Evaluation and Testing of Two Ballistic Vests

Since the 1970s, law enforcement officers have worn concealable body armor for protection against ballistic threats. Although current body armor may offer effective ballistic protection, it does not adequately meet other needs of the officers. Many officers fail to wear their vests because they are uncomfortable (Olsen, 1981; Ruthorford-Black & Khan, 1995; Watkins, 1995). When officers do wear their vests, their performance can be affected by their comfort level when wearing vests (Watkins, 1995). Previous research has identified three aspects of comfort: fit, mobility, and thermal acceptability (Huck, Maganga, & Kim, 1997; Huck & Kim, 1997; Tan, Crown, & Capjack, 1998). This study examined comfort related to Level II ballistic vests worn by male law enforcement officers, with emphasis placed on such aspects as fit, mobility, and thermal acceptability. The overall purpose of this study was to evaluate two types of bullet resistant vests for male police officers. The levels of satisfaction for each vest type were compared to help identify ways of improving ballistic vests. Both vest types were the traditional ballistic vest design and used the same carrier. The two Level II ballistic panel inserts were also of similar design but were made of different fabrication: one vest panel was made of traditional ballistic fabric while the prototype panel incorporated layers of an experimental ballistic fabric, ArmorFelt, a needled felt of high performance fiber blends. The research followed DeJonge's Functional Design Process. Ten male law enforcement officers from the Tallahassee Police Department participated in a range of motion test and a movement analysis wearing the two vest types. They also completed a wearer acceptability questionnaire for each vest. For control measurements, each officer also completed the range of motion test and movement analysis without their vest. The results indicated that: 1) there was not a significant difference between the prototype and traditional vest function when officers performed task-related movements; 2) there was no significant difference in the level of fit satisfaction for the wearer between the prototype vest and traditional vest; 3) no significant difference in comfort of the vests occurred when the traditional and the prototype vests were compared; 4) overall satisfaction levels related to vest performance and comfort showed no significant difference when officers compared the traditional and the prototype vests. Although the results showed no significant difference between the two vest treatments, the prototype vest was reported as cooler to wear, more comfortable, easier to move in, and more flexible. The officers also indicated that the prototype vest was more acceptable to wear.