Male body dissatisfaction scale (MBDS): proposal for a reduced model
To evaluate the psychometric properties of the male body dissatisfaction scale (MBDS) in Brazilian and Portuguese university students; to present a reduced model of the scale; to compare two methods of computing global scores for participants’ body dissatisfaction; and to estimate the prevalence of participants’ body dissatisfaction.
A total of 932 male students participated in this study. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the scale’s psychometric properties. Multi-group analysis was used to test transnational invariance and invariance in independent samples. The body dissatisfaction score was calculated using two methods (mean and matrix of weights in the CFA), which were compared. Finally, individuals were classified according to level of body dissatisfaction, using the best method.
The MBDS model did not show adequate fit for the sample and was, therefore, refined. Thirteen items were excluded and two factors were combined. A reduced model of 12 items and 2 factors was proposed and shown to have adequate psychometric properties. There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) between the methods for calculating the score for body dissatisfaction, since the mean overestimated the scores. Among student participants, the prevalence of body dissatisfaction with musculature and general appearance was 11.2 and 5.3%, respectively.
The reduced bi-factorial model of the MBDS showed adequate validity, reliability, and transnational invariance and invariance in independent samples for Brazilian and Portuguese students. The new proposal for calculating the global score was able to more accurately show their body dissatisfaction.
No level of evidence Basic Science
KeywordsBody dissatisfaction Males Musculature Validity
- 1.Gadermann AM, Guhn M, Zumbo BD (2012) Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: a conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Prat Assess Res Eval 17(3):1–13Google Scholar
- 3.Cash TF, Smolak L (2011) Body image: a handbook of science, practice, and prevention, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 11.Dakanalis A, Favagrossa L, Clerici M, Prunas A, Colmegna F, Zanetti MA, Riva G (2015) Body dissatisfaction and eating disorder symptomatology: a latent structural equation modeling analysis of moderating variables in 18-to-28-year-old males. J Psychol 149(1–2):85–112. doi:10.1080/00223980.2013.842141 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Dakanalis A, Timko CA, Favagrossa L, Riva G, Zanetti MA, Clerici M (2014) Why do only a minority of men report severe levels of eating disorder symptomatology, when so many report substantial body dissatisfaction? Examination of exacerbating factors. Eat Disord 22(4):292–305. doi:10.1080/10640266.2014.898980 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Grogan S (2008) Body image: understanding dissatisfaction in men, women, and children. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 24.Cash TF (2011) Crucial considerations in the assessment of body image. In: Cash T, Smolak L (eds) Body image: a handbook of science, practice and prevention. Body Image: a handbook of science, practice and prevention. The Guilford Press, Nova Iorque, pp 129–137Google Scholar
- 30.Marôco J (2014) Análise de equações estruturais. 2a edn. Report number, LisboaGoogle Scholar
- 33.Hair JF, Black WC, Babin B, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2005) Multivariate data analysis, 6th edn. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- 35.Warren CS, Cepeda-Benito A, Gleaves DH, Moreno S, Rodriguez S, Fernandez MC, Fingeret MC, Pearson CA (2008) English and Spanish versions of the body shape questionnaire: measurement equivalence across ethnicity and clinical status. Int J Eat Disord 41:265–272. doi:10.1002/eat.20492 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.WHO (2000) Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Technical Report Series, Geneva: World Health Organization WHOGoogle Scholar
- 40.ABEP (2015) Brazilian economic classification criteria (Brazilian Criteria). http://www.abep.org/criterio-brasil. Accessed January 2017
- 41.Carvalho PHBd, Ferreira MEC, Kotait M, Teixeira PC, Hearst N, Cordás TA, Conti MA (2013) Equivalências conceitual, semântica e instrumental: análises preliminares da versão em português (Brasil) da male body dissatisfaction scale (MBDS). Caderno Saúde Pública 29(2):403–409. doi:10.1590/S0102-311X2013000200027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Kaplan RM, Saccuzzo DP (2012) Psychological testing. Principles, applications and issues, vol 8. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, CAGoogle Scholar
- 43.Dakanalis A, Zanetti MA, Clerici M, Madeddu F, Riva G, Caccialanza R (2013) Italian version of the Dutch eating behavior questionnaire. Psychometric proprieties and measurement invariance across sex, BMI-status and age. Appetite 71:187–195. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2013.08.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 44.Silva WR, Costa D, Pimenta F, Maroco J, Campos JADB (2016) Psychometric evaluation of a unified Portuguese-language version (Brazil and Portugal) of the body shape questionnaire in female university students. Cadernos de Saúde Pública (Online) 32(7):1–12. doi:10.1590/0102-311X00133715 Google Scholar
- 45.Kline RB (1998) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar