Abstract
The Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ) is one of the most widely used body image measures and one of the few measures developed with men and women of a wide age range. To make age and gender comparisons, however, measures must exhibit cross-group equivalence. Whether the MBSRQ subscales can be used to make such comparisons was examined in a sample of 1,262 adults (422 men, 840 women) aged 18 to 98 years. The results showed that body image was perceived quite differently across the groups and that not all MBSRQ subscales may be used to make age and gender comparisons. The importance of examining measurement invariance in body image measures is highlighted and recommendations for use of the MBSRQ are offered.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Young adults were categorized as 18–29 because the majority of research in the body image field has focused on young adults in their late teens and early 20s. It was felt that this age grouping would make the group of young adults in the present study more comparable to those in previous research.
Overall model fit, using the chi-square test and goodness of fit indices, was only used to appraise configural invariance. Change in chi-square and change in CFI were used for metric and scalar invariance tests. However, for completeness of the tables, the results of the chi-square test and goodness-of-fit indices are presented for each level of invariance testing.
Effect sizes are reported in addition to the statistical test results to indicate whether an effect is non-trivial or not (Zumbo & Hubley, 1998). Kirk’s (1996) criteria for interpreting effect size are as follows: small effect = 0.010 to 0.058, medium effect = 0.059 to 0.137, and large effect = >0.137. Kirk’s criteria are for omega-sq.; however, these criteria may be appropriately applied to interpreting partial eta-squared, which is a similar measure of strength of association.
References
Brannick, M. T. (1995). Critical comment on applying covariance structure modeling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 201–213.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cash, T. F. (2000). The multidimensional body-self relations questionnaire users’ manual. Available from the author at www.body-images.com.
Cash, T. F., Winstead, B. A., & Janda, J. H. (1986). Body image survey report: The great American shape-up. Psychology Today, pp. 30–37, April.
Chan, D. (2000). Detection of differential item functioning on the Kirton Adaptation—Innovation inventory using multiple-group mean and covariance structure analyses. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 169–199.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equation modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 187–212.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.
Clarke, L. H. (2002). Older women’s bodies and the self: The construction of identity in later life. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 38, 441–464.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL: A guide for the uninitiated. London, England: Sage.
Horn, J. L. (1991). Discussion of the issues of factorial invariance. In L. M. Collins & J. L. Horn (Eds.), Best methods for the analysis of change (pp. 114–125). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Journal of Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117–144.
Hubley, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (1996). A dialectic on validity: Where we have been and where we are going. Journal of General Psychology, 123, 207–215.
Joreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409–426.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
Kelloway, K. E. (1995). Structural equation modelling in perspective. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 16, 215–224.
Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 746–759.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.
Messick, S. (1988). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 33–45). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paxton, S. J., & Phythian, K. (1999). Body image, self-esteem, and health status in middle and later adulthood. Australian Psychologist, 34, 116–121.
Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychological Assessment, 12, 287–297.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–69.
Zumbo, B. D., & Hubley, A. M. (1998). A note on misconceptions concerning prospective and retrospective power. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series D: The Statistician, 47, 385–388.
Acknowledgements
We thank Dr. Thomas Cash for the use of his measures and his permission to exceed the number of copies normally allowed, Dr. Bruno D. Zumbo for his statistical advice, and our research assistants (Beth Chan, Sarah Chan, Kristine Hagen, Anne Muscat, and Martin Rusticus) for their assistance in participant recruitment and data collection.
We also acknowledge the support given to Shayna Rusticus through a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Canada Graduate Master’s Scholarship, the Norske Skog Canada Limited Fellowship, and the University of British Columbia Faculty of Education Graduate Student Research Grant.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rusticus, S.A., Hubley, A.M. Measurement Invariance of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire: Can We Compare Across Age and Gender?. Sex Roles 55, 827–842 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9135-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9135-7