Social physique anxiety (SPA) has been associated with a range of psychosocial and health-related variables, thus it can be considered is an indicator of social-psychological adjustment. The purpose of this paper is to determine factorial validity and group invariance of Motl and Conroy (2000) translated 7-item SPA among Portuguese adolescents. A nationally representative sample of 3330 8th and 10th grade students (15.07  1.34 years old; 47.5% males and 52.5% females) answered a survey as a part of a larger collaborative cross-national survey, the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) 2006 study. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses resulted on a uni-dimensional factor structure of 6 items [Satorra-Bentler c2 = 30.85, df = 8, p&lt;.01; CFI = .996; NNFI = .992; RMSEA = .038 (90% C.I.: .024 - .052); SRMR = .010]. Further analises, confirmed configurational (all CFI and RMSEA &gt; .99) and metric invariances (CFI difference between restricted and unrestricted models were lower than .01 for all groups) across gender, grade level, diet beliefs, physical activity, perception of body, and BMI. The present version can be used confidently by researchers in analysing and interpreting scores of SPA across a variety of samples in Portuguese adolescents, and that this instrument can be used in cross-cultural research

Calmeiro, Luis

de Matos, Margarida. Gaspar

Simões, Celeste

English

Abertay Research Portal

Factorial Validity and Group Invariance of the Portuguese Short Version of the Social Physique Anxiety Scale in AdolescentsLuis Calmeiro1, Margarida Gaspar de Matos2 & Celeste Simões21University of Abertay Dundee, UK2Faculty of Human Movement, Lisbon, Portugal Social Physique Anxiety (SPA) is a subtype of social anxiety that occurs as a result of the prospect or presence of interpersonal evaluation involving one’s physique (Hart et al., 1989, p.86). It represents an emotional reaction to perceived or received assessment of own body and it is construed by appraisals of social interactions (Sabiston et al., 2007).  SPA has been associated with health-related behaviors (e.g., exercise, dietary habits, smoking) and psychosocial functioning (e.g., self-esteem, body satisfaction , Davidson & McCabe, 2006). Particularly important in early adolescents due to greater risk of body-related concerns resulting from heightened self-consciousness, concerns about peer evaluation and social conformity (Davidson & McCabe, 2006).Purpose: To examine the factorial validity and group invariance of the 7-items short version of the Social Physique Anxiety Scale (SPAS; Motl & Conroy, 2000) for Portuguese adolescents. To determine construct and concurrent validity of the new Portuguese version.1. INTRODUCTION 3. RESULTS (Cont’d)Participants♦ Nationally representative sample of  3330 8th- and 10th-grade students          (mean =15.07  1.34 years; min=12; max= 20)♦ Girls 53%; boys 47%2. METHODS4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION5. REFERENCESSabiston, C.M.et al.. (2007). Social physique anxiety in adolescents. An exploration of influences, coping strategies and health behaviour. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 78-101. Davison, T.E., & McCabe, M.P. (2006). Adolescent body image and psychosocial functioning. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 15-30.Hart, E.A. et al. (1989). The measurement of social physique anxiety. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 94-104. Motl, R.W., & Conroy, D.E. (2000). Validity and factorial invariance of the social physique anxiety scale. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 32(5), 1007-1017. Lindwall, M. (2004). Factorial validity and invariance testing of the Swedish Social Physique Anxiety Scale: Arguments for gender-specific scales. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 492-499.Byrne, B. M. Structural Equation modelling with Amos; Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Testing measurement invariance using critical values of fit indices: A Monte Carlo study. Access on 20-02-2004, http://www.aom.pace.edu/rmd/cheung_files/cheung.htmVariables• Satisfaction with weight (SW)“At present are you on a diet or doing something else to lose weight?” (1 = no, my weight is fine, 2 = no, but I should lose some weight, 3 = no, because I need to put on weight, 4 = yes).• Physical activity (PA)“On how many days, during the last seven days, were you physically active at least 60 minutes?” (0 = zero days, to 7 = seven days)• Perception of body (PB)“What do you think about your body?”  (1 = much too thin; 2 = thin; 3 = normal; 4 = fat; 5 = much too fat). • Body mass index (BMI)Self-reported weight and height (Kg/m2): normal, overweight and obese (Cole, Bellizzi, Flegal & Dietz, 2000).Procedures♦ Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2006 survey.  Schools and pupils selected by stratified random procedure, representing the five national educational regions.♦ Surveys administered by teachers; participation was voluntary and anonymity was assured. 87% return rate. Data Analysis Procedures♦ Exploratory factor analysis (N = 1000) followed by confirmatory factor analysis (N = 2330).♦ Configurational invariance and metric invariance:• gender – male (n = 1558) vs. Females (n = 1724); • grade – 8th grade (n = 1709) vs. 10th grade (n = 1573); • SW - adolescents who are not on a diet (n = 1787) vs. adolescents  who are or believe they should be on a diet (n = 1463); • PA - adolescents who do not achieve WHO recommendations (n = 1954) vs. adolescents who achieve recommendations (n = 838);• PB - normal (n = 1554) vs. overweight (n = 1149),• BMI - normal (n = 2284) vs. overweight or obese (n = 495).♦ One-way ANOVAs with Scheffé post-hocs for construct and concurrent validity.16.0217.2218.8816.9714.8217.0414.2617.3214.2416.1214.9117.5314.0715.2114.3415.4702468101214161820SPA score0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Number of days“On how many days, during the last seven days, were you physically active at least 60 minutes?” BoysGirls16.8917.2114.8316.2713.615.2816.4118.31 18.6822.7302468101214161820SPA score(1)Much toothin(2)A bit toothin(3)About theright size(4)A bit toofat(5)Much toofat“What do you think about your body?”BoysGirls13.6615.52 15.0916.4 16.8818.33 17.9819.0902468101214161820SPA score(1)No, my weightis fine(2)No because Ihave to put onweight(3)No, but I shouldlose weight(4)Yes“Are you on a diet?” BoysGirls14.521614.9816.8714.4417.1114.1916.2602468101214161820SPA scoreUnderweight Normal Overweight ObeseNumber of daysBody Mass Index (Cole4)BoysGirlsCFIa 2 (df)b RMSEA (90% CI)aMales vs. FemalesUnrestricted .994 6.71*** (16) .0.44 (.033-.056)Restricted .998 107.58*** (21) .053 (.043-.053)8th vs. 10th gradeUnrestricted .993 66.22*** (16) .047 (.036-.059)Restricted .992 72.28*** (21) .04 (.034-.054)Diet vs. no dietUnrestricted .994 57.31*** (16) .0.44 (.032-.056)Restricted .993 67.73*** (21) .040 (.030-.051)Inactive vs. physically activeUnrestricted .991 66.27*** (16) .0.54 (.041-.058)Restricted .990 75.58*** (21) .049 (.037-.061)Perception of normal body vs. fat bodyUnrestricted .992 60.19*** (16) .048 (.045-.061)Restricted .991 69.75*** (21) .044 (.033-.055)Normal BMI vs. High BMIUnrestricted .996 34.13*** (16) .035 (.018-.051)Restricted .996 37.53*** (21) .029 (.031-.044) 3. RESULTSExploratory Factor Analysis Final solution (Principal Component Analysis)• 6 items (i.e., 3,4,6,7,9,10); Eigenvalue = 3.65; 61.3% of the variance; α= .87• All factor loadings >.64, except item 8 (“I am comfortable with how fit my  body appears to others”; .11).Confirmatory Factor Analysis6-item model showed appropriate fit to the data (robust solution):• Satorra-Bentler 2 = 128.62, df = 9, p<.001;  CFI = .977;  NNFI = .962;   RMSEA = .081 (90% C.I.: .069 - .093);  SRMR = .039.Table 1 – Factorial invariance between groups. a – Robust; b - Scaled Chi-Square (Yuan-Bentler); * p<.05; ** p<01; *** p<.001.Figure 1 – Social physique anxiety scores for boys and girls as a function of a) physical activity levels, b) thoughts about body,c) diet status, and d) categorisation of BMI.PA: F(6,2939) = 4.56, p < .001, 2 = .011Gender x PA: F(6, 2939) = 71.31, p < .05, 2 = .002; 0,1,2 > 7; 1 > 4,6Gender: F(1, 2960) = 33.12, p < .001, 2 = .011;On a diet?:  F(3, 2960) = 74.05, p < .001, 2 = .07; 1 < 2 < 3,4 Think about body: F(4, 2958) = 58.87, p < .001, 2 = .0743< 1,2 <  4 < 5; 2 < 4 < 5COLE4:  F(3, 2754) = 1.19, p = .31♦ The exploratory and confirmatory analysis were consistent with the original unidimensional model (Motl & Conroy, 2001), but the final solution was composed of 6 items. This different structure is likely to represent cultural differences (Hagger et al., 2007; Lindwall, 2004).♦RMSEA was lower than .05 (.032) and the upper limit of 90% confidence interval was lower than .06 which shows “a good degree of precision” (Byrne, 2001, p.85). ♦The current 6-item structure appears to be invariant across a number of group. Even though 2 was significant while comparing unconstrained and constrained models, which can be attributed to a large sample (Schumacker & Lomax, 1996), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) for both models were very high (above .99) in all groups and changes were lesser than .01 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2000).♦ Consistent with previous research (e.g., Hart et al., 1989;  Motl & Conroy, 2001) , females, adolescents who are less active, those who are dieting or think they should lose weight, and those who think their body is much too fat scored significantly higher  is SPA than their counterparts. However, no differences were found according to BMI. Self-perception may be more important than actual measurement of BMI developing SPA. ♦ The current 6-item Portuguese short version of the Social Physique Anxiety Scale can be used by researchers in analysing and interpreting scores of SPA across a variety of samples in Portuguese adolescents; this instrument can be used in cross-cultural research.

Factorial validity and group invariance of the Portuguese short version of the Social Physique Anxiety Scale in adolescents

https://rke.abertay.ac.uk/files/15327581/Calmeiro_FactorialValidity_Published_2009.pdf

Factorial validity and group invariance of the Portuguese short version of the Social Physique Anxiety Scale in adolescents

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Abertay Research Portal

Abertay Research Portal