Quality of Life Research

, Volume 24, Issue 7, pp 1629–1633 | Cite as

Reliability and validity of the Dutch-translated Body Image Scale

  • V. M. T. van Verschuer
  • W. W. Vrijland
  • I. Mares-Engelberts
  • T. M. A. L. Klem
Brief Communication



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.


Body 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.


  1. 1.
    Taylor-Ford, M., Meyerowitz, B. E., D’Orazio, L. M., Christie, K. M., Gross, M. E., & Agus, D. B. (2013). Body image predicts quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Psychooncology, 22(4), 756–761.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zebrack, B., & Isaacson, S. (2012). Psychosocial care of adolescent and young adult patients with cancer and survivors. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30(11), 1221–1226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 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. 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
  6. 6.
    Bellino, S., Fenocchio, M., Zizza, M., Rocca, G., Bogetti, P., & Bogetto, F. (2011). Quality of life of patients who undergo breast reconstruction after mastectomy: Effects of personality characteristics. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 127(1), 10–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gurevich, M., Bishop, S., Bower, J., Malka, M., & Nyhof-Young, J. (2004). (Dis)embodying gender and sexuality in testicular cancer. Social Science and Medicine, 58(9), 1597–1607.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Park, S. Y., Bae, D. S., Nam, J. H., Park, C. T., Cho, C. H., Lee, J. M., et al. (2007). Quality of life and sexual problems in disease-free survivors of cervical cancer compared with the general population. Cancer, 110(12), 2716–2725.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pinar, G., Okdem, S., Dogan, N., Buyukgonenc, L., & Ayhan, A. (2012). The effects of hysterectomy on body image, self-esteem, and marital adjustment in Turkish women with gynecologic cancer. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 16(3), E99–E104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hopwood, P., Fletcher, I., Lee, A., & Al Ghazal, S. (2001). A Body Image Scale for use with cancer patients. European Journal of Cancer, 37(2), 189–197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1997). Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ, 314(7080), 572.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jakatdar, T. A., Cash, T. F., & Engle, E. K. (2006). Body-image thought processes: The development and initial validation of the assessment of body-image cognitive distortions. Body Image, 3(4), 325–333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cash, T. F., & Pruzinsky, T. E. (1990). Body images: Development, deviance, and change. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Donabedian, A. (1988). The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA, 260(12), 1743–1748.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Damman, O. C., Hendriks, M., & Sixma, H. J. (2009). Towards more patient centred healthcare: A new Consumer quality index instrument to assess patients’ experiences with breast care. European Journal of Cancer, 45(9), 1569–1577.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. M. T. van Verschuer
    • 1
    • 2
  • W. W. Vrijland
    • 2
  • I. Mares-Engelberts
    • 2
  • T. M. A. L. Klem
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Surgical OncologyErasmus MC Cancer InstituteRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Sint Franciscus Vlietland Group, Department of SurgerySint Franciscus GasthuisRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations