The Polish version of the Body Image Avoidance Questionnaire: an exploratory structural equation modeling approach

  • Anna Brytek-MateraEmail author
  • Radosław Rogoza
Original Article


The objective of the study was to validate a Polish version of the Body Image Avoidance Questionnaire (BIAQ). The study included 115 participants with no diagnosis (control group) (Mage = 20.53, SD = 1.80) on which we have based factor analyses, 48 participants diagnosed with anorexia nervosa (Mage = 18.69, SD = 3.52) and 39 participants diagnosed with bulimia nervosa (Mage = 22.28, SD = 3.80). In the current study, we have run confirmatory factor analysis; however, the analysis did not fit the data (CFI = 0.81, RMSEA = 0.09). Three-factor solution (number of factors were chosen basing on parallel analysis and MAP) was assessed using exploratory structural equation modeling approach (extraction: Maximum Likelihood; rotation: Geomin) which appeared to fit the data well (CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.07). Validation with the clinical sample was performed using multi-group ESEM. Since the models achieved only configural level of invariance, we have examined the structure of clinical group with next ESEM model (CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.05). To evaluate internal consistency, we have employed Omega (ω) and Cronbach’s α with bootstrapped 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI). The first factor (food and weight preoccupation) was 0.79 (95 % CI = 0.74–0.83), for second factor (social activities) was 0.86 (95 % CI = 0.81–0.90), and for third factor (clothing) was 0.84 (95 % CI = 0.79–0.87). Convergent validity was assessed by correlating the Eating Disorder Inventory and the Body Attitude Test scores. The results have shown that the Polish version of the BIAQ fulfilled basic psychometric criteria and may be used for evaluation of body image avoidance behaviors among Polish women.


Body image disturbance Avoidance behavior Validation Women 


Compliance with ethics standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The research was approved by the Bioethics Commission at the University of Medical Sciences in Poznan (Poland). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Cash TF (2012) Encyclopedia of body image and human appearance, 1st edn. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reel JJ (2013) Body avoidance. In: Reel JJ (ed) Eating disorders. An encyclopedia of causes, treatment and, prevention. ABC-CLIO, California, pp 59–60Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thompson JK, van der Berg P (2002) 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 142–153Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Legenbauer T, Vocks S, Schütt-Strömel S (2007) Validierung einer deutschsprachigen Version des Body Image Avoidance Questionnaire BIAQ. Diagnostica 53(4):218–225. doi: 10.1026/0012-1924.53.4.218 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Riva G, Molinari E (1998) Replicated factor analysis of the Italian version of the Body Image Avoidance Questionnaire. Percept Mot Skills 86:1071–1074. doi: 10.2466/pms.1998.86.3.1071 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campana ANNB, Fernandes MDCGC, Silva D, D’Elboux Diogo MJD (2009) Translation and validation of the Body Image Avoidance Questionnaire (BIAQ) for the Portuguese language in Brazil. Behav Res Methods 41(1):236–243. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.1.236 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marsh HW, Morin AJS, Parker PD, Kaur G (2014) Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 10:85–110. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marsh HW, Muthén B, Asparouhov T, Ludtke O, Robitzsch A, Morin AJS, Trautwein U (2009) Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: application to student’s evaluations of university teaching. Struct Equ Model 16:439–476. doi: 10.1080/10705510903008220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Browne MW (2001) An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multiv Behav Res 36:111–150. doi: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3601_05 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Asparouhov T, Muthén B (2009) Exploratory structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Model 16:397–438. doi: 10.1080/10705510903008204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosen JC, Srebnik D, Saltzberg E, Wendt S (1991) Development of a Body Image Avoidance Questionnaire. Psychol Assess 3:32–37. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.3.1.32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Kaiser HF (1960) The application of electronic computer to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 20:141–151. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Maïano Ch, Morin AJS, Monthuy-Blanc J, Garbarino J (2009) The Body Image Avoidance Questionnaire: assessment of its construct validity in a community sample of French adolescents. Int J Behav Med 16:125–135. doi: 10.1007/s12529-009-9035-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edn. Author, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    World Health Organization (2000) Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation. WHO Technical report Series 894. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Probst M, Vandereycken W, van Coppenolle H, Vanderlinden J (1995) The Body Attitude Test for patient with an eating disorder: psychometric characteristics of a new questionnaire. Eat Disord J Treat Prev 3(2):133–145. doi: 10.1080/10640269508249156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brytek-Matera A, Probst M (2014) Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the Body Attitude Test. Arch Psychiatr Psychother 1:39–46. doi: 10.12740/APP/21445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garner DM, Olmsted MP, Polivy J (1983) Development and validation of a multidimensional Eating Disorder Inventory for anorexia and bulimia. Int J Eat Disord 2:15–34. doi: 10.1002/1098-108X(198321)2:2<15:AID-EAT2260020203>3.0.CO;2-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Żechowski C (2008) Polish version of Eating Disorder Inventory—adaptation and normalization. Polish Psychiatry 42(2):179–193Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2012) Mplus user’s guide, 7th edn. Muthén & Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard PE, Savalei V (2012) When can categorical variables be treated as continous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol Methods 17(3):354–373. doi: 10.1037/a0029315 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meredith W (1993) Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58:525–543. doi: 10.1080/10705510903008220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meade AW, Lautenschlager GJ (2004) A comparison of item response theory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies for establishing measurement equivalence/invariance. Organ Res Methods 7:361–388. doi: 10.1177/1094428104268027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chen FF (2007) Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model 14(3):464–504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6(1):1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations