Article

Brazilian Photographic
Figure Rating Scale:
Development and
Psychometric
Investigation

Marcela R. de Castro1,
Fabiane Frota da Rocha Morgado2,
and Ismael Forte Freitas Junior3

Abstract

This study reports on the development, reliability, and validity of a new instrument

for obtaining respondents’ body image perception, the Brazilian Photographic Figure

Rating Scale (BPFRS). This instrument consists of eight photographic images (seven

distorted and one accurate) of respondents themselves in standardized poses, taken

just prior to requesting respondents to make self-ratings on the instrument.

Participants involved in developing and evaluating this instrument were 142

Brazilian women (age 21.8� 3.0 years). Ten experts assessed content validity and

showed high agreement (defined by ratings of 4–5 on a 5-point scale) with items

measuring underlying constructs and high (>70%) interrater agreement. A Pearson

correlation demonstrated convergence between the BPFRS and other related scales;

a positive correlation was also evident between actual and respondent-perceived

body mass index. Both test–retest and Kappa confirmed temporal stability. These

findings indicate that the BPFRS can accurately and reliably assess body image dis-

satisfaction and body perception in young women by deploying realistic, personalized

images as stimuli for self-ratings. Implications for further research and treatment of

body image problems are discussed.

Perceptual and Motor Skills

2017, Vol. 124(1) 131–144

! The Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0031512516677899

journals.sagepub.com/home/pms

1Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Maranhão, Brazil
2Department of Physical Education, Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
3Department of Physical Education, São Paulo State University, Brazil

Corresponding Author:

Marcela R. de Castro, Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Maranhão, Brazil.

Email: marcelarodriguescastro@hotmail.com

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F0031512516677899&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-11-11


Keywords

body self-perception, body size perception, body image, psychophysical, body

composition

Introduction

Body image is a multidimensional construct comprising perceptual (McCabe,
Ricciardelli, Sitaram, & Mikail, 2006) and attitudinal dimensions (Pruzinsky &
Cash, 2002). Adami et al. (2012) point out that alterations in body image can be
considered a risk factor that may harm social, professional, emotional, and even
psychological health through, for example, eating disorders (Cash, 2011;
Gardner, 2011), depression (Johnson & Wardle, 2005), chronic dysphoria
(Rosenström et al., 2013), and suicide (Rodriguez-Cano, Beato-Fernández, &
Llario, 2006).

In recent years, interest in evaluating body image has stimulated the devel-
opment of several tools, the most widely used being Silhouette Scales, which are
quick, easy, and inexpensive to apply (Cash, 2011; Gardner & Brown, 2010a).
However, weaknesses in these instruments have been identified in the literature,
including (a) unrealistic images of the human body, (b) unrealistic values of
body height and weight of the target population, (c) unverified psychometric
qualities, and (d) a lack of silhouettes able to assess perceptions and attitudes
simultaneously (Gardner & Brown, 2010a).

One strategy used to minimize potential errors is to use instruments devel-
oped from real anthropometric measures. Body mass index (BMI), one of the
most commonly used measures, associates with body dissatisfaction (Austin,
Haines, & Veugelers, 2009; Conti, Frutuoso, & Gambardella, 2005; Gardner
& Brown, 2011; Graup et al., 2008; Kakeshita, Silva, Zanatta, & Almeida,
2009; Laus, Miranda, Almeida, Costa, & Ferreira, 2012; Pallan, Hiam, Duda,
& Adab, 2011). Women tend to desire a slim body (Laus et al., 2012). Brazilian
women, on average, wish to reduce body weight by 2 kg in order to feel content
and beautiful (Alvarenga, Dunker, Philippi, & Scagliusi, 2010). Men, on the
other hand, derive more body satisfaction from muscle gain (Kakeshita et al.,
2009). In both cases, the body alterations are reflected in BMI changes. Other
researchers have aggregated other anthropometric parameters in body image
evaluation tools (Crossley, Cornelissen, & Tovée, 2012; Fran, Liu, Wu, &
Dai, 2004), such as fat percentage (Corseuil, Pelegrini, Beck, & Petroski,
2009; Damasceno et al., 2012; Pallan et al., 2011) and waist–hip ratio (Graup
et al., 2008).

Since the late 1970s, numerous technological devices have been developed to
evaluate body perception and dissatisfaction (Gardner, Martinez, & Sandoval,
1987; Gardner & Moncrieff, 1988; Gardner, Morrell, Watson, & Sandoval,
1989). Guided by psychophysical tools, some authors have proposed such

132 Perceptual and Motor Skills 124(1)



strategies to evaluate body image as the Method of Limits, Method of
Constant Stimuli, and Adaptive Probit Estimation (Gardner & Boice, 2004;
Gardner & Bokenkamp, 1996). Using processes of detection, discrimination,
and assignment of magnitude, psychophysical tools seek to relate stimuli, sen-
sations, and perceptions functionally (Gardner & Brown, 2010a); to express
the internal organization of perceptive experience; and to generate results that
can be systematically analyzed and interpreted (Da Silva & Ribeiro-Filho,
2006).

We sought to develop a more ecologically valid measure by introducing
respondents to actual front- and side-view images of their own body, thus pro-
viding very personalized reference stimuli from which to solicit respondent self-
perception ratings. We believe this measure will improve body image assessment
by adding realism and eliciting a higher level of engagement from respondents
while providing an accurate assessment of body dissatisfaction and body per-
ception. Thus, this study aimed to first develop and then assess the psychometric
properties of a new instrument, the Brazilian Photographic Figure Rating Scale
(BPFRS), by using images of the subject’s own body to evaluate the subject’s
body dissatisfaction and perception.

Method

Participants

A sample of 142 adult women (21.8� 3.0 years; BMI 23.76� 4.42) chosen from
a university enrollment database were contacted via e-mail. Women have been
identified as more susceptible than men to distorted and unhealthy body image.
Young women may be more vulnerable to broad impact from their body-related
feelings, beliefs, and behaviors (Laus et al., 2012; Runfola et al., 2013; Slevec &
Tiggemann, 2011; Swami et al., 2010). The use of women in this study also
enabled our results to be compared with those of similar studies in other coun-
tries (Swami, Salem, Furnham, & Tovée, 2008; Swami et al., 2012).

Following prior literature addressing influential factors in tests of perception
such as physical exercise, mood, anxiety, and so forth (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002;
McCabe et al., 2006), we excluded people who had (a) exercised in the 3 hours
before the test, (b) experienced atypical sleep (insomnia or altered sleep) the
night before the test, or (c) suffered an emotional provocation on the day of
the test (e.g., bad mood, anxiety, sadness, euphoria, muscle pain, or premen-
strual tension). Each participant was questioned directly on these criteria before
the test. All participants signed a Declaration of Informed Consent, in com-
pliance with the ethical procedures required to perform the study, and the
study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universidade Estadual
Paulista—Rio Claro Campus/São Paulo, under Protocol No. 298 and
Decision No. 071/2012.

de Castro et al. 133



Materials and Procedures

Each participant’s body weight and height were measured using, respectively, a
Tannita digital platform scale (precision 0.1 kg) and a Sanny stadiometer with
movable head (precision 1 cm). These measurements were used to calculate BMI,
defined as the ratio of body weight to height-squared. Each participant com-
pleted two previously researched instruments for evaluating body image: (a) the
Brazilian Silhouette Scale for Adults (BSSA) comprises 15 figures with charac-
teristically Brazilian body shapes, with a test–retest correlation coefficient
between actual BMI and perceived BMI of r¼ .84 (p< .01; Kakeshita et al.,
2009); and (b) Stunkard’s Figure Rating Scale (SFRS), the original version of
which was designed by Stunkard, Sorensen, and Schlusinger (1983) and, in val-
idation for Brazilian women, returned good concurrent (r¼ .76; p< .0001) and
discriminant, �2(1)¼ 19.2; p< .005, validity. It comprises nine silhouettes, in
order of increasing size, on a single card (Scagliusi et al., 2006). On both
scales, dissatisfaction is defined by the difference between perceived and desired
silhouettes. Non-zero values equated to dissatisfied individuals such that positive
values indicated dissatisfaction with being overweight and negative values indi-
cated dissatisfaction with being underweight.

To construct the BPFRS for this study, we involved participants in a series of
steps as detailed below:

Image capture. Full-body photographs were taken of each participant in a labora-
tory previously prepared with suitable lighting and a dark backdrop. Each par-
ticipant, wearing black shorts and a sleeveless top of Lycra-like adherent
material (so as define body outline), was photographed from the front, with
arms in a neutral position and, from the side, with shoulders slightly extended
and legs spread apart to hip width. Photographs were prepared and displayed
using a Sony Cyber-shot camera, HP Pavilion notebook with 14-inch screen,
and Photoshop CS3 Extended (Adobe�) image manipulation software.

Construction of stimuli and preparation of tasks. Construction of the BPFRS was
guided by existing human silhouette scales (Conti et al., 2013; Gardner, 2011;
Gardner & Brown, 2010b; Gardner, Jappe, & Gardner, 2009; Kakeshita et al.,
2009; Stunkard et al., 1983; Swami et al., 2008) and the theory of psychophysics
(Da Silva & Ribeiro-Filho, 2006). Following guidelines from Gardner,
Friedman and Jackson (1998), we opted for the minimum number of stimuli
that gave the greatest number of possibilities for the chosen parameter (BMI, in
our case), establishing a constant increment ratio with little distortion between
stimuli and keeping the height of the silhouettes constant.

We chose eight stimuli (seven distorted images and an undistorted image)
within the range 16.5 kg/m2>BMI< 40 kg/m2, from extreme thinness to obesity
(World Health Organization, 1995). To define the first stimulus in percentage
terms, we used simple proportionality: The participant’s BMI represented 100%,

134 Perceptual and Motor Skills 124(1)



and the lower limit (in our case BMI of 16.5) was the unknown variable in the
equation. The same process was applied to establish the final stimulus, the upper
limit (BMI of 40). As the feeling-stimulus ratio obeys the logarithmic law, the
percentage values were converted into logarithms to specify the other stimuli.
Thus, the logarithmic value of 65.5%, for example, is 1.81 (see Figure 1).

The increment ratio (r), the minimum change necessary for the difference to
be noticeable, was calculated from the equation: Sf¼Siþ (n� 1) r (Da Silva &
Macedo, 1983), where Sf is the value of the final stimulus (40 kg/m2), Si is the
value of the initial stimulus (16.5 kg/m2), and n is the number of stimuli. The
distortion increment value from one silhouette to another was 0.064 kg/m2

(Figure 2), equivalent to 1.57% (antilog). From the initial and increment ratio
values, it is possible to calculate the other stimuli, which were converted to
percentages, by calculating their antilog, indicating the distortion value for
each photographic image (Figure 2).

The undistorted image was treated using Photoshop CS3 Extended (Adobe�)
software to compose seven distorted stimuli. These were arranged in ascending
percentage order, with the participant’s undistorted image considered to repre-
sent 100%. Thus, the placing of the undistorted image depended on a partici-
pant’s BMI. In our example, the undistorted image was placed fourth. The eight
juxtaposed stimuli form the front-view and side-view BPFRS, individualized for
each participant (Figures 3 and 4). Preparation of each individual test, spanning
the whole process described earlier, from calculation of the stimuli, manipula-
tion (distortion) of the images, and their grouping in ascending order of size,
took an average of 30 minutes.

Figure 1. Calculation of increment ratio – for a subject with BMI 25.2 kg/m2. þfinal

stimulus, initial stimulus, ¥number of stimuli, and �increment value.

de Castro et al. 135



Application of the BPFRS. Each participant, after viewing their BPFRS, was
asked to (a) ‘‘Choose the silhouette that best represents your real body’’ and
(b) ‘‘Choose the silhouette that best represents the body that you would like to
have.’’ Only one choice was allowed to apply to both front and side views. That
is, for each question, if the participant wanted to choose a front-view option
(for example, Image 3) and a different side-view option (Image 4), they were
asked to choose only one of these options.

Body dissatisfaction was defined by the ordinal difference between the silhou-
ettes representing the participant’s actual and desired bodies. Similarly, body
size and shape perception index was calculated by subtracting the silhouette
perceived as representing the actual body from the participant’s actual

Figure 2. Calculation of stimuli. *Stimuli.

Figure 3. BPFRS front view—The scale of distorted stimuli plus the image of the individ-

ual’s body without distortion.

136 Perceptual and Motor Skills 124(1)



silhouette. Thus, dissatisfaction and the perception index may be considered as
units from �7 to þ7 and BMI values from �23.5 to 23.5. The value correspond-
ing to zero was parameterized to represent satisfaction and precision in body
perception. Any non-zero number indicated dissatisfaction and imprecision in
body perception. Positive values indicated dissatisfaction due to excess weight
and overestimation of body size. On the other hand, negative values denoted
dissatisfaction due to low weight and underestimation of body size. The rating
instrument took around five minutes to apply for each participant, as they were
easy to understand.

Assessment of the Psychometric Qualities of the BPFRS

Validity and temporal stability are two requisites for a tool to be useful for
research (Cash, 2011; Thompson, 2004) or clinical purposes. Accordingly, the
BPFRS was examined for content validity, convergent validity, criterion valid-
ity, and temporal stability, following guidelines from Alexandre and Coluci
(2011) and Pasquali (2003).

Content validity. Ten expert judges, each with at least 5 years’ experience in body
image and psychometric research, were invited to assess BPFRS content validity,
in terms of its capacity to evaluate body dissatisfaction and perception. The
judges received a form on which they were required, after viewing the scale, to
assign values of one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree), to indicate their
level of agreement with five key affirmations: (a) the images of the scale are
consistent with the human body; (b) the scale is visible, practical, and easy to
apply; (c) the scale is capable of evaluating both the attitudinal dimension (spe-
cifically body dissatisfaction) and perceptual dimension of body image; (d) the
scale represents the female body in a realistic manner; and (e) taken together, the
front and side views enable an image to be formed with greater information

Figure 4. BPFRS side view—The scale of distorted stimuli plus the image of the

individual’s body without distortion.

de Castro et al. 137



content on the shape of the individual’s body. Data were analyzed descriptively.
In keeping with the value commonly adopted in the literature (Hair, Black,
Babin, & Anderson, 2009), we sought at least 70% interrater agreement
(at least seven judges) with high ratings of instrument approval, ratings of
4 (agree) to 5 (strongly agree) for each BPFRS dimension assessed.

Convergent validity. Convergent validity was assessed with the two previously
researched scales completed by participants, BSSA and SFRS. Each of these
scales had been previously validated for the Brazilian female population, and
significant positive correlations were expected between these instruments and the
new instrument created in this study.

Criteria validity. Criteria validity was tested by examining the correlations between
(a) participant’s actual BMI and the characteristic BMI of the silhouette the
participant chose to represent her body; and (b) the silhouette chosen to repre-
sent the participant’s body and the body dissatisfaction index. Significant posi-
tive correlations were expected between these variables.

Temporal stability. To test the instrument’s temporal stability as regards the sta-
bility and reproducibility of results (Anastasi & Urbina, 2000), retesting was
performed on 30% of the sample (45 women) as recommended by Thompson
(2004). Note that the new scale was applied on different days, and the interval
between test and retest was 35 days.

Statistical Analysis of the Data

Content validity testing entailed descriptive analysis of percentage of agreement.
Convergent and criteria validity were assessed with Pearson correlations. The
instrument’s temporal stability was analyzed using the Kappa coefficient of
agreement (Agresti, 2013). All procedures were performed using SPSS software,
version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) with a significance level of 5%.

Results

In the assessment of the scales’ performance in evaluating body image, content
validity, judges’ scores reflected high approval ratings with interrater agreement
in excess of the previously established criterion of 70% (Hair et al., 2009).
Convergence was demonstrated, with significant results, between the BPFRS
and both the BSSA (r¼ .82; p¼ 1e�5) and the SFRS (r¼ .73; p¼ 1e�4),
indicating that the BPFRS evaluates body dissatisfaction reliably in young
women. A significant positive correlation was found between participants’
actual and perceived BMI on the BPFRS scale (r¼ .88, p¼ 1e�4), demonstrat-
ing correspondence between these variables. Similarly, the correlation found

138 Perceptual and Motor Skills 124(1)



between BMI and body dissatisfaction was high within the BPFRS (r¼ .81,
p¼ 1e�4).

Temporal stability between test and retest scores was tested by significant
positive correlations for both dissatisfaction (r¼ .79, p< .0001) and body per-
ception (r¼ .77, p¼ 1e�4). The Kappa index indicated moderate temporal sta-
bility for the BPFRS (k¼ .593; p¼ 5e�5) and BSSA (�¼ .581; p¼ 5e�5) in
assessing body dissatisfaction and for the BPFRS in assessing perception
(k¼ .6; p¼ 5e�5).

Discussion

This study aimed to develop and validate a new photographic scale to evaluate
body dissatisfaction and body perception based on personalized images of the
bodies of the respondents themselves. Kachani et al. (2013) point to the growing
number of centers devoted to treating alterations in body image in Brazil. In that
light, it is very important not only to refine the methodological apparatus used
for evaluation but also to assess psychometric qualities of any tool (Gardner &
Brown, 2011). The results of this study support the validity and temporal sta-
bility of the BPFRS (Agresti, 2013; Anastasi & Urbina, 2000; Pasquali, 2003)
with findings that are in line with other studies in the area (Adami et al., 2012;
Conti et al., 2013; Gardner & Brown, 2010a; Gardner, Jappe, & Gardner, 2009;
Morgado, Ferreira, Campana, Rigby, & Tavares, 2013; Swami et al., 2008).
Specifically, content validation was supported by over 70% agreement among
the expert judges that each element of the scale was relevant and representative
for the construct to be evaluated. The BPFRS met the essential test, when
evaluating body image, that the parameters measured included real morpho-
logical characteristics of young women, as recommended by Swami et al.
(2008, 2012). Criteria validation was supported by correlations between both
real and perceived BMI (r¼ .88) and between BMI and body dissatisfaction
(r¼ .88). Similar values have been reported by previous studies of women:
r¼ .76 to .72 in Scagliusi et al. (2006), and .84 to .76 in Kakeshita et al.
(2009). This trend has been widely evident in the literature, perhaps due to
women’s preference for an ultra-thin body (Gardner et al., 2009). We agree
with Swami et al. (2008) in their view that this strong correlation between a
perceived silhouette and BMI provides evidence that the instrument in question
(in this case, the BPFRS) can be used to evaluate both body dissatisfaction and
perception. Convergent validity was demonstrated in that the BPFRS correlated
with both BSSA (r¼ .82) and SFRS (r¼ .73). Similarly, Swami et al. (2008,
2012) used similar methodology to show good convergent validity for their
PFRS instrument. Swami et al. (2012) also found that body dissatisfaction, as
measured by the PFRS, is associated with body appreciation, internalization of
media messages on appearance, and self-reported BMI. Of these factors, only
the latter was tested in this study.

de Castro et al. 139



The BPFRS has added improvements and refinements to the methodological
apparatus used in body image research to date in that it utilizes photographs of
respondents themselves for rating stimuli and introduces the side-view profile
stimuli. We believe this more individualized and realistic measure will improve
respondent engagement in the task and yield more accurate and ecologically valid
results, and future research on the instrument can now address those expectations.
Meanwhile, this tool is able to assess body dissatisfaction in a similar manner to
the PFRS, and it performed well in assessing body image perception.

Previous studies have reported poor reliability in most existing figure-rating
scales (Gardner et al., 2009; Swami et al., 2008). In contrast, the BPFRS dis-
played strong test–retest reliability (r¼ .87) and temporal stability (k¼ .581) in
assessment of body dissatisfaction and perception. Swami et al. (2008) and
Gardner and Brown (2010a) have pointed out that assessment of these param-
eters—the absence of which constitutes one of the major gaps in studies of body
image—is very important to guaranteeing effective evaluation. Our findings are
consistent with those of other studies of similar tools used with women, that is,
r¼ .78 in Scagliusi et al. (2006); .84 and .76 in Kakeshita et al. (2009); .87 in
Swami et al. (2008); and .85 in Swami et al. (2012).

Some limitations of the present study include its restriction to a particular age
group and to female subjects, which may lead to bias and limit generalizations,
given that age and gender factors are known to influence body image. In add-
ition, some aspects of the preparation of the methodological apparatus for
evaluating the perceptual dimension need to be refined. When validating the
BPFRS, a normative value was not established. Another important factor in
video distortion techniques is the lack of three-dimensionality, with image aug-
mentation on the horizontal axis only, which mischaracterizes how human body
composition changes in the natural way. Of course, other limitations are that
this method of evaluation requires instrument respondents to be photographed
(perhaps an aversive event for some subjects), it takes additional time, and it
requires equipment and an involved process for generating and displaying dis-
torted images.

The data obtained here have important theoretical and practical implications.
The first relates to the need for multidimensional evaluations of body image that
include actual physical characteristics of the individual evaluated. That approach
to the study of body image is still uncommon in Brazil, hindering interventions in
clinical and nonclinical samples for lack of precise information specific to local
populations. Many research and clinical activities in this work are still based on
studies carried out on other populations with different physical and cultural char-
acteristics. As regards practical implications, this study (even if preliminarily)
suggests an applicable and affordable methodological strategy, which can readily
be incorporated into intervention and research work. The BPFRS can enhance
the evaluation, diagnosis, and prophylaxis of body dissatisfaction and distortion
of body perception. By considering undistorted images of participants, the

140 Perceptual and Motor Skills 124(1)



BPFRS is a unique tool, specific to the evaluated individual. This tool respects and
includes participant’s individual characteristics, and it may lend itself well to
occasions when it is necessary to obtain periodic evaluations on the same subject.
Other measures that rely on standardized images may introduce error variance
from subject difficulty identifying with other body alterations. We would empha-
size that researchers interested in using the BPFRS in future studies may do so,
using the image manipulation programs free of charge, providing they follow the
procedures set out in this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,

authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.

References

Adami, F., Frainer, D. E. S., Almeida, F. S., Abreu, L. C., Valenti, V. E., Demarzo, M.
M. P., . . .Oliveira, F. R. (2012). Construct validity of a figure rating scale for Brazilian

adolescents. Nutrition Journal, 11(24), 2–6.
Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Alexandre, N. M. C., & Coluci, M. Z. O. (2011). Content validity in the development and

adaptation processes of measurement instruments. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 16(7),
3061–3068.

Alvarenga, M. S., Dunker, K. L. L., Philippi, S. T., & Scagliusi, F. B. (2010). Media
influence in female university students in all Brazilian regions. Jornal Brasileiro

Psiquiatria, 59(2), 111–118.
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (2000). Testagem psicológica. Porto Alegre, Brazil: Artes

Médicas Sul.

Austin, S. B., Haines, J., & Veugelers, P. J. (2009). Body satisfaction and body weight:
Gender differences and iluetaseraphic determinants. BMC Public Health, 9, 313.

Conti, M. A., Ferreira, M. E. C., Carvalho, P. H. B., Kotait, M. S., Paulino, E. S., Costa,

L. S., . . . Scagliusi, F. B. (2013). Stunkard figure rating scale for iluetas men. Eating
Weight Disorders, 18(3), 317–322.

Conti, M. A., Frutuoso, M. F. P., & Gambardella, A. M. D. (2005). Obesity and body

dissatisfaction amongst adolescents. Revista de Nutrição, 18(4), 491–497.
Cash, T. F. (2011). Crucial considerations in the assessment of body image. In T. Cash &

L. Smolak (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of science, practice, and prevention (2nd ed.,
pp. 129–137). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Cash, T. F., & Pruzinsky, T. (2002). Future challenges for body image theory,
research and clinical practice. In T. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image:
A handbook of theory, research & clinical practice (pp. 509–517). New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

de Castro et al. 141



Corseuil, M. W., Pelegrini, A., Beck, C., & Petroski, E. L. (2009). The prevalence of body
image dissatisfaction and its association with unhealthy nutritional status in adoles-

cents. Revista da Educação Fı́sica, 20(1), 25–31.
Crossley, K. L., Cornelissen, P. L., & Tovée, M. J. (2012). What is an attractive body?

Using an interactive 3D program to create the ideal body for you and your partner.

Plos One, 7(11), e50601.
Damasceno, V. O., Vianna, J. M., Novaes, J. S., Lima, J. P., Fernandes, H. M., & Reis,

V. M. (2012). Relationship between anthropometric variables and body image dissat-
isfaction among fitness center users. Revista de Psicologı́a del Deporte, 20(2), 367–382.

Da Silva, J. A., & Macedo, L. (1983). A função-potência na percepção: significado e
procedimentos do cálculo do expoente. Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicologia, 34(4), 27–45.

Da Silva, J. A., & Ribeiro-Filho, N. P. (2006). Avaliação e Mensuração da dor: pesquisa,

iluet e prática. Ribeirão Preto, Brazil: FUNPEP Editora.
Fran, J., Liu, F., Wu, J., & Dai, W. (2004). Visual perception of female physical attract-

iveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Science, 271(1537), 347–352.

Gardner, R. (2011). Perceptual measures of body image for adolescents and adults.
In T. Cash & L. Smolak (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of science, practice, and
prevention (2nd ed., pp. 146–153). New York, NY: The Guilford press.

Gardner, R. M., & Boice, R. (2004). A computer program for measuring body size dis-
tortion and body dissatisfaction. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 36(1), 89–95.

Gardner, R. M., & Bokenkamp, E. D. (1996). The role of sensory and nonsensory factors

in body size estimations of eating disorder subjects. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
52(1), 3–15.

Gardner, R. M., & Brown, D. L. (2010a). Body image assessment: A review of Egural
drawing scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(2), 107–111.

Gardner, R. M., & Brown, D. L. (2010b). Comparison of video distortion and Egural
drawing scale for measuring. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(7), 794–798.

Gardner, R. M., & Brown, D. L. (2011). Method of presentation and sex differences when
using a revised figural drawing scale to measure body size estimation and dissatisfac-
tion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 113(3), 739–750.

Gardner, R. M., Friedman, B. N., & Jackson, N. A. (1998). Methodological concerns

when using silhouettes to measure body image. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86(2),
387–395.

Gardner, R. M., Jappe, L. M., & Gardner, L. (2009). Development and validation of a

new figural drawing scale for body-image assessment: the BIAS–BD. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 65, 113–122.

Gardner, R. M., Martinez, R., & Sandoval, Y. (1987). Obesity and body image: An

evaluation of sensory and non-sensory components. Psychological Medicine, 17(4),
927–932.

Gardner, R. M., & Moncrieff, C. (1988). Body image distortion in anorexics as a non-

sensory phenomenon: A signal detection approach. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
44(2), 101–107.

Gardner, R. M., Morrell, J. A. Jr., Watson, D. N., & Sandoval, S. L. (1989). Subjective
equality and just noticeable differences in body size judgments of the obese. Perceptual

and Motor Skills, 69(2), 595–604.

142 Perceptual and Motor Skills 124(1)



Graup, S., Pereira, E. F., Lopes, A. S., Araújo, V. C., Legnani, R. F. S., & Borgatto,
A. F. (2008). Association between body image dissatisfaction and anthropometric

indicators in adolescents. Revista Brasileira de Educação Fı́sica e Esporte, 22(2),
129–138.

Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data

analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Johnson, F., & Wardle, J. (2005). Dietary restraint, body dissatisfaction, and psycho-

logical distress: A prospective analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(1),
119–125.

Kachani, A. T., Barroso, L. P., Brasiliano, S., Hochgraf, P. B., Cordás, T. A., & Conti,
M. A. (2013). Psychometric evaluation of the body checking cognitions scale (BCCS)
iluetase version. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 116(1), 175–186.

Kakeshita, I. S., Silva, A. I. P., Zanatta, D. P., & Almeida, S. S. (2009). Construção e
fidedignidade teste reteste de escalas de iluetas brasileiras para adultos e crianças.
Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 25(2), 263–270.

Laus, M. F., Miranda, V. P. N., Almeida, S. S., Costa, T. M. B., & Ferreira, M. E. C.
(2012). Geographic location, sex and nutritional status play an important role in body
image concerns among Brazilian adolescents. Journal of Health Psychology, 18(3),

332–338.
McCabe, M., Ricciardelli, L., Sitaram, G., & Mikail, K. (2006). Accuracy of body size

estimation: Role of biopsychosocial variables. Body Image, 3(2), 163–171.
Morgado, F. F. R., Ferreira, M. E. C., Campana, A. N. N. B., Rigby, A. S., & Tavares,

M. C. G. C. F. (2013). Initial evidence of the reliability and validity of a three-dimen-
sional body rating scale for the congenitally blind. Perceptual & Motor Skills:
Perception, 116(1), 91–105.

Pallan, M. J., Hiam, L. C., Duda, J. L., & Adab, P. (2011). Body image, body dissatis-
faction and weight status in South Asian children: A cross-sectional study. BMC
Public Health, 11(9), 10–21.

Pasquali, L. (2003). Psicometria: Teoria dos testes na Psicologia e na Educação. Petrópolis,
Brazil: Vozes.

Pruzinsky, T., & Cash, T. F. (2002). Understanding body image: Historical and contem-
porary perspective. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of

theory, research & clinical practice (pp. 3–13). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rodriguez-Cano, T., Beato-Fernández, L., & Llario, A. B. (2006). Body dissatisfaction as

a predicter of self-reported suicide attempts in adolescents: A Spanish community

prospective study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38(6), 684–688.
Rosenström, T., Jokela, M., Hintsanen, M., Josefsson, K., Juonala, M., Kivimäki,

M., . . .Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2013). Body-image dissatisfaction is strongly asso-

ciated with chronic dysphoria. Journal of Affective Disorders, 150(2), 253–260.
Runfola, C. D., Holle, A. V., Trace, S. E., Brownley, K. A., Hofmeier, S. M., Gagne, D.

A., . . .Bulik, C. M. (2013). Body dissatisfaction in women across the Lifespan: Results

of the UNC-SELF and Gender and Body Image (GABI) studies. European Eating
Disorders Review, 21(1), 52–59.

Scagliusi, F. B., Alvarenga, M., Polacow, V. O., Cordás, T. A., de Oliveira Queiroz, G.
K., Coelho, D., . . .Lancha, A. H. Jr. (2006). Concurrent and discriminant validity of

the Stunkard’s figure rating scale adapted into Portuguese. Appetite, 47(1), 77–82.

de Castro et al. 143



Slevec, J. H., & Tiggemann, M. (2011). Predictors of body dissatisfaction and disordered
eating in middle-aged women. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(4), 515–524.

Swami, V., Frederick, D. A., Aavik, T., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Anderson, D., Adrianto,
S., . . .Zivcic-Becirevic, I. (2010). The attractive female body weight and female body
dissatisfaction in 26 countries across 10 world regions: Results of the international

body project I. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 309–325.
Swami, V., Salem, N., Furnham, A., & Tovée, M. J. (2008). Initial examination of the

validity and reliability of the female photographic figure rating scale for body image
assessment. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(8), 1752–1761.

Swami, V., Stieger, S., Harris, A. S., Nader, I. W., Pietschnig, J., Voracek, M., . . .Tovée,
M. J. (2012). Further investigation of the validity and reliability of the photographic
figure rating scale for body image assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(4),

404–409.
Stunkard, A. J., Sorensen, T., & Schlusinger, F. (1983). Use of the Danish adoption

register for the study of obesity and thinness. In S. S. Kety, L. P. Rowland, R.

L. Sidman & S. W. Matthysse (Eds.), The genetics of neurological and psychiatric
disorders (pp. 115–120). New York, NY: Raven.

Thompson, J. K. (2004). The (mis) measurement of body image: Ten strategies to

improve assessment for applied and research purposes. Body Image, 1(1), 7–14.
World Health Organization. (1995). Physical status: The use and interpretation of anthro-

pometry. WHO Technical Report Series, 854. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

Author Biographies

Marcela R. de Castro, PhD, Departamento de Educação Fı́sica, Universidade
Federal do Maranhão (UFMA), Campus Pinheiro, Maranhão, Brasil.

Fabiane Frota da Rocha Morgado, PhD, Departamento de Educação Fı́sica,
Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ), Campus Seropédica,
Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.

Ismael Forte Freitas Junior, PhD, Departamento de Educação Fı́sica,
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Campus Presidente Prudente, São
Paulo, Brasil.

144 Perceptual and Motor Skills 124(1)