Till sidans topp

Sidansvarig: Webbredaktion
Sidan uppdaterades: 2012-09-11 15:12

Tipsa en vän

Systematic review of body… - Göteborgs universitet Till startsida
Till innehåll Läs mer om hur kakor används på gu.se

Systematic review of body image measures

Konferensbidrag (offentliggjort, men ej förlagsutgivet)
Författare Johanna Kling
Linda Kwakkenbos
Phillippa Diedrichs
Nichola Rumsey
Ann Frisén
Maria Piedade Brandão
Anabela Silva
Barbara Dooley
Rachel F. Rodgers
Amanda Fitzgerald
Publicerad i Presented at the National Eating Disorders Symposium, Stockholm, January 28, 2019
Publiceringsår 2019
Publicerad vid Psykologiska institutionen
Språk en
Ämneskategorier Psykologi


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.

Sidansvarig: Webbredaktion|Sidan uppdaterades: 2012-09-11

På Göteborgs universitet använder vi kakor (cookies) för att webbplatsen ska fungera på ett bra sätt för dig. Genom att surfa vidare godkänner du att vi använder kakor.  Vad är kakor?