Validation of the Polish version of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire among women

  • Anna Brytek-MateraEmail author
  • Radosław Rogoza
Original Article


In Poland, appropriate means to assess body image are relatively limited. The aim of the study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Polish version of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ). To do so, a sample of 341 females ranging in age from 18 to 35 years (M = 23.09; SD = 3.14) participated in the present study. Owing to the fact that the confirmatory factor analysis of the original nine-factor model was not well fitted to the data (RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.75) the exploratory approach was employed. Based on parallel analysis and minimum average partial an eight-factor structure of the Polish version of the MBSRQ was distinguished. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a factorial structure similar to the original version. The proposed model was tested using an exploratory structural equation modelling approach which resulted in good fit (RMSEA = 0.04; CFI = 0.91). In the present study, the internal reliability assessed by McDonald’s ω coefficient amounts from 0.66 to 0.91. In conclusion, the Polish version of the MBSRQ is a useful measure for the attitudinal component of body image assessment.


Body image MBSRQ Polish validation 


Conflict of interest

There is no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.


  1. 1.
    Cash TF (2004) Body image: past, present, and future. Body Image 1(1):1–5. doi: 10.1016/S1740-1445(03)00011-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cash TF, Pruzinsky T (eds) (2002) Body image: a handbook of theory, research and clinical practice. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thompson JK, van der Berg P (2004). Measuring body image attitudes among adolescents and adults. In: Cash TF, Pruzinsky T (eds) Body image. A handbook of theory, research and clinical practice. Guilford Press, New York, pp 135–141Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stunkard AJ, Sorenson T, Schlusinger F (1983) Use of the Danish adoption registers for the study of obesity and thinness. In: Rowland LP, Sidman RL, Matthysse SW, Kety SS (eds) The genetics of neurological and psychological disorders. Raven Press, New York, pp 115–120Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garner DM, Olmsted MP, Polivy J (1983) The Eating Disorder Inventory: a measure of cognitive-behavioral dimensions of anorexia nervosa and bulimia. In: Darby PL, Garfinkel PE, Garner DM, Coscina DV (eds) Anorexia nervosa: recent developments in research. Alan R. Liss, New York, pp 173–184Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benninghoven D (2012) Perceived body image and actual anthropometric indices in eating disorders. In: Preedy VR (ed) Handbook of anthropometry: physical measures of human form in health and disease, vol 1. Springer, New York, pp 2795–2806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown TA, Cash TF, Mikulka PJ (1990) Attitudinal body image assessment: factor analysis of the Body-Self Relations Questionnaire. J Pers Assess 55:135–144. doi: 10.1080/00223891.1990.9674053 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cash TF (2000) MBSRQ user’s manual, 3rd edn. Old Dominion University Press, NorfolkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Botella García del Cid L, Ribas Rabert E, Benito Ruiz J (2009). Evaluación Psicométrica de la Imagen Corporal: Validación de la Versión Española del Multidimensional Body Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ). Rev Argent Clín Psicol vol XVIII, 3: 253–264Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Untas A, Koleck M, Rascle N, Borteyroux X (2009) Psychometric properties of the French adaptation of The Multidimensional Body Self Relations Questionnaire-Appearance Scales. Psychol Rep 105:461–471. doi: 10.2466/PR0.105.2.461-471 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Argyrides M, Kkeli N (2013) Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire––Appearance Scales: psychometric properties of the Greek version. Psychol Rep 113(3):885–897. doi: 10.2466/03.07.PR0.113x29z6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vossbeck-Elsebuscha AN, Waldorfa M, Legenbauerb T, Bauera A, Cordesa M, Vocksa S (2014) German version of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire—Appearance Scales (MBSRQ-AS): confirmatory factor analysis and validation. Body Image 11(3):191–200. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schier K (2009) Piękne brzydactwo. Psychologiczna problematyka obrazu ciała i jego zaburzeń. Scholar, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR (Text revision), 4th edn. American Psychiatric Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rusticus SA, Hubley AM (2006). Measurement invariance of the ASI-R and BIQLI across gender and age. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), New Orleans LA, USA, August 10–13Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R Development Core Team (2014). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Wien: R foundation for statistical computing.
  17. 17.
    Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998–2012) Mplus user’s manual, 7th edn. Muthén and Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horn JL (1965) A rationale and technique for estimating the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30:179–185. doi: 10.1007/BF02289447 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Velicer WF (1976) Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika 41:321–327. doi: 10.1007/BF02293557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Asparouhov T, Muthén B (2009) Exploratory structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Modeling 16:397–438. doi: 10.1080/10705510903008204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McDonald RP (1999) Test theory: a unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Conway JM, Huffcutt AI (2003) A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research. Organ Res Methods 6(2):147–168. doi: 10.1177/1094428103251541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods 4(3):272–299. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ford JK, MacCallum RC, Tait M (1986) The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: a critical review and analysis. Pers Psychol 39(2):291–314. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00583.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Velicer WF, Eaton CA, Fava JL (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: a review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In: Goffin RD, Helmes E (eds). Problems and solutions in human assessment: honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 41–71. doi:  10.1007/978-1-4615-4397-8_3
  26. 26.
    Gorsuch RL (1990) Common factor-analysis versus component analysis: some well and little known facts. Multivar Behav Res 25(1):33–39. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2501_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Corporation IBM (2012) IBM SPSS statistics 21. IBM, ArmonkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaiser HF (1960) The application of electronic computer to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 20:141–151. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ruscio J, Roche B (2012) Determining the number of factors to retain in an exploratory factor analysis using comparison data of known factorial structure. Psychol Assess 24(2):282–292. doi: 10.1037/a0025697 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weng L, Cheng C (2005) Parallel analysis with unidimensional binary data. Educ Psychol Meas 65:697–716. doi: 10.1177/0013164404273941 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Garrido LE, Abad FJ, Ponsoda V (2011) Performance of Velicer’s minimum average partial factor retention method with categorical variables. Educ Psychol Meas 71(3):551–570. doi: 10.1177/0013164410389489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kiers HAL (1994) Simplimax: oblique rotation to an optimal target with simple structure. Psychometrika 59(4):567–579. doi: 10.1007/BF02294392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marsh HW, Muthen B, Asparouhov T, Ludtke O, Robitzsch A, Morin AJS, Trautwein U (2009) Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Struct Equ Modeling 16:439–476. doi: 10.1080/10705510903008220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Browne MW (2001) An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivar Behav Res 36:111–150. doi: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3601_05 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sijtsma K (2009) On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika 74(1):107–120. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Soĉan G (2000) Assessment of reliability when test items are not essentially tau-equivalent. Adv Methodol Stat 15:23–35Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cronbach LJ (2004) My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educ Psychol Meas 64:391–418. doi: 10.1177/0013164404266386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Revelle W, Zinbarg RE (2009) Coefficients alpha, beta, omega and the glb: comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika 74(1):145–154. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bentler PA (2009) Alpha, dimension-free, and model-based internal consistency reliability. Psychometrika 74(1):137–143. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9100-1 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Green SA, Yang Y (2009) Commentary on coefficient alpha: a cautionary tale. Psychometrika 74(1):121–135. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9098-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sijtsma K (2009) Reliability beyond theory and into practice. Psychometrika 74(1):169–173. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9103-y CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hrabosky JI, Cash TF, Veale D, Neziroglu F, Soll EA, Garner DM, Strachan-Kinser M, Bakke B, Clauss LJ, Phillips KA (2009) Multidimensional body image comparisons among patients with eating disorders, body dysmorphic disorder, and clinical controls: a multisite study. Body Image 6(3):155–163. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.03.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thompson JK (1990) Body-image disturbance: assessment and treatment. Pergamon Press, ElmsfordGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    John U, Hanke M, Grothues J, Thyrian JR (2006) Validity of overweight and obesity in a nation based on self-report versus measurement device data. Eur J Clin Nutr 60(3):372–377. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602325 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Social Sciences and HumanitiesKatowicePoland
  2. 2.University of Cardinal Stefan WyszyńskiWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations