Reliability and validity of the Dutch-translated Body Image Scale
- 444 Downloads
Lacking a comprehensible and widely applicable Dutch test to assess body image changes in cancer patients, we validated Hopwood’s Body Image Scale (BIS) for the Dutch language.
The BIS consists of 10 items scored 0–3. Total scores range from 0 (minimum body image-related distress) to 30 (maximum distress). After forward and backward translation of the BIS, we evaluated its psychometric characteristics in breast cancer patients. We assessed feasibility by missing answer rates and positive response prevalence (score ≥1) per item (criterion ≥30 %), test–retest reliability with a 2-week interval, internal consistence using Cronbach’s α and discriminant ability by comparing body image after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) versus mastectomy.
Psychometric evaluation of 108 BCT and 101 mastectomy patients showed high feasibility (0.2 % missing answers), high positive response prevalence of ≥30 % in 9/10 items and high internal consistency (α > 0.90). Test–retest reliability and correlation were high with 5.78 (test) versus 5.75 (retest; P = 0.86) and Spearman’s ρ = 0.92 (P < 0.01). Discriminant ability was good with BIS scores of 4.56 after BCT versus 7.19 after mastectomy (P < 0.01). All results were comparable to the results of the original BIS.
The Dutch-translated BIS showed excellent psychometric results very similar to the original BIS. Its concise and simple design further supports wide application in clinical practice.
KeywordsBody image Questionnaires Translating Psychometrics Mastectomy Breast-conserving therapy
We thank all participating patients and acknowledge Dr. P. Hopwood and colleagues for the development of the original Body Image Scale.
Conflict of interest
None of the authors declare financial or personal relationships that could inappropriately influence their work.
- 3.den Heijer, M., Seynaeve, C., Timman, R., Duivenvoorden, H. J., Vanheusden, K., Tilanus-Linthorst, M., et al. (2012). Body image and psychological distress after prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction in genetically predisposed women: A prospective long-term follow-up study. European Journal of Cancer, 48(9), 1263–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Pusic, A. L., Klassen, A. F., Snell, L., Cano, S. J., McCarthy, C., Scott, A., et al. (2012). Measuring and managing patient expectations for breast reconstruction: Impact on quality of life and patient satisfaction. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 12(2), 149–158.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Denewer, A., Farouk, O., Kotb, S., Setit, A., Abd El-Khalek, S., & Shetiwy, M. (2012). Quality of life among Egyptian women with breast cancer after sparing mastectomy and immediate autologous breast reconstruction: A comparative study. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 133(2), 537–544.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Bullinger, M., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., Leplege, A., Sullivan, M., Wood-Dauphinee, S., et al. (1998). Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: The IQOLA project approach. international quality of life assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 913–923.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 14.Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
- 16.Cash, T. F., & Pruzinsky, T. E. (1990). Body images: Development, deviance, and change. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 17.Cash, T. F., & Pruzinsky, T. E. (2002). Body image: A handbook of theory, research and clinical practice. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar