Taking it apart and putting it back together again: Using Item Pool Visualisation to summarise complex data patterns in (positive) body image research

Body acceptance by others: Refinement of the construct, and development and psychometric evaluation of a revised measure – The Body Acceptance by Others Scale-2

“…Our results indicate that the BAOS-2 measures body acceptance by others as a unidimensional construct. This is important because, in contrast to the BAOS -where problems confirming the fit of a unidimensional model of scores have been noted (Swami, Furnham et al, 2020;Swami, Todd et al, 2020) -both EFA and CFA results in the present studies supported a clearer unidimensional structure of scores in women and men. In Study 2, modification indices had to be estimated between one pair of items to achieve adequate fit, but -given the findings of Study 3 -we suggest that this was likely an idiosyncratic finding that does not detract from the overall conceptualisation of BAOS-2 scores as unidimensional (cf.…”

“…Participants rated the frequency of these experiences using a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Although the factor structure of BAOS scores has been problematised (Swami, Furnham et al, 2020;Swami, Todd et al, 2020), for reasons of parsimony and expediency, we treated BAOS scores as unidimensional, which is consistent with its theorised dimensionality (Avalos & Tylka, 2006). In the present study, McDonald's ω for BAOS scores was .91 (95% CI = .89, .92).…”

“…However, internal consistency in and of itself is not a useful index of score dimensionality (e.g., Green et al, 1977) and, where studies have examined the factor structure of BAOS scores, there have been difficulties confirming the fit of the 1-dimensional model. For example, one study using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with data from adults from the United Kingdom indicated that a unidimensional model of BAOS scores had very poor fit (Swami, Furnham et al, 2020). Similarly, and also using data from United Kingdom respondents, a second study using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) indicated that BAOS scores reduced to two dimensions in women (although only a 6-item factor measuring body acceptance from friends, family, and dating partners was internally consistent) and a single dimension (with all 10 items) in men (Swami, Todd et al, 2020).…”

Psychometric properties of a Romanian translation of the Functionality Appreciation Scale (FAS)

“…For this reason, body image scholars sometimes adopt a broader focus on functionality appreciation, which Alleva and colleagues (2017, p. 29) defined as "appreciating, respecting, and honouring the body for what it is capable of doing, extending beyond mere awareness of body functionality". Functionality appreciation has been theorised as a core facet of positive body image (Alleva & Martijn, 2019;Swami, Furnham et al, 2020;Webb et al, 2015) and the construct has been the target of interventions aimed at generating more positive feelings toward the body (e.g., Alleva et al, 2015Alleva et al, , 2018aAlleva et al, , 2018b, precisely because it provides a focus beyond one's feelings and cognitions about body aesthetics.…”

Functionality Appreciation Scale (FAS): Item Response Theory Examination

“…Alleva et al [3] characterised FA as appreciating, respecting, and honouring the body for what it is capable of doing" (p. 29). Given its importance to positive body image [30], FA has been employed in interventions aimed at enhancing positive feelings and attitudes towards one's body (i.e., [1; 2; 11]). Given the lack of su cient measures for assessing FA, Alleva et al [3] pioneered the Functionality Appreciation Scale (FAS).…”