To the top

Page Manager: Webmaster
Last update: 9/11/2012 3:13 PM

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

Systematic review of body… - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
To content Read more about how we use cookies on

Contact form


Note! If you want an answer on a question you must specify your email address

Systematic review of body image measures

Conference contribution
Authors Johanna Kling
Linda Kwakkenbos
Phillippa Diedrichs
Nichola Rumsey
Ann Frisén
Maria Piedade Brandão
Anabela Silva
Barbara Dooley
Rachel F. Rodgers
Amanda Fitzgerald
Published in Presented at the National Eating Disorders Symposium, Stockholm, January 28, 2019
Publication year 2019
Published at Department of Psychology
Language en
Subject categories Psychology


This systematic review synthesized and critically appraised measurement properties of influential body image measures. Nine measures that met the definition of an assessment of body image (i.e., an individual’s cognitive or affective evaluation of their body or appearance with a positive or negative valence’), and scored high on systematic expert priority ranking, were included. These measures were: the Body Appreciation Scales (BAS/BAS-2; Avalos, Tylka, & Wood-Barcalow, 2005; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b); the Body Esteem Scale for Adolescents and Adults (BESAA; Mendelson, Mendelson & White, 2001); the Body Image States Scale (BISS; Cash, Fleming, Alindogan, Steadman, & Whitehead, 2002); the Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ; Cooper, Taylor, Cooper, & Fairburn, 1987); the Centre for Appearance Research Valence Scale (CARVAL; Moss & Rosser, 2012); the Drive for Muscularity Scale (DMS; McCreary & Sasse, 2000); the Weight and Shape Concerns subscales of the Eating Disorders Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q; Fairburn & Beglin, 1994); the Body Dissatisfaction subscale of the Eating Disorder Inventory 3 (EDI-3; Garner, 2004), and the Appearance Evaluation subscale and Body Areas Satisfaction Scale of the Multidimensional Body Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ; Brown, Cash, & Mikulka, 1990).. Articles assessing these scales’ psychometric properties (N = 139) were evaluated for their methodological quality using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist, and a best evidence synthesis was performed. The results supported the majority of measures in terms of reliability and validity, however, suitability varied across populations, and some measurement properties were insufficiently evaluated. The measures are discussed in detail, including recommendations for their future use in research and clinical practice.

Page Manager: Webmaster|Last update: 9/11/2012

The University of Gothenburg uses cookies to provide you with the best possible user experience. By continuing on this website, you approve of our use of cookies.  What are cookies?