The majority of body image measures have largely been developed with younger female samples. Before these measures can be applied to men, and to middle-aged and older women, and used to make gender and age comparisons, they must exhibit adequate cross-group measurement invariance. This study examined the age and gender cross-group measurement invariance of the Appearance Schemas Inventory-Revised (ASI-R) and the Body Image Quality of Life Inventory (BIQLI), with a sample of 1,262 adults (422 men and 840 women) aged 18 to 98 years. For the ASI-R, all groups met requirements for configural and metric invariance. Scalar invariance was found only for the three age groups, which indicated that mean comparisons may be conducted across gender for young, middle-aged, and older adults but should not be conducted across age groups within either gender. Results for the BIQLI indicated that observed mean comparisons may be conducted across all age and gender groups.

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.

No abstract

The learning environment can be broadly conceptualized as the physical, social, and psychological context in which learning and socialization takes place. While there is now an expectation that health professions education programs should monitor the quality of their learning environment, existing measures have been criticized for lacking a theoretical foundation and sufficient validity evidence. Guided by Moos’s learning environment framework, this study developed and preliminarily validated a global measure of the learning environment. Three pilot tests, conducted on 1,040 undergraduate medical students, refined the measure into the 35-item Health Education Learning Environment Survey (HELES), which consists of six subscales: peer relationships, faculty relationships, work–life balance, clinical skills development, expectations, and educational setting and resources. A final validation study conducted on another sample of 347 medical students confirmed its factor structure and examined its reliability and relation of the HELES to the Medical School Learning Environment Survey (MSLES). Subscale reliabilities ranged from .78 to .89. The HELES correlated with the MSLES at .79. These results indicate that the HELES can provide a valid and reliable assessment of the learning environment of medical students and, as such, can be used to inform accreditation and program planning in health professions programs.