of textiles to collect consumer perceptions [16,34,38,39]. This method assumes that respondents used past textile experiences and only the sense of sight to evaluate the quality of the samples. Furthermore, in some cases, the reliability of the quality terms was not assessed, which made them unfit for practical application by process owners in the industry. Hatch [36] and Li [14] noted a growing demand by modern consumers for higher-quality textiles that satisfied functional and psychological needs and an opportunity to give textile manufacturers a competitive edge in their markets. To improve the quality of textiles, the makers and retailers need more understanding of what matters most to their consumers when it comes to textile quality.

The objectives of this study were to (1) identify statements used by consumers to describe “quality” differences (using sight, smell, touch, and hearing) in women’s scarves/shawls, (2) to determine which of those statements actually differentiated among artisan textile scarves, (3) and determine reliability of that group of statements to better understand quality characteristics that artisans must consider when making and selling textile products to US consumers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Phase 1 Study: Focus Groups (FGs)

Focus groups were conducted by two professionally trained (Riva Institute, MD, USA) focus-group moderators at Kansas State University with experience in conducting focus groups for idea and terminology generation.

(a)

Artisan textile samples

A set of 20 scarves and shawls, which varied in origin, price, design, and sensory properties, was used for the study. For example, some fabrics had fringes or tassels, while others did not. The scarves and shawls were selected from a large collection of artisan textiles that encompass a range of techniques (e.g., weaving techniques, embroidery styles, printing and dyeing methods, and sewing and hemming/finishing). Ten scarves representing a range of characteristics were evaluated in the first focus group and a different set of ten scarves with a range of characteristics was evaluated in the second focus group.

(b)

Participant recruitment and statement generation

Characteristics that describe the quality of artisan textiles were generated using two 90 min focus groups of consumers (n = 8, n = 7) with considerable textile experience. The consumers (all female) were recruited from local sewing/quilting guilds in the Manhattan, KS (USA) area. The women were highly skilled in designing, making, and sewing home decor products and clothing, had experience working with artisan textiles, purchased textiles regularly, and most of the consumers had experience printing/dyeing or weaving textiles. A lump-sum donation was made to the organizations as payment for the time of its members. The women were 25–75 years of age, and most were in households with middle- to upper-middle-class incomes in the USA.

(c)

Generating of statements related to the quality of artisan textiles

The first FG opened with a discussion of the perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes (POBAs) the women had on the quality of fabrics and textiles. The discussion segued into the differences between artisan and commercial textiles as regards quality and what matters most when it comes to the quality of a scarf or shawl. The participants then engaged in an “activity” (first activity) during which each participant was provided a scarf or shawl and asked to rate the textile based on a five-point scale from High quality (score = 1 or 2) to Low quality (score = 4 or 5). On the same individual grading form, participants were asked to list four quality characteristics that explained the grade they had awarded to each of the textiles. Each participant was allowed up to 2 min to assess each scarf before passing it on to the person seated to their right side. The activity was conducted until each of the eight women had seen all the scarves. The moderator then used two columns on an easel to collect the two groups of quality characteristics as the participants briefly explained their reasons for classifying some textiles as high quality and others as low quality.

A second activity similar to the preceding activity was conducted with 10 additional scarves or shawls. The participants were given 1–2 min to individually evaluate each scarf/shawl, and listed quality characteristics of the textiles from the previous list as well as additional statements that they believed needed to be added to the list. Separating the two activities allowed the participants to attain a clearer understanding of the objectives in the first activity, to better separate “quality” from “liking” in their use of statements, and helped them exhibit more confidence, which allowed them to identify more quality descriptions.

The latter part of the FG concentrated on participants identifying ten statements that described high-quality scarves (scarves that received scores of 1 or 2) and ten statements that described the low-quality scarves (scarves that received scores of 4 or 5) based on how important the statements were to quality of the scarves or shawls.

FG 2 proceeded much like FG 1 with several minor modifications. (A) The authors scheduled a week between FG 1 and FG 2, which allowed the authors to review the findings of the first group and make any necessary changes for the second focus group. For instance, during the first focus-group discussion, the authors noticed that the participants sometimes mixed-up high quality and low quality with “like” and “dislike”, i.e., a consumer might say ‘I don’t think this scarf is good because I don’t like the color’. In such cases, discussion determined whether the consumer simply did not like the color/pattern/texture, etc., (affective characteristics), or if, for example, the color was actually low quality (i.e., faded, splotchy, poorly applied, etc.), which would make them descriptive quality characteristics. Thus, for the second focus group, the moderator started by explaining to the participants that the discussion would be focused on quality and not about whether they liked or did not like the textiles. (B) Some statements that were generated by FG 1 but were somewhat ambiguous or poorly defined/described in the first focus group were revisited during the FG 2 discussion. For example, terms such as “snuggle-feel”, “design consistency”, “deformities”, “harsh hand-feel”, and “sturdy weave” were specifically discussed by participants in FG 2 to determine if they could better describe the specific characteristics. (C) Several of the scarves/shawls used in FG 1 were replaced in FG 2 to provide additional potential to determine quality traits. Focus groups have been used before in other studies to gather textile-product-specific terminology from consumers [40].

(d)

Selection of statements

FG 1 and FG 2 together produced a total of 86 quality terms. As expected, some of the statements that were generated by FG1 were also identified by FG 2. Furthermore, FG 2 participants refined some statements which were identified in FG 1 but were ambiguous.

2.2. Phase 2 Study: Quantitative Consumer Study

(a)

Artisan textile samples

Ten scarves and shawls from the initial set of 20 used in the two FG discussions were used for the quantitative consumer study. The authors chose a wide range of scarves/shawls representing higher and lower quality based on feedback in the FG. The textiles included in Phase 2 included samples that had various structural differences, design differences, edge finishes, fiber contents, and other variations (

Table 1. Description and images of the ten scarves and shawls that were used as samples during the quantitative consumer study.

Sample Label	Image	Sample Description
Sample 1		Made in Turkey Silk Block Print Hand-rolled Edge
Sample 2		Made in India Cotton Block Print and Batik Knotted Fringed Hems
Sample 3		Made in India Silk Bandhani (tie-dye) Machine-stitched Hems
Sample 4		Made in India Cotton and Wool Handwoven Hand-finished Hems
Sample 5		Made in Laos Silk Handwoven Braided Fringe Hems
Sample 6		Made in India Wool Handwoven and Hand Embroidered Twisted Fringe Hems
Sample 7		Made in India Silk Bandhani (tie-dye) Machine-rolled Hem
Sample 8		Made in India Cotton and Polyester Hand Embroidered Bound Hem
Sample 9		Made in India Silk Batik (one color) Knotted Fringe Hems
Sample 10		Made in India Cotton Batik (two color) Unhemmed

).

(b)

Consumers

Women between the ages of 18 and 75 years (includes Generation Z through Baby Boomers) were included. Consumers selected had to have usually purchased their own clothes, had no fabric-related restrictions or allergies, and were available and interested in participating in the study. A total of 196 consumers evaluated the artisan textiles at the Center for Sensory Analysis and Consumer Behavior in Manhattan, KS (USA).

(c)

Questionnaire development

The study questionnaire included an informed consent statement, demographic (5) questions, a five-point scale question (with anchor points of “very poor” and “excellent”) that assessed how participants rated the quality of a scarf or shawl, and a five-point purchase-interest question [30]. The five questions on consumer demographics included questions on age, gender, level of education, and nine-point Likert scales on level of interest in artisan textiles and willingness to purchase natural or organic and environmentally friendly products. A five-point intensity scale that ranged from “does not apply at all” to “applies completely” assessed the degree of applicability for each of the quality statements selected for the quantitative phase for each scarf/shawl.

(d)

Consumer testing

Consumer testing occurred throughout several sessions at a central location in Manhattan, KS (USA). Up to ten consumers participated in each session. Each participant was given a translucent plastic bin containing a single textile labeled with a three-digit code. Consumers had 3 min to evaluate each sample. After each sample evaluation, research assistants gathered the samples, refolded, and distributed samples again. The testing design was randomized and balanced in a Williams square design such that each participant assessed all 10 samples.

(e)

Textile-Quality Index

A TQI was calculated by adding up the individual scores for each of the six (or eight) key statements that were indicated based on the statistical analysis (Cronbach’s alpha). In the case of the six-statement index, the TQI could range from 6 to 30, with 6 indicating extremely poor quality and 30 indicating the highest quality.

(f)

Statistical analysis

Percentage counts were computed for demographic questions on age and education. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for data collected by each of the different intensity scales. It is worth noting that the data were, in general, normally distributed, and parametric analysis could be used.

Computations of unstandardized coefficient alpha (Cronbach’s alpha) were used to assess the internal consistency of the quality statements. Internal validation of the shortlisted statements that were identified by Cronbach’s alpha for the consumer-based quality scale was conducted using Pearson correlation coefficients. A set of two correlation tests comprised one based on the participants as a whole sample and another where correlations were determined for each participant. These correlation tests assessed the association between a quality score and a Textile-Quality Index (TQI) score. The TQI scores were generated by summing up the individual scores received for each of the quality statements that were recommended by coefficient alpha. Based on the findings from coefficient alpha computations, it would be assumed that the recommended quality statements were found to perform consistently within as a group versus as individual quality parameters. This, then, would imply that by measuring the correlation between the quality score and the TQI, the authors could determine whether the recommended set of statements was indeed assessing, and could be relied on to measure, the quality of artisan clothing by consumer researchers. Indices similar in performance to the TQI have been previously used to internally validate consumer-based scales [41,42]. A Pearson correlation coefficient (R) value of R = 0.55 was used a reference. This meant that for the 196 participants, any R ≥ 0.55 was considered to indicate between a moderate positive and strong positive relationship between that particular participant’s quality score and the TQI. Put simply, when that person’s score for the TQI increases, their score for quality would also increase. The same can be said for when the overall correlation tests where participants were treated as a whole.

All analyses were run using XLSTAT (version 2020.1, AddinSoft, New York, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Phase 1—Qualitative Studies (Focus Groups)

The FGs participants gave 46 high-quality statements (

Table 2. List of 46 high-quality terms/statements for textiles that were generated from the focus groups.

High-Quality Statements for Textiles Generated during the Focus Groups
Evenness of stitching
Overall attention to detail in workmanship
Smaller size (narrow and shorter) for silky fabric and larger (blanket) size for a thicker fabric
Reversibility of fabric (front and back match/similar)
Nicely finished edge of the fabric
Lastingness/durability of the fabric
Finished look
Evenness and similar style of stitching all the way round
Evenly dyed
No raveling
High colorfastness
Proper/well-matched prints
Ease of use (not having to apply extras such as starch after many washings)
Not itchy
Finished edges
Tear-resistant design (e.g., tassels should be formed together properly not just bunched, especially when using thinner threads, not doing too much embroidery to the point the base fabric cannot handle it)
Weave needs to be consistent
Natural fabrics: they breathe, they drape nicely, (silk, rayon, cotton)
Soft, and flows and drapes nicely
No fraying on edges and unraveling
Light and lace-like embroidery
Uniform and consistent embroidery on each side of the fabric
The weave of the fabric: smooth with no bumps, silky to touch
No aroma/smell
Evenness of pattern placement
Evenness of edges
Color blendedness/balance
Intricate work on fringes—not going to come out—lay nicely
Uniformity of all edges
Evenness of twisting of yarn on the entire fabric
Curving of the corners of the hem
Evenness of the hem
Light-weight thread used for the hem
The thread does not pull the fabric too much
Hand-stitched roll of hem
Finer twist yarn with linen or silk
High-density weave
The organic and more “natural” fabric
Fuzzy—very soft, good hand-feel
Does not wrinkle unless it is meant to
Finer thread
Higher thread count per inch
Woven threads are invisible (Satin weave)
Fine edge finish of tassels
Appropriate tassel placement on fabric
Handmade (it is unique)

) and 40 low-quality statements (

Table 3. A list of 40 low-quality statements for textiles that were generated from the focus groups.

Low-Quality Statements for Textiles Generated during the Focus-Group Discussions
Synthetic fabrics (e.g., polyester, spandex)
Unraveling and fraying of fabric edges
The coarseness of weave of the fabric
Rough hand-feel
Aroma (e.g., dye-like aroma, formaldehyde residue)
Springiness of fabric
Overdyed/much-too-high dye intensity
Scratchy
Small/invisible finish of the edge
Dye residue in hand
Non-finished/incomplete edges
Low embroidery-fabric fitting (embroidery does not match the kind of fabric it is placed on)
Out of balance of color
Too-tight stitching
Selvaged edge (curtain-like impression)
Waxy hand-feel
Non-uniform edges of the fabric
An unevenness of twisting of yarn on the entire fabric
Zigzag hemstitching which makes it roll
Heavy-weight thread used for the hem (thread sits on top of the fabric)
Coarser yarns (lesser twist)
Low colorfastness
Plastic-like hand-feel
Embellishment too strong for fabric
Stretchy-like edges which are wonky
Wavy-like and forms wrinkles that are not supposed to be there
Lower thread count per inch (fewer threads used for warp and weft)
Woven threads are visible
Machine stitched
Tacky tape on the edge
Uneven and unfinished look (Note: younger consumers may consider this high quality as a more organic look)
Fabric residue and dirty-like after-feel
Crunchy sound/noise
Stiff fabric and fabric that pokes out
High shrink ability
Pilling or formation of small balls of fluff from looser threads on the fabric surface
Many ravelings—threads from a woven or knitted fabric that have frayed or started to unravel
Low colorfast (ability to keep the same color without fading or running even if washed, placed in harsh light, exposed to perspiration, or treated with certain chemicals)
Vibrancy (muddy coloring is a sign of poor quality, not drab or muted but muddy coloring)
Too big (should not be a shawl when wanting a scarf)

). In refining statements from FG1, the FG 2 participants modified some statements. For example, FG 2 replaced “harsh hand-feel” with “rough feel”, which the FG 2 participants found to be a more appropriate consumer descriptor for the quality of the scarves and shawls.

The 86 generated statements were reviewed by the authors, and statements that were not directly related to quality, and statements that were ambiguous and/or confusing, were removed, which brought the total list of statements down to 52 statements (

Table 4. Shortlist of 52 initial quality statements and 30 final (*) statements for textiles following first and final review by authors.

Overall Attention to Detail *
Front and back are similar *
Fabric is durable *
Fringe or tassels look like they will last *
Unfinished edges * (Finished edges)
Stitching is even and consistent * (Even stitches)
Hems are even *
Consistent weave * (Evenness of weave of the fabric)
Ravels/frays at edges *
Evenly dyed *
Looks like it would be colorfast *
Patterns do not match properly when printed or dyed * (Pattern or print is consistent)
Smooth * (Bumpy)
Scratchy
Rough *
Coarse *
Soft *
Holes/loose threads/raveling in interior *
Embroidery too loose or too tight * (Embroidery is smooth and tight)
Silky
Has an aroma/smell *
Fringe or tassels are neat/tidy *
Corners are straight or curve correctly *
Edges are wavy or crooked * (Fabric edges are consistent) (Even edges)
Hand-stitched
Handmade (looks to be unique) *
Fuzzy
No wrinkles except as part of the design *
-Embroidery causes the fabric to gather/bunch
Waxy/sticky feel * (Sticky feel)
Makes a sound *
Dye spots *
Feels like a natural fabric* (Feels like a synthetic fabric)
Drapes well * (Stiff)
Springy
Fine weave* (Heavy weave) (High-density weave) (Tight Weave) (Fine threads/yearns used for weaving)
Thread for hems is thin and does not show

* Items included in the final questionnaire.

). Some statements were reworded to shorter phrases or words that would be suitable for quantitative consumer testing (but only if the core meaning was maintained).

Items that were considered the same, similar, or opposite to a selected statement and were eliminated.

Items that were eliminated after consideration as vague, covered by another or combination of statements, or not really relevant to these garments.

Following another review, the authors further removed statements that had similar meaning or interpretation or were opposites (Table 4, items in parentheses), or items that were covered by other combinations of statements or were deemed less relevant for these garments (Table 4). For instance: “Finished edges” was removed because it was an opposite with “Unfinished edges”, and “Even stitches” was removed because it had a similar meaning to “Stitching is even and consistent” which was kept. “Scratchy” was removed because it overlapped meaning (similar or opposite) with “smooth”, “rough”, and “coarse”. Finally, terms such as “springy” were eliminated because they were not deemed particularly relevant to the sample of shawls/scarves in the study. The list of 52 statements was reduced to 30 statements (Table 4, *statements), which were included in the quantitative consumer study. The statements represented both positive and negative characteristics.

The final set of 30 statements was checked against the focus-group statements by the authors. They were chosen based on frequency of use, ability to be understood by most or all focus-group participants, and to ensure that they captured the breadth and essence of the statements determined by focus groups.

3.2. Phase 2—Quantitative Study

Except for Generation Z participants, many of whom were still in college, approximately 80% of the other consumers had completed college, whereas the remaining had completed high-school education. Although this is not representative of the U.S. population, this more highly educated demographic may be more representative of women who have interest in artisan products and may have, on average, more money to spend on clothing [43]. Data are conflicting on the age groups that are most interested in purchasing artisan products. Some authors [42] have suggested that younger consumers are most interested, while others [43] have found that the older the consumer, the more likely they are to purchase artisan textiles. On, average, consumers in this study held average interest in searching out and purchasing organic and natural products, and on average held moderate to higher interest in purchasing artisan clothing (

Table 5. LS means for consumers’ interest in artisan products and willingness to purchase environmentally friendly products (n = 196; α = 0.05).

What Year Were You Born?	Rate Your Interest in Clothing Products That Are Partly or Entirely Artisan-Made (i.e., Made or Partly Made by People Skilled in Designing and Making Clothing)? 1	Please Indicate Your Agreement with the Following Statement. “I Mostly Try to Buy Organic/Natural and Environmentally Friendly Products” 2
1944–1979	7.1 a	5.7 a
1995–2001	7.2 a	5.1 a
1980–1994	6.9 a	5.7 a
p-value	0.46	0.17

^a Row means within an attribute with a common superscript did not differ (p > 0.05). ¹ Nine-point scale; 1 = Extremely Disinterested, 5 = Have no opinion, 9 = Extremely Interested. ² Nine-point scale; 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Undecided, 9 = Strongly Agree.

).

3.2.1. Discrimination among Textile Samples

Mean scores showed that how consumers rated the 30 quality statements, or how they scored the textiles based on quality, or purchase interest, significantly differed among the samples (

Table 6. LS means for consumers’ ratings for quality, purchase interest, and the 30 quality statements for textiles (α = 0.05).

	Sample
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	p-Value
Quality 1	4.5 a	3.5 e	3.7 d	4.1 c	4.1 bc	4.3 b	3.4 e	3.0 f	2.8 g	2.4 h	<0.0001
Purchase interest 2.	3.9 a	2.9 d	3.2 c	3.4 bc	3.2 c	3.5 b	2.7 d	2.1 e	2.1 e	1.8 f	<0.0001
Overall attention to detail 3	4.4 a	3.2 c	3.3 c	4.2 b	4.4 a	4.2 ab	3.4 c	3.2 c	2.7 d	2.3 e	<0.0001
Front and back are similar 3	3.5 e	4.1 cd	4.1 c	3.8 d	4.4 b	3.4 e	4.7 a	1.9 f	3.5 e	4.0 cd	<0.0001
Fabric is durable 3	3.7 bc	3.6 c	2.9 d	4.1 a	3.8 b	3.9 b	2.6 e	2.1 f	2.3 f	2.3 f	<0.0001
Fringe or tassels look like they will last 3	2.1 d	3.3 c	1.9 de	3.9 b	4.2 a	3.9 b	2.0 d	1.7 e	1.4 f	1.4 f	<0.0001
Unfinished edges 3	1.1 h	2.4 c	1.4 g	1.7 ef	1.9 de	1.7 ef	1.5 fg	2.1 d	3.6 b	4.5 a	<0.0001
Stitching is even and consistent 3	4.2 a	3.1 d	3.6 c	4.0 b	4.2 ab	4.0 ab	3.6 c	2.6 e	2.8 e	2.2 f	<0.0001
Hems are even 3	4.3 a	3.1 c	3.6 b	3.6 b	4.1 a	3.8 b	3.7 b	2.8 d	2.5 e	1.7 f	<0.0001
Consistent weave 3	4.1 a	3.5 d	3.7 cd	3.9 bc	4.2 a	4.0 ab	3.6 d	3.0 ef	3.2 e	2.9 f	<0.0001
Ravels/frays at edges 3	1.2 g	2.2 d	1.6 f	2.0 d	1.6 ef	1.8 e	1.7 ef	2.8 c	4.1 b	4.4 a	<0.0001
Evenly dyed 3	4.30 a	2.8 e	2.9 e	4.0 bc	4.0 bc	3.9 bc	4.1 ab	3.8 c	3.3 d	2.8 e	<0.0001
Looks like it would be colorfast 3	3.3 a	2.8 b	2.9 b	3.3 a	3.4 a	3.2 a	2.9 b	2.7 bc	2.6 c	2.6 c	<0.0001
Patterns do not match properly when printed or dyed 3	1.3 gh	2.3 a	1.9 bc	1.3 fgh	1.2 h	1.6 de	1.4 efg	1.5 ef	1.8 cd	2.0 b	<0.0001
Smooth 3	4.8 a	3.3 c	4.6 b	2.4 fg	3.1 d	2.8 e	2.4 fg	2.2 g	2.5 f	2.4 fg	<0.0001
Rough 3	1.1 f	2.2 e	1.2 f	3.0 ab	2.8 b	2.3 de	2.5 cd	2.6 c	3.1 a	3.0 ab	<0.0001
Coarse 3	1.2 d	2.3 c	1.2 d	3.0 a	3.0 a	2.3 bc	2.4 bc	2.5 b	3.2 a	3.0 a	<0.0001
Soft 3	4.7 a	2.8 d	4.5 b	2.2 ef	2.2 e	3.0 c	2.7 d	2.7 d	2.0 f	2.1 ef	<0.0001
Holes/loose threads/raveling in interior 3	1.3 f	1.7 de	2.0 c	1.5 e	1.5 e	1.6 e	1.8 cd	3.9 a	2.9 b	2.8 b	<0.0001
Embroidery too loose or too tight 3	1.2 d	1.4 c	1.4 c	1.6 c	1.5 c	1.6 c	1.5 c	3.2 a	2.1 b	2.0 b	<0.0001
Has an aroma/smell 3	1.5 f	1.9 cd	1.6 ef	1.8 cde	1.7 def	2.1 a	1.9 bc	2.1 ab	2.1 ab	2.3 a	<0.0001
Fringe or tassels are neat/tidy 3	2.2 d	3.6 c	2.0 d	4.0 b	4.5 a	4.1 b	2.1 d	1.7 e	1.6 ef	1.3 f	<0.0001
Corners are straight or curve correctly 3	4.3 a	3.6 c	3.9 b	3.9 b	4.1 ab	4.0 b	3.6 c	2.9 d	2.7 d	1.8 e	<0.0001
Edges are wavy or crooked 3	1.7 f	2.6 d	2.1 e	2.2 e	2.0 e	1.6 f	3.1 c	3.5 b	3.0 c	3.9 a	<0.0001
Handmade 3	2.4 d	3.2 b	2.9 c	3.8 a	2.6 d	3.1 bc	2.6 d	3.2 b	3.1 bc	3.0 bc	<0.0001
No wrinkles except as part of design 3	3.1 d	3.7 bc	3.5 c	3.5 c	4.2 a	4.1 a	3.9 ab	3.0 d	2.7 e	3.0 de	<0.0001
Waxy or sticky feel 3	1.2 b	1.4 b	1.3 b	1.2 b	1.7 a	1.3 b	1.7 a	1.3 b	1.7 a	1.8 a	<0.0001
Makes a sound 3	1.5 d	1.8 c	1.5 d	1.9 c	2.8 a	1.5 d	2.4 b	1.5 d	2.2 b	2.0 c	<0.0001
Dye spots 3	1.2 f	3.5 a	3.1 b	1.2 f	1.2 f	1.6 e	1.6 e	1.2 f	2.3 d	2.9 c	<0.0001
Feels like natural fabric 3	3.3 cd	3.5 bc	3.1 de	3.9 a	2.7 f	3.7 ab	2.4 g	2.5 fg	2.9 e	3.0 e	<0.0001
Drapes appropriately 3	4.4 a	3.8 c	4.2 b	3.6 d	3.6 d	4.1 b	3.7 cd	3.6 d	3.3 e	3.1 e	<0.0001
Fine weave 3	4.0 a	3.4 b	3.5 b	3.5 b	4.0 a	3.5 b	3.4 b	3.0 c	3.0 c	2.9 c	<0.0001

^{a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h} Row means within an attribute/column with no common superscripts differ (p ≤ 0.05). ¹ Five-point scale; 1 = Very Poor quality, 3 = Fair quality, 5 = Excellent quality. ² Five-point scale; 1 = Definitely would not purchase, 3 = Possibly would purchase, 5 = Definitely would purchase. ³ Seven–point scale; 1 = Strongly Disagree, 4 = Neither Agree/Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree.

). For example, whereas Sample 1 was rated as a very-good-quality scarf and participants indicated that they would probably purchase the scarf if the price was reasonable, Sample 10 was rated as a poor-quality scarf which they would probably not purchase even if the price was reasonable. Furthermore, based on the 30 quality statements that were investigated, Sample 1 attained significantly higher ratings than Sample 10 for positive statements such as Overall attention to detail, Stitching is even and consistent, Hems are even, Consistent weave, Evenly dyed, Looks like it would be colorfast, Smooth, Soft, Corners are straight or curve correctly, Drapes appropriately, and Fine weave. On the other hand, Sample 10 received higher ratings for negative statements such as Unfinished edges, Ravels or frays at edges, Coarse, has an Aroma or smell, Edges are wavy or crooked, and Waxy or sticky feel.

3.2.2. Internal Consistency of Quality Statements

Computation of coefficient alpha for all 30 statements had a raw alpha of 0.53 and further analysis of the data showed that 13 statements showed inconsistency/unreliability among consumers for measurement of quality. Those statements were: Unfinished edges, Ravels or frays at edges, Patterns do not match when printed or dyed, Rough, Coarse, Soft, Holes loose threads raveling in the interior, Embroidery too loose or too tight, Has an aroma/smell, Edges are wavy or crooked, Waxy or sticky feel, Makes a sound, and Dye spots. That suggests that some consumers (a) were more sensitive to certain characteristics (e.g., smell), (b) varied considerably in how important certain characteristics were (e.g., unfinished edges or raveling), or (c) may not have noticed some characteristics based on their handling of the scarves/shawls (e.g., holes or dye spots). That finding suggests that additional analysis with fewer statements would be beneficial. Such analysis is performed in development of questionnaires for measuring such things as science literacy [44].

After removing the 13 inconsistent statements, the remaining 17 statements showed a Cronbach’s alpha of coefficient of 0.86, a reasonably high reliability, but further analysis showed that eight additional statements were potentially inconsistent. Those eight statements were: Front and back are similar, Evenly dyed, Looks like it would be colorfast, Smooth, Handmade, No wrinkles except as part of the design, Feels like natural fabric, and Drapes appropriately. Those statements were ones that may differ based on their perception of “Quality” in artisan textiles. For example, in the focus groups conducted for this study, some consumers expected small variations in artisan products such as uneven dyeing or wrinkles, while others thought of those as “flaws”. Some consumers noted that it was difficult to determine if a fabric felt like natural fabric, and, in fact, stated that natural fabrics vary so much (cotton is different from wool is different from silk) that such terminology could not be assessed by feeling the fabric.

Thus, a third analysis was conducted with only the nine remaining statements and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient increased slightly to 0.87, a relatively high number, suggesting that the statements were addressing the quality issue. One additional statement, “fine weave”, was noted as being inconsistent in this third round so an analysis was conducted after removing that statement. Those results showed an alpha coefficient of 0.87, consistent with the higher number of statements and no statements that were found to be inconsistent in judging quality among the consumers. Alpha remained 0.87 (

Table 7. Reliability of quality statements remaining in the scale (overall coefficient α = 0.87).

Quality Statement	Coefficient Raw Alpha
Overall attention to detail	0.85
Fabric is durable	0.86
Fringe or tassels look like they will last	0.86
Stitching is even and consistent	0.85
Hems are even	0.86
Consistent weave	0.86
Fringe or tassels are neat or tidy	0.85
Corners are straight or curve correctly	0.86

).

The eight statements that constituted the textile-quality scale included the statements Overall attention to detail, Fabric is durable, Fringe or tassels look like they will last, Stitching is even and consistent, Hems are even, Consistent weave, Fringe or tassels are neat or tidy, and Corners are straight or curve correctly. This approach of assessing the reliability of the textile-quality scale using coefficient alpha has been used previously by multiple authors [45,46,47].

3.2.3. Textile-Quality Scale (TQI)

Table 8. The least-squares means for textile-quality indices (TQI) for the 10 textile samples (α = 0.05).

	TQI8 1	TQI6 2
Sample 1	29.3 c	25.0 a
Sample 2	27.1 d	20.2 d
Sample 3	24.8 e	20.9 d
Sample 4	31.5 b	23.7 c
Sample 5	33.5 a	24.8 ab
Sample 6	32.0 b	24.0 bc
Sample 7	24.5 e	20.4 d
Sample 8	20.2 f	16.7 e
Sample 9	19.2 f	16.9 e
Sample 10	15.8 g	13.1 f

TQI8 ¹ = Textile-quality index generated by summing the scores for all the eight terms that were identified by Cronbach’s alpha (range 8–40). TQI6 ² = Textile-quality index generated by summing the scores for six terms (i.e., eight terms minus “fringe or tassels look like they will last” and “fringe or tassels are neat or tidy” quality terms) that were identified by Cronbach’s alpha (range 6–30). ^{a,b,c,d,e,f,g} Means within a column with one or more matching letters are not significantly (p ≤ 0.05) different.

shows data for the TQI with eight and six statements. It is clear from the data that the TQI differentiated quite well among the various textiles. The TQ with eight statements was slightly more differentiating among these samples but shows the problem of using the eight statements when some of them do not apply. Sample 1, which did not have fringe or tassels, is the highest-scoring product for the TQI based on six statements, but compares less well to other products when using the TQI with eight statements. Low scores for the statement related to fringe, which obviously did not apply to five of the samples, resulted in a reordering of the samples based on TQI for eight and six statements. However, regardless of which index was used, both differentiated low-quality textiles, those with poor attention to detail, poor-quality seams, poor stitching, inconsistent weave, etc.

3.2.4. Internal Validation of the Textile-Quality Scale

The Pearson correlation coefficient (all participants as a whole sample) for the score for Overall Quality and the TQI based on eight statements was 0.69, a good correlation. Note that all correlations reported were significant, but the size of the correlation is most important. When the Overall Quality scores and TQI were correlated for each individual participant, only 16%, or 31/196 consumers, had R values < 0.55, suggesting that the TQI for each individual consumer was reasonably representative of their overall quality score.

However, half of the ten samples tested in this study did not have any fringes or tassels. Thus, a TQI based on all eight statements included contributions for the “fringe or tassels look like they will last” and “fringe or tassels are neat or tidy” quality statements. This definitely affected scores for products without a fringe or tassels because consumers give a score for the statement that is not meaningful to the product, which can create confusion for the consumers and potential error in the TQI. Using only six quality statements (removing those related to fringe/tassels) to calculate the TQI provided a correlation for the overall data of 0.71, a slight increase from the eight-statement TQI. Of particular note, however, is that only 10%, or 20 of the 196 consumer participants, had R values <0.55 for their individual TQIs. This suggests an overall improvement, and improvement when considering the percentage of consumers for whom the TQI gave a reasonable representation of the Overall Quality score.

The TQI is not needed when consumers can measure quality directly, but that frequently is not the case for artisans, producers, or sellers who must decide whether their textiles are of high quality using more specific criteria. The use of a TQI composed of various statements of the properties of the textiles allows individuals to learn what consumers believe in terms of textile product quality.

4. Discussion

Durability, and factors that can affect durability such as attention to detail, were found to be important in this study of artisan textiles. Consumers continue to check for comfort and durability when buying clothing [14]. Yotsutsuji [48] reported that key quality aspects of textile-consumer complaints in Japan were centered on the durability of textiles. This stems from the inherent features of the raw fiber (e.g., silk, wool, cotton, synthetic fibers) to be resistant to wear and tear, resistant to structural changes (e.g., shrinkage, and skewing of textile), and appearance changes (e.g., aging, discoloration, fuzzing). For example, silk (e.g., Sample 1) a natural fiber, has been characterized by a higher percentage increase in length before breaking (breaking extension) as compared to other fibers such as cotton (another natural fiber, e.g., in Sample 10) and polyester (synthetic fiber) [49]. However, the type of processing received by the textile can influence the quality of the resulting textile or clothing [50]. Mechanical processing of the finished textile by the artisan, such as weaving (e.g., consistent weave), sewing (e.g., seams are even and consistent), and edge treatments (e.g., corners are straight or curve correctly) clearly indicated quality to the consumers in this study.

The softness of fibers remains a complex subject today in the clothing textile industry. For instance, while textile makers and sellers may attribute higher quality to higher intensities of fabric softness, the reverse is true for consumers, who may not be drawn to lavish softness [14]. Thus, it is no wonder that for the current study, softness was found to be an unreliable value for quality assessment of artisan textiles such as shawls and scarves. For example, Sample 5 was perceived as high in quality but low in softness, probably because of the stiffness of the weave structure. Furthermore, softness is a difficult attribute to describe because it often is a “lack of” a physical characteristic that provides a soft sensory property. That is, softness often, but not always, results from a lack of stiffness, a lack of roughness, a lack of compression resistance, rather than the presence of a certain attribute.

A study by Ezazshahabi et al. [28] indicated that textiles that had consistent weaves and whose stitching was even and consistent were smoother and thus of higher quality (e.g., Sample 1 in this current study) as compared to textiles with inconsistent weaves and uneven stitching which had a rougher hand-feel (e.g., Samples 9 and 10 in the current study).

Today, evenness of yarns remains a key basis for determining textile quality as consumers continue to find textiles whose stitching is even and consistent more appealing [51]. Although unevenness of yarns to a considerable extent is expected when working with natural fibers such as cotton, Barbu et al. [26] noted that the degree of unevenness can be significantly increased depending on processing. The structural aspects of the textile clearly influence the quality of the clothing as much as the fiber. That is evident in the current study where Samples 1, 4, 5, and 6 all scored highly for durability and quality even though they were made with different yarns (silk, wool, cotton) and weave structures. In contrast samples 8, 9, and 10 also were cotton, silk, or a cotton and polyester blend, but appeared less durable to consumers and had other issues associated with lower-quality textiles. Sukran [52] found that the type of stitching that is applied to a fabric (e.g., seams or hems) has a significant contribution to the fabric’s level of bending rigidity. The level of bending rigidity of the textiles in turn affects their appearance, wrinkle resistance, crease resistance, and draping ability [53]. This lower level of bending rigidity due to type of stitching was illustrated by higher consumer ratings for related statements such as Hems are even, Drapes appropriately, No wrinkles except as part of the design, and Corners are straight or curve correctly for Samples such as 1 and 5 in the current study.

Yarns that are even and which are made from fine fibers produce textiles that are soft and drape appropriately (e.g., yarns used to make Sample 1). Additionally, such artisan textiles usually have even and consistent stitching and are likely to have a consistent weave [54]. The level of importance that textile consumers accord quality statements can vary depending on the function and intended purpose of the particular textile clothing. For instance, in hospitals, the key quality characteristics for knitted surgical gowns and face masks could be their durability and breathability, while for airbags used in cars, the key quality statements could include elongation of yarns used to weave the fabric [29]. Ziegenfus [29] noted also that artisan textiles that can endure abrasion without pilling are considered to be durable and are perceived to have higher quality compared to textiles that form lint balls and lose fibers easily due to wear.

Garside [55] identified hydrolysis, light damage, and oxidation as the main sources of fiber and fabric degradation in textiles. Benkirane et al. [34] stated that durability does not just cover the physical endurance of abrasion and colorfastness, but rather also the emotional durability that a consumer associates with the textile. When purchasing textile clothing, consumers usually think about what the color of the textile would be when washed, dry cleaned, ironed, or when exposed to water or light, as all these are known to affect the color of textile [48]. This would thus partly explain the significantly higher respondent rating for quality and purchase interest for Sample 1 which was associated with being durable and more likely to be colorfast as compared to other scarves or shawls such as Sample 10 and Sample 9.

However, Saville [54] stated that the degree of colorfastness of textile clothing is influenced by various aspects including factors related to the process of dyeing such as the type of dye that was used, the specific color that was used and the color strength (percentage of shade) that was applied to the textile. One study that examined the colorfastness of natural dyes made from eastern red cedar sawdust, Kansas black walnut, and Osage orange on wool yarns that were mordanted with potassium aluminum sulfate, and non-mordanted wool yarns showed that pre-mordanted (with potassium aluminum sulfate) wool yarns had higher absorptions for the Kansas black walnut and eastern red cedar sawdust dyes. This indicated that an increase in depth of shade for the yellow color consequently increased colorfastness to light for pre-mordanted wool yarns as compared to wool yarns that were not mordanted [30]. In the same study, colorfastness to laundering increased only for the Osage orange wool yarns that were pre-mordanted. Their findings highlighted the fact that the loss of color of textiles can be ascribed to several aspects (e.g., water, light, rubbing, domestic laundering, and hot pressing). For the current study, it is thus likely that when consumers were asked to rate the samples based on the degree of colorfastness, they might have interpreted the question differently based on their past personal experiences with colorfastness [34]. The ambiguous nature of the colorfastness question had a significant effect on the internal consistency (reliability) of the textile-quality scale, which explains why the statement was dropped.

It would be expected that textiles whose fringes or tassels are neat or tidy and those that look like they will last (Sample 5) would be perceived by consumers to be of higher quality as compared to similar textiles (Sample 9) whose fringes or tassels are neither neat nor tidy and do not look like they will last. However, at the time of this writing, available literature on the quality of textiles based on fringes or tassels is limited. The findings of one study [32] indicated that dyes and materials could impact the quality of tassels of a textile. For example, a combination of ultra-performance liquid chromatography and time-of-flight spectrometry revealed that tassels (all made from silk fabric) that were directly dyed (no mordant added) with cork tree were more resistant to fading or bleeding due to light as compared to similar, yellow-colored tassels that were directly dyed with cheaper-cost turmeric and had a lesser degree of lightfastness.

Liu et al. [56,57] reported that textiles that were scent infused (with lavender) could be more appealing to potential consumers. Although not related to consumer liking, the current findings show that consumer textile scores for quality could be influenced by the smell or aroma the textile possesses. In many cases for the textiles used in this study, any odor present was quite low and was not noticeable to some focus-group participants. This made the textile smell statement inconsistent in assessing the quality of the scarves and is the reason the statement was dropped during Cronbach’s alpha computations.

Respondents rated the quality of scarves and shawls that produced a more pronounced sound when rubbed between fingers as lower in quality than ones that made little or no sound. That could be because consumers believe textiles that produce more-intense sounds wear out easily as compared to those that produce no sounds [58].

Yashi [59] stated that, beyond the primary quality values of textiles (e.g., colorfastness, and durability), secondary quality aspects such as aesthetics and characteristics we measured such as Overall attention to detail and Corners are straight or curve correctly, have a significant contribution to consumers’ acceptance and willingness to purchase textiles. This would explain why the quality of samples such as Sample 1 and Sample 5 was rated higher as compared to that of samples such as Sample 9 and Sample 10, which scored significantly lower on Overall attention to detail and Corners are straight or curve correctly. According to Webster [13] and Engel [6], the growing fashion trend that favors fast delivery and quantity over quality where certain aspects of the textile production process such as fabric material sourcing, custom dye applications, and quality control (attention to detail) could explain the poor quality of artisan textiles. Based on this, it is likely that the production of samples such as Sample 9 and Sample 10, which were dyed using a batik technique, was done hurriedly, by lesser skilled artisans, and at a lower cost as compared to other scarves or shawls in this study.

Clearly, it is evident that the eight statements identified by Cronbach’s alpha were consistent in measuring the quality of artisan textiles. However, in practice, use of the eight-statement quality scale could be limited to assessment of quality of textiles that have fringes or tassels. Conversely, the six-statement quality scale can be used more universally by producers of artisan textiles (whether they have fringes or tassels or not) to develop products in similar categories that have a higher success rate in the US market. It is important to note that the process of development of the six-statement quality scale can be adopted and used to develop related quality scales for other types of textiles and clothing and in different countries and regions.

Alternatively, the implications of this six-statement quality scale could be compared with those of previously developed consumer-based scales for assessing textile products. Unfortunately, at the time of this writing, comparable literature on similar quality scales was non-existent. For example, Renata [60] stated that characteristics such as durability, comfort [61], and function mattered most to consumers when they were asked about quality of clothing and house textiles. However, because no inquiry/analysis was performed into how those characteristics (as a group) assessed quality of textiles, those results cannot be comparable to the current findings.

5. Limitations

As each scarf/shawl was a single artisan piece, the reuse of pieces throughout the testing may have changed some aspects of the garment. For example, one sample received a small tear that had to be gently repaired in one of the last sessions. However, in most cases the original and ending quality of the textile appeared to be similar. For future consumer studies on textiles, researchers could ensure that two or three identical versions of each textile sample are available so that in case one is damaged during evaluation, it can be swapped out with another. However, artisan products often are unique production items that are not reproduced as with industrial production, which could make sampling difficult if multiple identical items are needed.

In addition, this study was limited to scarves and shawls, which do not represent the range of artisan or larger-scale production textiles that are available. However, the statements found in this study could apply to many other types of products and statements that were specific to a more limited scope of products (i.e., those with fringes) were removed from the final quality index without losing any benefit of the scale. Additionally, certain statements could be added to the index when needed for certain types of products. Furthermore, it would be quite informative to compare the current results with those collected similarly for other textile products. However, at the time of this writing, prior literature on processes used to study quality of artisan textile products from the consumer’s point of view was lacking. Therefore, this provided a limited degree for comparison of the current results with related earlier studies. This highlights the need for more research on what quality parameters consumers use when choosing different textile products.

Another limitation of this study was the fact that these data were collected from textile consumers in the Midwest region of the USA. Obviously, this sample of study participants may not be representative of the entire country. However, we believe this study, and in particular the process discussed here, could be a source of insight for future related investigations in other locations.

6. Conclusions

A list of statements that consumer textile experts found to be important in artisan textiles (in this case scarves/shawls) was determined with 30 of those statements being used to help develop a six-statement textile-quality scale. Those 30 statements, with a focus on the six-statement TQI scale established in this study, can serve as critical guidelines for artisans or process owners in the US textile industry. These specific textile construction and finishing issues should be a focus when training artisans or quality-control technicians of finished artisan textiles. In addition, these statements can be used to explain the importance of every step in the process for people who are responsible for spinning fibers; weaving, knitting, or bonding yarns and threads into textiles; dyeing; sewing; and finishing textiles and fabrics.

Ensuring that textiles, especially artisan textiles, meet all the specifications of the quality scale would improve the product(s) positioning among the targeted textile consumers (higher market success). That can boost textile makers’ revenues, especially those of artisans who depend on producing a smaller number of goods and must show consistently high quality. Finally, the process of development of this six-statement quality scale can be applied to other goods in other countries and regions to establish custom quality scales for different types of textiles and clothing.