Body Image 14 (2015) 72–76

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Body Image
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage

Brief research report

Validation of the Weight Concerns Scale Applied to Brazilian

University Students
Juliana Chioda Ribeiro Dias a , Wanderson Roberto da Silva a , João Maroco b ,
Juliana Alvares Duarte Bonini Campos a,∗
a
Faculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas de Araraquara, Universidade Estadual Paulista—UNESP., Rod. Araraquara-Jaú, km 01, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil
b
Departamento de Ciências Psicológicas e Unidade de Investigação em Psicologia e Saúde—ISPA–IU, Rua Jardim do Tabaco, n◦ 34, 1149-041, Lisboa, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Portuguese version of the Weight
Received 8 July 2014 Concerns Scale (WCS) when applied to Brazilian university students. The scale was completed by 1084
Received in revised form 24 March 2015 university students from Brazilian public education institutions. A confirmatory factor analysis was con-
Accepted 25 March 2015
ducted. The stability of the model in independent samples was assessed through multigroup analysis,
and the invariance was estimated. Convergent, concurrent, divergent, and criterion validities as well
Keywords:
as internal consistency were estimated. Results indicated that the one-factor model presented an ade-
Body image
quate fit to the sample and values of convergent validity. The concurrent validity with the Body Shape
Validation studies
Test reproducibility
Questionnaire and divergent validity with the Maslach Burnout Inventory for Students were adequate.
Psychometrics Internal consistency was adequate, and the factorial structure was invariant in independent subsamples.
Weight Concerns Scale The results present a simple and short instrument capable of precisely and accurately assessing concerns
Young adults with weight among Brazilian university students.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Body image is defined as the particular perception that individ-
uals have, either conscious or unconscious, about the appearance,
size, and shape of their body. It is a multidimensional construct
resulting from biological, physiological, psychological, and social
circumstances (Gleeson & Frith, 2006). The construct of the body
image develops as a function of experiences and meanings that
occur throughout life (Sarwer & Cash, 2008), and thus, body image
construction is a dynamic process.
Perceptual, attitudinal, cognitive, and behavioral factors influ-
ence body image characterization. Therefore, the construct of body
image has been estimated based on the evaluation of specific
characteristics (Roy & Payette, 2012). Despite the preoccupation
with weight, weight is not solely involved in the construction of
body image, but it may have a strong influence in the construc-
tion process, and therefore, considering this factor is a potentially
interesting strategy (Keel & Forney, 2013). Dissatisfaction with
body weight may influence quality of life through changes that
are affected by the representation of identity reflected in an
∗ Corresponding author at: Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil. Tel.: +55 1633016358.
E-mail address: jucampos@fcfar.unesp.br (J.A.D.B. Campos).
individual’s body image, which may then contribute to the devel-
opment and/or maintenance of disorders related to body image
(Stephan, Fouquereau, & Fernandez, 2008).
The desire to change shape or weight is common to both sexes.
However, according to Sepulveda, Whitney, Hankins, and Treasure
(2008), women are most affected by this concern and are most vul-
nerable in adolescence and/or early adulthood. This phase coincides
with entry into college education, which, in turn, can lead to states
of anxiety and stress that are primarily related to gaining auton-
omy/independence and to the adaptation process to new groups
and the new life context (Beyers & Goossens, 2003). Additionally,
Bucchianeri, Arikian, Hannan, Eisenberg, and Neumark-Sztainer
(2013) and Girz et al. (2013) reported weight gain among students
after enrolling in university, which may contribute to the increased
concern of these women with their body image, specifically with
their weight. Thus, the transition from being a teenager to the uni-
versity environment appears to be an important factor in assessing
the risk associated with body weight concern and eating behavior
changes.
In a study of adolescent girls, Killen et al. (1994), reported body
weight concern as an early manifestation related with the devel-
opment of eating disorders. Aiming at assessing this concern, the
authors proposed an instrument called the Weight Concerns Scale
(WCS). Using the presence/absence of eating disorders as crite-
ria, the authors observed that the total WCS score presented a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.03.012
1740-1445/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J.C.R. Dias et al. / Body Image 14 (2015) 72–76
sensitivity of .86 and diagnostic specificity of .63. However, the
construct validity of the WCS was not investigated.
The fact that body weight concern is a latent variable (i.e., it is not
directly measurable) reflects the need to choose instruments with
adequate psychometric characteristics. Accordingly, it is important
to perform analysis of the validity and reliability of the instrument
before employing it in order to ensure the quality of the results
(Campos, Bonafé, Dovigo, & Maroco, 2013; Campos & Maroco, 2012;
Maroco, 2014). Moreover, the selection of an instrument must
consider its adequacy for the study population (Derenne, Baker,
Delinsky, & Becker, 2010). The WCS is only available in the literature
in its English version, its only application has been in an American
context, its psychometric characteristics have not been adequately
evaluated regarding the factorial, convergent, and concurrent valid-
ity with similar scales, and there are no Portuguese versions of this
scale. Hence, this study was conducted to present an adapted ver-
sion of WCS in Portuguese and to estimate its validity and reliability
when applied to Brazilian college students.
Method
Participants
This cross-sectional self-report study used a non-probabilistic
sampling design. A total of 1084 female college students, enrolled
in two public colleges (Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences – FCFAr
and Faculty of Humanities and Sciences – FCL) of the Universidade
Estadual Paulista, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil, participated in this
study (course area: 40.7% Health Sciences and 59.3% Human and
Social Sciences). Participants had a mean age of 20.59 (SD = 2.32)
years. As for economic class 85.6% belonged to A and B classes (USD
1328.00–5740.00) estimated by proposal of Brazilian Association of
Research Companies (ABEP, 2008).
Participants’ nutritional status was estimated using body mass
index (BMI), which was calculated based on the weight and height
measurements reported by participants. The nutritional status clas-
sification was made according to the proposal made by the World
Health Organization (Campos et al., 2013; WHO, 2000). Among all
participants, 6.9% were underweight, 75.4% normal weight, 13.1%
overweight, and 4.6% obese.
Instruments
Body weight concern was estimated using the WCS. The WCS
was proposed by Killen et al. (1994) to assess body weight concern
as a risk factor for eating disorders only in women. It is one-factor
scale consisting of five questions rated on a 7-point Likert-type
response scale (see Appendix).
To assess concurrent validity, the Body Shape Questionnaire
(BSQ) (Cooper, Taylor, Cooper, & Fairburn, 1987; Da Silva, Dias,
Maroco, & Campos, 2014; Di Pietro & Silveira, 2009) was employed,
as it assesses a similar construct to that of the WCS. To assess
divergent validity, we used the Maslach Burnout Inventory for Stu-
dents (MBI-SS; Campos & Maroco, 2012; Carloto & Camara, 2006;
Schaufeli, Martinez, Pinto, Salanova, & Bakker, 2002) due to the con-
ceptual discrepancy of this instrument in relation to the WCS. The
MBI-SS is a three-factor scale (Emotional Exhaustion, Cynicism, and
Professional Effectiveness).
Procedures
The participants filled in the questionnaires during class, and
participation was voluntary. To ensure participants’ anonymity, the
questionnaires were identified with a numerical code. This study
was approved by the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences’ Research
Ethics Committee – UNESP (protocol CEP/FCF/CAr.16/2010).
73
Psychometric Analysis
Psychometric characteristics of the WCS were evaluated
through face, content, and construct validity, as well as reliabil-
ity. The instrument’s translation into Portuguese was performed
by three bilingual and independent translators working in the
health area who had Portuguese as their mother tongue and knowl-
edge of the cultural context of the instrument’s country of origin
(Marcolino & Iacoponi, 2001). The three versions were compared
by the researchers, and a final version was developed in Por-
tuguese, which was then back-translated by two native English
translators with knowledge of Portuguese and of the Brazilian
culture who were not informed that it was a back-translation
procedure.
Then, the scale was subjected to a face validation process, which
was conducted by a multidisciplinary team consisting of Nutrition,
Psychology, and Portuguese professionals. The Portuguese version
of the WCS was elaborated in line with the orthographic agree-
ment reached between the Portuguese-speaking countries (see
Appendix).
To assess the content validity of the WCS 17, experts in Nutri-
tion and Psychology analyzed each item of the scale regarding its
essentiality to assess body weight concern. The content validity
ratio (CVR) was calculated, and to determine the significance of
each item, the proposal made by Wilson, Pan, and Schumsky (2012)
was used (CVR17;.05 = .47).
The psychometric sensitivity of the items was assessed with
skewness and kurtosis and was considered adequate if below 3
and 7, respectively (Maroco, 2014). The construct validity was
estimated by factorial and convergent validity. The factorial valid-
ity was analyzed using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The
factor loadings were used as local indices of goodness of fit ()
as well as the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom (2 /df),
the comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI), and root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) as overall fit indices
(Maroco, 2014). The model’s fit was considered adequate when
 ≥ .50, 2 /df ≤ 2.0, CFI ≥ .90, NFI ≥ .92, and RMSEA ≤ .08 (Byrne,
2001; Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2005; Maroco, 2014).
To verify the stability of the model in independent samples,
a multigroup analysis was conducted. Initially, the sample was
randomly divided into two parts (6:4; Test: n = 655; Validation:
n = 429). Subsequently, the invariance of the models was tested
by separating participants according to their nutritional status and
course area.
The factorial stability (invariance) was estimated by the dif-
ference between CFI (CFI) for the model’s factor loading (),
covariances (Cov), and residuals (Res) (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002;
Maroco, 2014). Convergent validity was estimated by the average
variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR). AVE ≥ .50
and CR ≥ .70 were considered adequate (Hair et al., 2005). Con-
current and divergent validities were estimated using Pearson’s
correlation analysis (r).
To evaluate body weight concern according to nutritional sta-
tus, we conducted an analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by
Tukey’s post hoc test (˛ = .05). To calculate the mean score, two
different strategies were used. The first followed the original pro-
posal by Killen et al. (1994), and the second estimated a global score
considering the covariance matrix obtained for the model of WCS
fitted to the sample, which generated weights (W) to be assigned
to each item (Maroco, 2014).
W = BS −1
where W is the weighted regression matrix, S the covariance matrix
between manifest variables, and B is the covariance matrix between
the latent and manifest variables.
74 J.C.R. Dias et al. / Body Image 14 (2015) 72–76

Table 1
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and invariance (2 ) of the Weight Concerns Scale (WCS) by subsamples, and mean scores (±standard deviation) of body weight concern
according to nutritional status.

Subsample CFAb CFI (p) Mean ± standard deviationc

 2 /df CFI NFI RMSEA  Covariance Residual Nutritional Original score Global score
status

Test vs. Validationa .54–.78 3.60 .97 .96 .05 .001 (>.05) .000 (>.05) .000 (>.05) Underweight 17.72 ± 0.06 a 1.44 ± 0.69 a
Nutritional status Eutrophic 36.52 ± 22.44 c 2.11 ± 0.74 c
Underweight vs. .54–.79 5.26 .94 .93 .07 −.012 (<.05) −.011 (<.05) −.033 (<.05) Overweight 52.57 ± 21.48 b 2.63 ± 0.69 b
Eutrophic
Underweight vs. .52–.75 5.04 .76 .71 .14 −.052 (<.05) −.050 (<.05) −.164 (<.05) Obese 51.43 ± 21.27 b 2.58 ± 0.70 b
Overweight
Underweight vs. .44–.84 4.62 .68 .58 .16 −.033 (<.05) −.032 (<.05) −.269 (<.05) ANOVA: 48.23; <.001 50.06; <.001
Obese F(3.10) ; p
Eutrophic vs. .55–.76 3.19 .97 .96 .05 −.005 (>.05) −.005 (>.05) −.007 (>.05)
Overweight
Eutrophic vs. .54–.78 3.37 .97 .95 .05 −.002 (>.05) −.002 (>.05) −.017 (>.05)
Obese
Overweight vs. .44–.78 1.72 .93 .85 .06 .007 (>.05) .011 (>.05) .000 (>.05)
Obese
Course area
Health Sciences .54–.78 3.01 .98 .97 .04 −.001 (>.05) −.001 (>.05) −.003 (>.05)
vs. Human and
Social Sciences

Same letters (a–c) appended to means and standard deviations indicate statistical similarity for ˛ = .05.
a
Test vs. Validation, 66% samples vs. 34% samples.
b
CFA: , factorial loading; 2 /df, chi-square by degrees of freedom ratio; CFI, comparative fit index; NFI, normed fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation;
 , chi-square difference.
2
c
Original score: proposed by Killen et al. (1994); Global score: considering the weighted regression matrix – Equation.

The internal consistency of the WCS was estimated by standard-
ized Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (˛).
Results
Four items of the WCS were considered by the vast majority of
experts (CVR > .50) as essential for the assessment of body weight
concern, except for Item 2. All items also showed adequate psy-
chometric sensitivity (skewness = |.07–.089|; kurtosis = |.37–.97|).
For the psychometric analyses below, the imputation of missing
data was performed with a regression method1 using the matrix
estimated by the maximum likelihood method using AMOS 20.0
software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).
According to CFA, there was an adequate fit of the factor
structure to the study sample (2 /df = 8.43, CFI = .98, NFI = .98,
RMSEA = .08). The convergent validity (AVE = .49, CR = .83) and
internal consistency (˛ = .77) were also adequate.
The fit of the factor models obtained for the subsamples
was adequate (Test:  = .55–.80, 2 /df = 6.46, CFI = .98, NFI = .97,
RMSEA = .09, AVE = .50, CR = .83, ˛ = .78; Validation:  = .53–.79,
2 /df = 6.08, CFI = .96, NFI = .96, RMSEA = .11, AVE = .48, CR = .82,
˛ = .76; Underweight:  = .48–.93, 2 /df = 3.72, CFI = .91, NFI = .92,
RMSEA = .19, AVE = .48, CR = .81, ˛ = .79; Eutrophic:  = .54–.78,
2 /df = 5.31, CFI = .98, NFI = .98, RMSEA = .07, AVE = .49, CR = .83,
˛ = .76; Overweight:  = .50–.81, 2 /df = 3.54, CFI = .93, NFI = .95,
RMSEA = .13, AVE = .42, CR = .78, ˛ = .70; Obesity:  = .30–.80,
2 /df = 1.34, CFI = .95, NFI = .95, RMSEA = .08, AVE = .33, CR = .69,
˛ = .61; Health Sciences:  = .54–.79, 2 /df = 4.40, CFI = .98, NFI = .97,
RMSEA = .09, AVE = .48, CR = .82, ˛ = .75; Human and Social Sciences:
 = .54–.81, 2 /df = 4.73, CFI = .98, NFI = .98, RMSEA = .08, AVE = .50,
CR = .83, ˛ = .78). RMSEA did not present adequate values in the
subsamples regarding validation, underweight, and overweight.
Convergent validity and internal consistency of the WCS were ade-
quate for all subsamples, except for obesity.
1
The imputation was realized for other methods (EM and FIML) and different
results were not found.
Adequate fit was simultaneously observed for all subsamples of
the WCS, except for the comparison of the samples underweight
vs. overweight and underweight vs. obese. Strong invariance was
observed between the models of the subsamples test vs. validation,
eutrophic vs. overweight, overweight vs. obese, eutrophic vs. obese,
and Health Sciences vs. Human and Social Sciences (Table 1). A
moderate correlation between WCS and BSQ was observed (r = .646,
p < .01), and weak correlations between WCS and the dimensions
of the MBI-SS were found (r = −.068–.143, p < .05), which indicates
adequate concurrent and discriminant validity.
The algorithm used to calculate the global body weight concern
score, considering the sample’s characteristics, was WCS = .183
× Item1 + .219 × Item2 + .061 × Item3 + .147 × Item4 + .215 × Item5.
The existing significant difference between the mean scores of
individuals with different nutritional status followed the same
pattern as that for the two proposals used to calculate the final
score (Table 1). This suggests adequate criterion validity of the
WCS.
Discussion
This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the Por-
tuguese version of the WCS when applied to Brazilian university
students. The results attest to its adequate construct validity,
reliability, and stability in independent samples. The results
demonstrate a short instrument that is simple to fill in, requires
minimal application time, and is capable of precisely and accurately
body weight concern assessing associated with body image in the
Brazilian university context. These characteristics enable the use of
this scale in other studies that aim at estimating this construct in
similar samples.
The factorial validity of the WCS in the total sample and its sub-
samples was confirmed by the indices of fit, with the exception of
2 /df. This can be explained by the fact that this estimate is highly
sensitive to the sample size and the small number of items that
constitute the scale (Maroco, 2014).
The results show that the WCS is a stable and effective tool
in assessing the body weight concern construct in samples with
 J.C.R. Dias et al. / Body Image 14 (2015) 72–76 75

different characteristics. The analysis of invariance between the 3. I was on a diet about 6 3. Eu fiz dieta há cerca de seis
subsamples, according to nutritional status, points to greater vari- months ago meses atrás
ability of results when changes occur in body composition, which 4. I was on a diet about 3 4. Eu fiz dieta há cerca de três
months ago meses atrás
is to be expected given the theoretical context of the scale. This 5. I was on a diet about 1 5. Eu fiz dieta há cerca de um mês
indicates that the scale adequately assesses the construct. The dif- month ago atrás
ference in the mean score of body weight concern according to 6. I was on a diet less than 1 6. Eu fiz dieta há menos de um mês
nutritional status denotes that the WCS has adequate predictive month ago atrás
7. I’m now on a diet 7. Eu estou fazendo dieta
capability and can be used in epidemiological screening. How-
ever, in this study, we suggest calculating the final overall score Compared to other things in Comparado com outras coisas da
of body weight concern considering the adjustment factor struc- your life, how important is sua vida, quanto importante é o
#4 your weight to you? seu peso para si?
ture of the sample from the regression matrix. This proposal does
1. My weight is not important 1. Meu peso não é importante
not alter the discrimination of subjects according to nutritional compared to other things in comparado com outras coisas da
status, and it may be more accurate than the original proposal, my life minha vida
given that it considers the characteristics of the sample while 2. My weight is a little more 2. Meu peso é um pouco mais
important than some other importante do que algumas outras
maintaining the metric characteristics of the responses to the
things coisas
items. 3. My weight is more 3. Meu peso é mais importante que
Another important aspect is that for the evaluation of body important than most, but not muitas, mas não todas, as coisas da
weight concern, the authors propose, for each item, the summing all, things in my life minha vida
of values followed by averaging the scores (Derenne et al., 2010). 4. My weight is the most 4. Meu peso é a coisa mais
important thing in my life importante da minha vida
However, it should be noted that calculating an index based on
the sum of the responses may not be the best strategy to obtain Do you ever feel fat? Você já se sentiu gorda?
the final score for the assessed construct, as an instrument may 1. Never 1. Nunca
2. Rarely 2. Raramente
suffer from direct influence of the sample’s characteristics and, #5
3. Sometimes 3. Às vezes
therefore, its structure can be changed. For this reason, it is recom- 4. Often 4. Frequentemente
mended that the psychometric properties of the instruments are 5. Always 5. Sempre
tested and confirmed in samples of university students, aiming to a
Original version proposed by Killen et al. (1994).
provide researchers with a valid and reliable instrument regarding
the anticipation of signs/symptoms of eating disorders in college
students.
References

Acknowledgements ABEP. (2008). Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa. Critério de

Grant #2010/18279-3, São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP).
Raquel V. Oliveira for the translation and revision of the text.
Appendix. English and Portuguese versions of the Weight
Concerns Scale (WCS)
Item Weight Concerns Scale (WCS)
Englisha
How much more or less do you
feel you worry about your
weight and body shape than
#1
other women your age?
1. I worry a lot less than other
women
2. I worry a little less than
other women
3. I worry about the same as
other women
4. I worry a little more than
other women
5. I worry a lot more than other
women
How afraid are you of gaining 3
pounds?
1. Not afraid
#2
2. Slightly afraid
3. Moderately afraid
4. Very afraid
5. Terrified
When was the last time you
went on a diet?
1. I’ve never been on a diet
2. I was on a diet about one
#3
year ago
Portuguese
Quanto, mais ou menos, você se
sente preocupada com seu peso e
com a forma de seu corpo
relativamente a outras mulheres
da sua idade?
1. Eu me preocupo muito menos
que outras mulheres
2. Eu me preocupo um pouco
menos que outras mulheres
3. Eu me preocupo o mesmo que
outras mulheres
4. Eu me preocupo um pouco mais
que outras mulheres
5. Eu me preocupo muito mais que
outras mulheres
Quanto medo você tem de ganhar
aproximadamente 1,5 kg?
1. Sem medo
2. Um pouco de medo
3. Moderadamente com medo
4. Muito medo
5. Aterrorizada
Quando foi a última vez que você
fez dieta?
1. Eu nunca fiz dieta
2. Eu fiz dieta há cerca de um ano
atrás
Classificação Econômica Brasil. Retrieved from http://abep.org/codigosguias/
CritérioBrasil 2008.pdf
Beyers, W., & Goossens, L. (2003). Psychological separation and adjustment
to university: Moderating effects of gender, age, and perceived parenting
style. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 363–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0743558403018004003
Bucchianeri, M. M., Arikian, A. J., Hannan, P. J., Eisenberg, M. E., & Neumark-Sztainer,
D. (2013). Body dissatisfaction from adolescence to young adulthood: Findings
from a 10-year longitudinal study. Body Image, 10, 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.bodyim.2012.09.001
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applica-
tions and programming. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Campos, J. A. D. B., Bonafé, F. S. S., Dovigo, L. N., & Maroco, J. (2013). Psychometric
assessment of the attitudes towards statistics scale. Revista Brasileira de Biome-
tria, 31, 327–337.
Campos, J. A. D. B., & Maroco, J. (2012). Adaptação transcultural Portugal-Brasil do
inventário de burnout de Maslach para estudantes. Revista de Saúde Pública, 46,
816–824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102012000500008
Carloto, M. S., & Camara, S. G. (2006). Características psicométricas do Malasch
Burnout Inventory – Student Survey (MBI-SS). Psico-USF, 11, 167–173.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness of fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902 5
Cooper, P. J., Taylor, M. J., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (1987). The development and
validation of the Body Shape Questionnaire. International Journal of Eating Dis-
orders, 6, 485–494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-108X(198707)6:4<485:AID-
EAT2260060405>3.0.CO;2-O
Da Silva, W. R., Dias, J. C., Maroco, J., & Campos, J. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor
analysis of different versions of the Body Shape Questionnaire applied to Brazil-
ian university students. Body Image, 11, 384–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
bodyim.2014.06.001
Derenne, J. L., Baker, C., Delinsky, S. S., & Becker, A. E. (2010). Clinical ratings scales
and assessment in eating disorders. In L. Baer & M. A. Blais (Eds.), Handbook of
clinical rating scales and assessment in psychiatry and mental health (pp. 145–174).
New York, NY: Springer-Verlag New York.
Di Pietro, M., & Silveira, D. X. (2009). Internal validity, dimensionality and per-
formance of the Body Shape Questionnaire in a group of Brazilian college
students. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 31, 21–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/
S1516-44462008005000017
Girz, L., Polivy, J., Provencher, V., Wintre, M. G., Pratt, M. W., Pancer, M. S.,. . .& Adams,
G. R. (2013). The four undergraduate years. Changes in weight, eating attitudes,
and depression. Appetite, 69, 145–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.
06.002
Gleeson, K., & Frith, H. (2006). (De)constructing body image. Journal of Health Psy-
chology, 11, 79–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105306058851
76 J.C.R. Dias et al. / Body Image 14 (2015) 72–76
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2005). Multivariate
data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Keel, P. K., & Forney, K. J. (2013). Psychosocial risk factors for eating disorders. Inter-
national Journal of Eating Disorders, 46, 433–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.
22094
Killen, J. D., Taylor, C. B., Hayward, C., Wilson, D. M., Haydel, K. F., Hammer, L. D.,. . .
& Varady, A. (1994). Pursuit of thinness and onset of eating disorder symptoms
in a community sample of adolescent girls: A three-year prospective analysis.
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 16, 227–238.
Marcolino, J. A. M., & Iacoponi, E. (2001). Escala de Aliança Psicoterápica da Califórnia
na versão do paciente. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 23, 88–95. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1590/S1516-44462001000200007
Maroco, J. (2014). Análise de equações estruturais. Lisboa. Report Number.
Roy, M., & Payette, H. (2012). The body image construct among Western seniors:
A systematic review of the literature. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 55,
505–521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2012.04.007
Sarwer, D. B., & Cash, T. F. (2008). Body image: Interfacing behavioral and medical
sciences. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 28, 357–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asj.
2008.03.007
Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B.
(2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 464–481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0022022102033005003
Sepulveda, A. R., Whitney, J., Hankins, M., & Treasure, J. (2008). Development and
validation of an Eating Disorders Symptom Impact Scale (EDSIS) for carers of
people with eating disorders. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 28–36. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-6-28
Stephan, Y., Fouquereau, E., & Fernandez, A. (2008). Body satisfaction and retirement
satisfaction: The mediational role of subjective health. Aging & Mental Health,
12, 374–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13607860802120839
WHO. (2000). Obesity: Preventing and managing the global epidemic. WHO: Technical
Report Series. Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO TRS 894.pdf
Wilson, F. R., Pan, W., & Schumsky, D. A. (2012). Recalculation of the critical valuesfor
Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 45, 197–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0748175612440286