Next Article in Journal
Climate Change and Child Health Inequality: A Review of Reviews
Previous Article in Journal
Association of BMI, Physical Activity with Academic Performance among Female Students of Health Colleges of King Khalid University, Saudi Arabia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 20
10.3390/ijerph182010921
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Social Physique Anxiety Scale: Psychometric Evaluation and Development of a Chinese Adaptation

by
Jiahui Jin
and
Sai-fu Fung
*
Department of Social and Behavioural Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(20), 10921; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010921
Submission received: 29 September 2021 / Revised: 14 October 2021 / Accepted: 15 October 2021 / Published: 17 October 2021
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Social Physique Anxiety Scale (SPAS) is a popular measure of individual anxiety related to body image. This study assessed the psychometric properties of the 12-, 9-, 8- and 7-item versions of the SPAS. Two cross-sectional studies recruited 466 Chinese university students. Study 1 (n = 273) evaluated the construct validity and internal consistency of the SPAS. Study 2 (n = 193) further assessed the construct validity, factorial validity, internal consistency, convergent validity and divergent validity of the SPAS. The results indicated that none of the existing SPAS versions possess good psychometric properties suitable for the Chinese student population. In short, a new 7-item version of the SPAS that is more suitable for measuring social physique anxiety among Chinese university students. The implications of our results and future research directions are discussed.

1. Introduction

Social physique anxiety (SPA) is the anxiety experienced when a person believes they are being observed or judged on their appearance; it is considered to be a subtype of social anxiety [1]. SPA manifests in an individual’s inability to view themselves as desirable to others. Crawford and Eklund [2] introduced self-presentation theory into the conceptual understanding of SPA. According to Goffman [3], anxious people always aim to make a good impression on others to seek positive evaluations, and SPA is the result of anxiety about self-presentation. Empirical research has suggested that people with a high level of SPA prefer settings that de-emphasise the physique rather than settings that emphasise the physique, which is aligned with the self-presentation explanation of SPA [2]. Studies have also found that more perfection-seeking people have higher SPA [4]. Hence, self-presentation and SPA are connected by the concept of perfection-seeking. The more strongly individuals seek to present a perfect image to others, the higher their SPA and the lower their body esteem [5,6].
Women were reported as having a higher level of SPA than men [5,7,8,9]. The limited research about the correlation between age and SPA showed the level of SPA grew with females’ age whereas decreased with males’ age with the participants aged from 11 to 24 [5], which means that college-aged women will have higher SPA level. The concept of SPA is highly overlapping with Body Image Dissatisfaction (BID) in the previous literature, with the goal of creating a good impression [10,11], which was found to be presented at higher levels in women as well [12]. Ålgars, Santtila [12] also reported females (aged 18 to 26) possessed the highest level of BID, which can be a reference for the characteristics of people with high SPA levels.
SPA was first proposed in a fitness context and has a strong connection with exercise [1,2,4,13]. The concept of SPA is therefore widely applied in the field of exercise psychology. People with a higher level of SPA are less likely to participate in exercise due to a fear of presenting themselves in front of others [2,13,14,15]. This observation is supported by Gammage, Ginis [16], who proposed a negative relationship between SPA and self-presentational exercise efficacy. Recent studies have also found that exercise may contribute to the mitigation of SPA [17]. This finding reflects the two approaches to cope with SPA proposed by Hart, Leary [1], which are avoidance and remedial behaviour. Avoidance is considered to be the primary behavioural tendency for coping with anxiety in general [18]. Remedial behaviour is regarded as a healthy behaviour to cope with SPA [19,20,21]. SPA also has a significant effect on dietary habits, which can influence physique presentation [7,22,23].
In addition to its physical effects, SPA influences the psychological dimension of self-esteem. Higher SPA is associated with lower self-esteem [24,25,26]. People with high levels of SPA also experience the emergence of social anxiety due to a lack of confidence in how the self presents to others [27,28]. Furthermore, a number of studies have reported that SPA reduces mental well-being and life satisfaction [29], and life satisfaction has been used as a measure of the impact of mental disorders [30]. Thus, it is possible to predict the impact of SPA on mental disorders, and relationships between SPA, analogue generalised anxiety disorder and analogue social anxiety disorder were confirmed [31].
The findings discussed above suggest that accurate measurement of SPA levels is of great significance in healthcare. To operationalise SPA, the Social Physique Anxiety Scale (SPAS) was originally proposed by Hart, Leary [1] in the context of gym fitness assessment. Although many studies have demonstrated satisfactory stability and validity of the 12-item unidimensional SPAS, its factor structure was much discussed. The plausibility of a second-order model was identified by scholars who argued that comfort with physique presentation (items 1, 2, 5, 8 and 11) and expectations of negative physical evaluation (items 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12) are factors subordinate to SPA [8,13,32]. As such, Eklund, Kelley [8] identified item 2 as problematic but did not modify it in their model. However, although the second-order model had a good model fit, it was eliminated as a methodological artefact without substantive meaning [33,34].
There was further controversy related to the item composition of the SPAS. Martin, Rejeski [33] extended Eklund, Kelley’s [8] view of item 2 and identified problems with items 1 and 5. They developed a 9-item unidimensional scale by excluding items 1, 2 and 5 and concluded that the unidimensional model was “more parsimonious and conceptually clear” than the two-factor model (p. 359). In a study on college students in America, Motl and Conroy [34] found that items 11 and 12 were problematic and proposed a 7-item unidimensional scale (items 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). This scale has been widely used in various countries [17,35,36,37,38]. Hagger, Aşçι [39] proposed an 8-item version after removing items 1, 5, 8 and 11, which is considered suitable for some European countries but remains controversial [40].
The development of an SPAS scale for the Chinese context is still in its initial stages. Isogai, Brewer [41] evaluated several scales on samples of female university students in Asian countries, including China, Japan, Korea and Thailand. A new 7-item scale (including items 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12) was found to improve the goodness-of-fit index in a Chinese sample [41]. However, despite the controversy related to the factor structure of the SPAS, there has been no further study to evaluate the SPAS scales in the Chinese context. To the best of our knowledge, there was also no empirical study to systematically evaluate the factor structure and psychometric properties of a Chinese version of the SPAS in separate male and female populations. In the present study, we also consider exploring a fresh version based on the results, in addition to evaluating existing models. The results of the present study provide a reliable and valid measurement of SPA that scholars and practitioners can use to evaluate SPA in Chinese societies.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

We recruited 466 respondents in total for two cross-sectional studies. All questionnaires were completed by online university student groups in the social networking sites QQ, WeChat and Douban. There were two waves of data collection, in June and July 2021. The mean age of the respondents in Study 1 (n = 273) was 21.2 years (SD = 2.21); 25.6% were male and 74.4% were female. The mean age of the respondents in Study 2 (n = 193) was 23.5 years (SD = 0.87); 28.5% were male and 71.5% were female. Details of the participants’ demographic characteristics can be found in Table 1.

2.2. Measure

Study 1 used the original 12-item SPAS (SPAS-12) [1], which comprises 12 questions scored on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (definitely disagree) to 5 (definitely agree). The total scores range from 12 to 60. A higher score indicates greater appearance anxiety. Positively worded items (items 1, 2, 5, 8 and 11) are reverse-scored before summing. The internal consistency of the SPAS was reported to be 0.90, and the 8-week test–retest reliability was 0.82 [1]. Standard translation and back-translation procedures were applied to items that were initially translated into Chinese by a Chinese person who had lived in the UK for 4 years and then translated back into English by a Chinese person who had majored in English. Another fluent English and Chinese speaker compared the original English content with the translated content to overcome potential issues related to cross-cultural research and issues of equivalence [42,43,44]. An abbreviated 9-item unidimensional version of the SPAS (SPAS-9), which includes items 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, was proposed by Martin, Rejeski [33]. The 8-item SPAS with a single-factor structure (SPAS-8) was proposed by Hagger, Aşçι [39] and includes items 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12. Motl and Conroy [34] proposed a 7-item unidimensional version containing items 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 (SPAS-7a). Isogai, Brewer [41] suggested an alternative version of the 7-item SPAS consisting of items 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 (SPAS-7b). The questionnaire also included demographic questions, such as the sex and age of the respondent.
The questionnaire for Study 2 included all questions used in Study 1 and five construct-related scales to evaluate concurrent validity. The literature suggests that satisfaction with life [29], self-esteem [24,25,26], mental well-being [29] and self-efficacy [45,46] are negatively correlated with SPA and that social interaction anxiety is positively aligned with physique anxiety [27,28].
We used the Satisfaction with Life Index (SWL) [47], in which items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The total scores range from 5 to 35, with a higher score indicating greater life satisfaction. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was reported to be 0.81 by Diener, Emmons [47] and 0.89 in China by Kong, Zhao [48].
The Chinese version of the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSE) [49], which was validated by Wu, Zuo [50], was used to measure self-esteem. This scale includes 10 items that are rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The total scores range from 10 to 40, with a higher score indicating greater self-esteem. Negatively worded items (items 2, 5, 6, 9) are reverse-scored before summing. The positive/negative attribution of item 8 is in dispute [50]. In this study, item 8 was regarded as positively worded, which is consistent with previous studies in China [50]. According to Song, Cai [51], the Cronbach’s alpha of this scale in Chinese university students was 0.83.
The participants’ mental health was assessed using the simplified Chinese version of the WHO (Five) Well-Being Index (WHO-5), which was released by the World Health Organization in 2007 [52,53,54]. This scale includes five items that are rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (at no time) to 6 (all of the time). The total scores range from 5 to 30, with a higher score indicating greater mental well-being.
The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) [55] was translated by Zhang and Schwarzer [56]. This scale includes 10 items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (absolutely incorrect) to 4 (absolutely correct). The total scores range from 10 to 40, with a higher score indicating greater self-efficacy. A recent study reported that the scale has good internal consistency in Chinese participants, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91 [57].
The 6-item Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS-6) [58] was adopted to measure social interaction anxiety. The short version was chosen because the full version of the SIAS [59] has 20 questions, which may discourage participants. The translation was conducted by Peng, Lam [60]. This scale is rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (absolutely not me) to 5 (absolutely me). The total scores range from 10 to 40, with a higher score indicating greater social interaction anxiety. Fergus, Valentiner [58] reported that the shortened scale demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88.

2.3. Procedure and Data Analysis

To avoid potential translation-related problems, we conducted offline pilot studies involving 13 Chinese university students from a variety of disciplines, including mathematics, management, sociology and communication, and at different levels of education, including undergraduate and postgraduate. None of the participants in the pilot studies reported any problems understanding the translated version of the SPAS. The data from the pilot studies were excluded from the subsequent analysis.
The study was approved by the research ethics committee of the City University of Hong Kong. The participants provided informed consent, and all data collected were anonymous. The entire research process strictly adhered to relevant international ethical standards, such as the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate the construct validity of the full and shortened versions of the scales. As the SPAS has Likert-type scale items with ordinal observed variables, a diagonally weighted least squares method was used to estimate parameters because it is less biased and more accurate than a maximum likelihood method [61]. The following criteria indicate good model fit: comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.95, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) > 0.95, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < 0.06, standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) <0.06 and χ2/df ≤ 3 [62,63,64,65,66,67]. To avoid the potential problem of overfitting [68], CFA and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were conducted on different datasets. Data from Study 1 (n = 273) and combined data from Studies 1 and 2 (n = 466) were used to assess the construct validity of the SPAS via CFA as validation samples. To ensure that the findings did not differ across genders, CFA was also performed after separating the dataset according to gender.
EFA with principal axis factoring was used to evaluate the factorial validity of the 7-item SPAS we proposed, as the unusual performance of item 3 was found (with low factor loading). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were used to assess whether the scales had good factor structures. According to Field [69], adequate factor structure criteria are as follows: KMO estimates > 0.70 and Bartlett’s test result that is significant at the p < 0.01 level. As the items are correlated with each other, the principal axis method with Promax was adopted [70,71]. According to Merenda [72], a threshold factor loading of 0.3 is the minimum when deciding to accept an item as belonging to a factor in social and behavioural science. The EFA was conducted on a calibration sample which is the data from Study 2 (n = 193).
The internal consistency of the shortened versions was assessed by using Cronbach’s alpha [73] and examining the corrected item-total correlation between items [74] with the data from Study 1 and Study 2, respectively. Recent validation literature recommends using McDonald’s omega to calculate reliability [75]. We therefore also calculated McDonald’s omega [76].
Concurrent validity was evaluated by other constructs related to SPA, as reported in previous studies. The SPA construct was shown to be significantly negatively correlated with satisfaction with life [29], self-efficacy [45,46], self-esteem [24,25,26] and mental well-being [29]. The literature also suggests that SPA is positively correlated with social interaction anxiety [27,28]. Hence, we used the SWL, RSE, WHO-5 and GSE to evaluate the divergent validity of the SPAS and the SIAS-6 to evaluate convergent validity based on the data from Study 2. These analyses were conducted using SPSS version 26.0 and R version 4.1.0 with the lavaan package version 0.6–8 [77].

3. Results

3.1. Construct Validity

Table 2 shows the CFA results for the five versions of SPAS proposed in previous studies. The results for SPAS-12 [1] and SPAS-9 [33] did not reach all of the cut-off values of the selected indexes in both Study 1 and the combined datasets. SPAS-8 [39], SPAS-7a [34] and SPAS-7b [41] fulfilled most of the cut-off criteria for a good model fit. However, item 3 had factor loadings below 0.3 in all of the above models and in both datasets, which is commonly regarded as an unacceptable value for factor loading [78,79]. For SPAS-8, the factor loadings for item 3 were 0.20–0.21, whereas the factor loadings for other items ranged from 0.58 to 0.87. For SPAS-7a, the factor loadings for item 3 ranged from 0.21 to 0.23, while other items’ factor loadings ranged from 0.71 to 0.86. For SPAS-7b, factor loadings for item 3 were 0.19–0.21, whereas those of other items ranged from 0.51 to 0.85.
Hence, a new version of SPAS is required. We performed CFA for SPAS-7a, SPAS-7b and SPAS-8, excluding item 3. The results for SPAS-6b (developed from SPAS-7b) and SPAS-7 (developed from SPAS-8) showed good model fit in both datasets, while SPAS-6a (developed from SPAS-7a) failed to reach the cut-off value of χ2/df with the combined data (χ2/df = 3.29). To eliminate differences between genders, we divided the combined data into male and female datasets and performed CFA with different gender groups. SPAS-6b failed to fulfil the criteria for good model fit in the female group, with χ2/df = 3.16. The results suggested that our newly proposed SPAS-7 (items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12) showed the best fit index values for all indicators and with all datasets (see Table 3).

3.2. Factorial Validity

In the subsequent sections, we evaluate the factorial validity of the 7-item SPAS with items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 by EFA. The factor analysis results show KMO values and Bartlett’s test of sphericity for SPAS-7 of 0.889 (χ2 = 487.202, p < 0.001). The EFA result reveals that the new SPAS-7 has a single factor, and one factor extracted from the SPAS-7 explains 53.8% of the variance. The factor loadings for all items ranged from 0.58 to 0.80 (n = 193).

3.3. Internal Consistency

Descriptive statistics and correlations for the 7-item SPAS (n = 273 for Study 1; n = 193 for Study 2) are shown in Table 4. All seven items were normally distributed (skewness < 10; kurtosis < 3). All items were significantly correlated with each other (p < 0.01). The Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega results indicate that the SPAS-7 has good internal consistency (α = 0.86–0.89; ω = 0.86–0.89).

3.4. Convergent Validity

Table 5 shows that the new 7-item SPAS has good convergent validity, with a significant moderate correlation with SIAS-6 (α = 0.79; r = 0.55, p < 0.01), consistent with previous literature [27,28].

3.5. Divergent Validity

The results in Table 5 also show that the SPAS-7 possesses good divergent validity, in line with the results of previous research studies [24,29,45,46]. The 7-item SPAS was significantly correlated with the SWL (α = 0.88; r = −0.36, p < 0.01), RSE (α = 0.86; r = −0.33, p < 0.01), WHO-5 (α = 0.89; r = −0.47, p < 0.01) and GSE (α = 0.88; r = −0.33, p < 0.01).
To sum up, the newly proposed SPAS-7 is comparable with five highly discussed SPA scales and possesses good convergent and divergent validity according to Pearson’s correlation coefficient (see Table 5).

4. Discussion

In this study, we evaluated a number of debated versions of the SPAS that have been tested in many countries, including the original SPAS-12 [1], SPAS-9 [33], SPAS-8 [39], SPAS-7a [34] and SPAS-7b [41]. However, none of these versions showed good psychometric properties in our Chinese samples. The CFA findings illustrate that that neither the original version of the SPAS (χ2/df = 8.56; RMSEA = 0.167; SRMR = 0.103) nor Martin’s 9-item version (χ2/df = 5.96; RMSEA = 0.135) were robust in our sample. In Table 2, SPAS-8, SPAS-7a and SPAS-7b showed acceptable model fit with the data from Study 1 (n = 273) and the combined data from Studies 1 and 2 (n = 466). However, the factor loading of item 3 was far below the acceptable range for scale construction. We removed item 3 from SPAS-8 [39] to develop the 7-item version of the SPAS.
The results demonstrate that the newly developed SPAS-7, which includes items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of the original version of SPAS proposed by [1], has good psychometric properties in Chinese samples. Based on the psychometric results, we propose a new 7-item SPAS that meets stringent criteria for good model fit (see Table 3) in both male and female models. The SPAS-7 also possesses good internal consistency, convergent validity and divergent validity.
The abnormal finding related to item 3 (I wish I wasn’t so uptight about my physique or figure) has not previously been reported in the literature. All previous discussions of the SPAS scale have classified item 3 as a positively worded item, and all have shown acceptable values for factor loading, item-total correlation and other measures. When testing factorial validity, we found that item 3 had low factor loadings for all datasets, ranging from 0.11 to 0.23 (i.e., below the cut-off value of 0.40) [78,79]. According to Merenda [72], from literature in social and behavioural science, items with factor loading less than 0.3 can be decided to be rejected. Moreover, there is no literature that reported that item 3 belongs to a special factor and its item to total correlation less than 0.4 (ranged from 0.08 to 0.15), which was considered not to be retained [80]. Cronbach’s alpha increased for all models with the removal of item 3, and the item-total correlation coefficients of item 3 were also unacceptable. SPAS-7 (without item 3) demonstrated internal consistency that was superior to other short models and correlation coefficients are comparable with other scales which indicated an acceptable concurrent validity. We also considered the dimensionality of the scale as a bimodal model [81], but this hypothesis was rejected because item 3 had a single-peaked normal distribution. After consulting the literature relating to Chinese cultural patterns, this could possibly be explained by a tendency of Chinese respondents to give positive responses in a culture that is inherently modest [50,82], which can avoid others thinking they are too arrogant [83]. This intrinsic cultural trait may explain the controversy over item 3.
Many previous studies have built models that separate data from male and female participants to eliminate the effects of gender differences. Gender differences are also an important consideration in the development of the SPAS model, and gender-specific scales were proposed [5]. Fletcher and Crocker [84] suggested that 6 of the 12 SPAS items carry a gender bias and found through item response theory analysis that items 2 and 9 (related to clothing and external evaluation) favour female subjects, whereas items 4, 6, 7, 10 (related to muscularity) favour males. We performed CFA separately on male and female groups to further evaluate SPAS-7 and SPAS-6b. The results showed that SPAS-6b only had a good model fit for the male sample, which may result from most of the items favour males and no items favour females. Hence, SPAS-7 (items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12) is the most preferable scale for assessing SPA in the Chinese context.
This study also has some limitations. First, the two cross-sectional studies did not involve a wide range of respondents with different socio-economic characteristics. This may hinder the generalisability of the findings. Future studies could sample a wide range of respondents from different socio-economic backgrounds and occupational groups. Second, the gender ratio of this participant sample was unequal (male: n = 125; female: n = 341). Future research could use a stratified sampling method to ensure an appropriate distribution of gender proportions during the data collection process.

5. Conclusions

The current lack of a validated scale for SPA in the Chinese population may hinder the measurement of SPA levels in this population in epidemiological studies. The findings of this study provide empirical evidence to show that a new 7-item unidimensional SPAS scale, including items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of the original SPAS, has good psychometric properties for measuring SPA in the Chinese population.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.J. and S.-f.F.; methodology, J.J. and S.-f.F.; software, J.J. and S.-f.F.; validation, J.J. and S.-f.F.; formal analysis, J.J. and S.-f.F.; investigation, J.J. and S.-f.F.; resources, J.J. and S.-f.F.; data curation, J.J. and S.-f.F.; writing—original draft preparation, J.J. and S.-f.F.; writing—review and editing, J.J. and S.-f.F.; visualization, J.J. and S.-f.F.; supervision, S.-f.F.; project administration, J.J. and S.-f.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of City University of Hong Kong.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset used and/or analysed in this study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hart, E.A.; Leary, M.R.; Rejeski, W.J. Tie measurement of social physique anxiety. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1989, 11, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Crawford, S.; Eklund, R.C. Social physique anxiety, reasons for exercise, and attitudes toward exercise settings. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1994, 16, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Goffman, E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life; Penguin: London, UK, 1959. [Google Scholar]
  4. Leary, M.R. Self-presentational processes in exercise and sport. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1992, 14, 339–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hagger, M.S.; Stevenson, A. Social physique anxiety and physical self-esteem: Gender and age effects. Psychol. Health 2010, 25, 89–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Kowalski, N.P.; Crocker, P.R.; Kowalski, K.C. Physical self and physical activity relationships in college women: Does social physique anxiety moderate effects? Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2001, 72, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Haase, A.; Prapavessis, H. Social physique anxiety and eating attitudes: Moderating effects of body mass and gender. Psychol. Health Med. 1998, 3, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Eklund, R.C.; Kelley, B.; Wilson, P. The Social Physique Anxiety Scale: Men, women, and the effects of modifying Item 2. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1997, 19, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mack, D.E.; Strong, H.A.; Kowalski, K.C.; Crocker, P.R. Does Friendship Matter? An Examination of Social Physique Anxiety in Adolescence 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 37, 1248–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Koyuncu, M.; Tok, S.; Canpolat, A.M.; Catikkas, F. Body image satisfaction and dissatisfaction, social physique anxiety, self-esteem, and body fat ratio in female exercisers and nonexercisers. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2010, 38, 561–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Krane, V.; Stiles-Shipley, J.A.; Waldron, J.; Michalenok, J. Relationships among body satisfaction, social physique anxiety, and eating behaviors in female athletes and exercisers. J. Sport Behav. 2001, 24, 247–264. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ålgars, M.; Santtila, P.; Varjonen, M.; Witting, K.; Johansson, A.; Jern, P.; Sandnabba, N.K. The Adult Body: How Age, Gender, and Body Mass Index Are Related to Body Image. J. Aging Health 2009, 21, 1112–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Eklund, R.C.; Crawford, S. Active women, social physique anxiety, and exercise. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1994, 16, 431–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Brunet, J.; Sabiston, C.M. Social physique anxiety and physical activity: A self-determination theory perspective. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2009, 10, 329–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C.; Ntoumanis, N. A self-determination theory approach to the study of body image concerns, self-presentation and self-perceptions in a sample of aerobic instructors. J. Health Psychol. 2007, 12, 301–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Gammage, K.L.; Ginis, K.A.M.; Hall, C.R. Self-presentational efficacy: Its influence on social anxiety in an exercise context. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2004, 26, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lindwall, M.; Lindgren, E.-C. The effects of a 6-month exercise intervention programme on physical self-perceptions and social physique anxiety in non-physically active adolescent Swedish girls. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2005, 6, 643–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lazarus, R.S.; Lazarus, R.S. Emotion and Adaptation; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  19. Leary, M.R. Self-Presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal Behavior; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hausenblas, H.A.; Brewer, B.W.; Van Raalte, J.L. Self-presentation and exercise. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 2004, 16, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kowalski, K.C.; Mack, D.E.; Crocker, P.R.; Niefer, C.B.; Fleming, T.-L. Coping with social physique anxiety in adolescence. J. Adolesc. Health 2006, 39, e9–e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Diehl, N.S.; Johnson, C.E.; Rogers, R.L.; Petrie, T.A. Social physique anxiety and disordered eating: What’s the connection? Addict. Behav. 1998, 23, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Haase, A.M.; Prapavessis, H.; Owens, R.G. Perfectionism, social physique anxiety and disordered eating: A comparison of male and female elite athletes. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2002, 3, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Brunet, J.; Sabiston, C.M.; Dorsch, K.D.; McCreary, D.R. Exploring a model linking social physique anxiety, drive for muscularity, drive for thinness and self-esteem among adolescent boys and girls. Body Image 2010, 7, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Russell, W.D. Comparison of self-esteem, body satisfaction, and social physique anxiety across males of different exercise frequency and racial background. J. Sport Behav. 2002, 25, 74–90. [Google Scholar]
  26. Russell, W.D.; Cox, R.H. Social physique anxiety, body dissatisfaction, and self-esteem in college females of differing exercise frequency, perceived weight discrepancy, and race. J. Sport Behav. 2003, 26, 297–318. [Google Scholar]
  27. Atalay, A.A.; Gençöz, T. Critical factors of social physique anxiety: Exercising and body image satisfaction. Behav. Chang. 2008, 25, 178–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Levinson, C.A.; Rodebaugh, T.L. Social anxiety and eating disorder comorbidity: The role of negative social evaluation fears. Eat. Behav. 2012, 13, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Alcaraz-Ibanez, M.; Sicilia, A.; Burgueno, R. Social physique anxiety, mental health, and exercise: Analyzing the role of basic psychological needs and psychological inflexibility. Span. J. Psychol. 2017, 20, E16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Meyer, C.; Rumpf, H.-J.; Hapke, U.; John, U. Impact of psychiatric disorders in the general population: Satisfaction with life and the influence of comorbidity and disorder duration. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2004, 39, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Herring, M.P.; Gordon, B.R.; McDowell, C.P.; Quinn, L.M.; Lyons, M. Physical activity and analogue anxiety disorder symptoms and status: Mediating influence of social physique anxiety. J. Affect. Disord. 2021, 282, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Eklund, R.C.; Mack, D.; Hart, E. Factorial validity of the social physique anxiety scale for females. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1996, 18, 281–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Martin, K.A.; Rejeski, W.J.; Leary, M.R.; McAuley, E.; Bane, S. Is the Social Physique Anxiety Scale really multidimensional? Conceptual and statistical arguments for a unidimensional model. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1997, 19, 359–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Motl, R.W.; Conroy, D.E. Validity and factorial invariance of the Social Physique Anxiety Scale. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2000, 32, 1007–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C.; Ntoumanis, N. The role of self-determined motivation in the understanding of exercise-related behaviours, cognitions and physical self-evaluations. J. Sports Sci. 2006, 24, 393–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Scott, L.A.; Burke, K.L.; Joyner, A.B.; Brand, J.S. Examining the stability of the 7-item social physique anxiety scale using a test-retest method. Meas. Phys. Educ. Exerc. Sci. 2004, 8, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Eriksson, L.; Baigi, A.; Marklund, B.; Lindgren, E.-C. Social physique anxiety and sociocultural attitudes toward appearance impact on orthorexia test in fitness participants. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2008, 18, 389–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Lindwall, M.; Johnson, U. Social physique anxiety and its relationship to physical self-perception and perceived body discrepancy. In Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Sport Psychology, Skiathos, Greece, 28 May–2 June 2001. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hagger, M.S.; Aşçι, F.; Lindwall, M.; Hein, V.; Mülazιmoğlu-Ballι, Ö.; Tarrant, M.; Ruiz, Y.P.; Sell, V. Cross-cultural validity and measurement invariance of the social physique anxiety scale in five European nations. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2007, 17, 703–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Maiano, C.; Morin, A.J.; Eklund, R.C.; Monthuy-Blanc, J.; Garbarino, J.-M.; Stephan, Y. Construct validity of the social physique anxiety scale in a French adolescent sample. J. Personal. Assess. 2010, 92, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Isogai, H.; Brewer, B.; Cornelius, A.; Komiya, S.; Tokunaga, M.; Tokushima, S. Cross-cultural validation of the Social Physique Anxiety Scale. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 2001, 32, 76–87. [Google Scholar]
  42. Brislin, R.W. Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1970, 1, 185–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chang, A.M.; Chau, J.P.C.; Holroyd, E. Translation of questionnaires and issues of equivalence. J. Adv. Nurs. 1999, 29, 316–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cha, E.S.; Kim, K.H.; Erlen, J.A. Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: Issues and techniques. J. Adv. Nurs. 2007, 58, 386–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Berger, B.; Darby, L.; Owen, D.; Carels, R. Influence of a 16-Week Weight Loss Program and Social Physique Anxiety on Program Success and Subjective Well-Being in Obese, Sedentary Women. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2021, 19, 310–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Marquez, D.X.; McAuley, E. Physique anxiety and self-efficacy influences on perceptions of physical evaluation. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2001, 29, 649–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Diener, E.; Emmons, R.A.; Larsen, R.J.; Griffin, S. The satisfaction with life scale. J. Personal. Assess. 1985, 49, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kong, F.; Zhao, J.; You, X. Emotional intelligence and life satisfaction in Chinese university students: The mediating role of self-esteem and social support. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2012, 53, 1039–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rosenberg, M. Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE). Accept. Commit. Ther. Meas. Package 1965, 61, 18. [Google Scholar]
  50. Wu, Y.; Zuo, B.; Wen, F.; Yan, L. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Method effects, factorial structure and scale invariance across migrant child and urban child populations in China. J. Personal. Assess. 2017, 99, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Song, H.; Cai, H.; Brown, J.D.; Grimm, K.J. Differential item functioning of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale in the US and China: Measurement bias matters. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 14, 176–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bech, P. Clinical Psychometrics, 1st ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  53. Bech, P. Measuring the dimensions of psychological general well-being by the WHO-5. Qual. Life Newsl. 2004, 32, 15–16. [Google Scholar]
  54. Bech, P.; Olsen, L.R.; Kjoller, M.; Rasmussen, N.K. Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: A comparison of the SF-36 Mental Health subscale and the WHO-Five Well-Being Scale. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 2003, 12, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Schwarzer, R.; Jerusalem, M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. Meas. Health Psychol. 1995, 1, 35–37. [Google Scholar]
  56. Zhang, J.X.; Schwarzer, R. Measuring optimistic self-beliefs: A Chinese adaptation of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychol. Int. J. Psychol. Orient 1995, 38, 174–181. [Google Scholar]
  57. Zeng, G.; Fung, S.-f.; Li, J.; Hussain, N.; Yu, P. Evaluating the psychometric properties and factor structure of the general self-efficacy scale in China. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fergus, T.A.; Valentiner, D.P.; McGrath, P.B.; Gier-Lonsway, S.L.; Kim, H.-S. Short forms of the social interaction anxiety scale and the social phobia scale. J. Personal. Assess. 2012, 94, 310–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mattick, R.P.; Clarke, J.C. Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behav. Res. Ther. 1998, 36, 455–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Peng, Z.-W.; Lam, L.T.; Jin, J. Factors associated with social interaction anxiety among Chinese adolescents. East Asian Arch. Psychiatry 2011, 21, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  61. Li, C.-H. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav. Res. Methods 2016, 48, 936–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Bentler, P.M.; Bonett, D.G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 1980, 88, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Brown, T.A. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  65. Schreiber, J.B.; Nora, A.; Stage, F.K.; Barlow, E.A.; King, J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. J. Educ. Res. 2006, 99, 323–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  67. Satorra, A.; Bentler, P.M. A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika 2001, 66, 507–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Fokkema, M.; Greiff, S. How performing PCA and CFA on the same data equals trouble. Eur. J. Psychol. 2017, 33, 399–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics; Sage: Riverside, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  70. Kaiser, H.F. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Merenda, P.F. A guide to the proper use of factor analysis in the conduct and reporting of research: Pitfalls to avoid. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 1997, 30, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S.; Ullman, J.B. Using Multivariate Statistics; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2007; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
  75. Dunn, T.J.; Baguley, T.; Brunsden, V. From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br. J. Psychol. 2014, 105, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. McDonald, R.P. Test Theory: A Unified Treatment; Taylor and Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  77. Rosseel, Y. Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). J. Stat. Softw. 2012, 48, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Hinkin, T.R. A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. J. Manag. 1995, 21, 967–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hinkin, T.R. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organ. Res. Methods 1998, 1, 104–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wolfinbarger, M.; Gilly, M.C. eTailQ: Dimensionalizing, measuring and predicting etail quality. J. Retail. 2003, 79, 183–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Allik, J. A mixed-binomial model for Likert-type personality measures. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Wu, C.-H. An examination of the wording effect in the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale among culturally Chinese people. J. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 148, 535–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Heine, S.J.; Kitayama, S.; Lehman, D.R.; Takata, T.; Ide, E.; Leung, C.; Matsumoto, H. Divergent consequences of success and failure in japan and north america: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 81, 599–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fletcher, R.B.; Crocker, P. A polytomous item response theory analysis of social physique anxiety scale. Meas. Phys. Educ. Exerc. Sci. 2014, 18, 153–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Participant demographic characteristics.
Table 1. Participant demographic characteristics.
VariableRespondents (n = 466)
Age mean (SD)
Study 121.2 (2.21)
Study 223.5 (0.87)
Gender n (%)
Study 1 Male70 (25.6%)
Female203 (74.4%)
Study 2 Male55 (28.5%)
Female138 (71.5%)
Table
Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the five versions of SPAS.
Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the five versions of SPAS.
Modelχ2Dfχ2/dfRMSEA
[90% CI]		CFITLISRMR
Study 1 (n = 273)
SPAS-12 [1]462.202548.560.167 [0.153–0.181]0.9640.9560.103
SPAS-9 [33]160.815275.960.135 [0.115–0.155]0.9810.9750.075
SPAS-8 [39]27.574201.380.037 [0.000–0.068]0.9990.9980.039
SPAS-7a [34]25.945141.850.056 [0.019–0.089]0.9970.9960.043
SPAS-7b [41]15.848141.130.022 [0.000–0.065]0.9990.9990.031
Combo (n = 466)
SPAS-12 [1]623.5305411.550.151 [0.140–0.161]0.9640.9560.094
SPAS-9 [33]230.778278.550.127 [0.113–0.143]0.9770.9700.070
SPAS-8 [39]37.591201.880.043 [0.021–0.065]0.9980.9970.036
SPAS-7a [34]34.131142.440.058 [0.035–0.082]0.9960.9940.040
SPAS-7b [41]27.652141.980.046 [0.019–0.071]0.9980.9970.033
Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker–Lewis index, SRMR = standardized root mean square residual, Combo = Study 1 plus Study 2.
Table
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis of newly proposed 7-item SPAS.
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis of newly proposed 7-item SPAS.
Datasetχ2Dfχ2/dfRMSEA
[90% CI]		CFITLISRMR
Study 1 (n = 273)13.623140.970.000 [0.000–0.057]0.9990.9990.035
Combo (n = 466)21.990141.570.035 [0.000–0.062]0.9990.9980.032
Male (n = 125)11.285140.810.000 [0.000–0.071]0.9990.9990.038
Female (n = 341)35.635142.550.067 [0.040–0.095]0.9960.9930.045
Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker–Lewis index, SRMR = standardized root mean square residual. Combo = Study 1 plus Study 2.
Table
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlations for the items of SPAS-7 in Studies 1 and 2.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlations for the items of SPAS-7 in Studies 1 and 2.
Study 1Study 2
Item(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)
(1) SPAS2- -
(2) SPAS40.46 **- 0.41 **-
(3) SPAS60.43 **0.67 ** - 0.40 **0.55 **-
(4) SPAS70.47 **0.70 **0.70 **- 0.49 ** 0.59 **0.64 **-
(5) SPAS90.35 **0.62 **0.55 **0.54 **- 0.39 **0.48 **0.42 **0.46 **-
(6) SPAS100.30 **0.50 **0.55 **0.56 **0.55 **- 0.33 **0.45 **0.39 **0.47 **0.51 **-
(7) SPAS120.47 **0.60 **0.58 **0.58 **0.51 **0.55 **-0.39 **0.47 **0.44 **0.50 **0.41 **0.46 **-
M3.33.53.43.13.63.63.53.63.73.53.13.83.93.5
SD1.21.11.11.21.11.11.21.21.21.11.11.11.01.2
rit0.520.770.750.770.660.630.700.530.670.640.820.600.580.60
αiid0.890.860.860.860.880.880.870.850.830.830.820.840.840.84
Skewness−0.48−0.59−0.44−0.19−0.66−0.48−0.44−0.71−0.80−0.70−0.35−0.80−0.85−0.56
Kurtosis−0.72−0.48−0.62−0.85−0.25−0.44−0.67−0.48−0.26−0.35−0.77−0.09 0.14−0.68
Note. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), rit = Corrected item-total correlations, αiid = Cronbach’s alpha, if item deleted.
Table
Table 5. Correlation for six SPAS models in relation to construct-related scales in Study 2.
Table 5. Correlation for six SPAS models in relation to construct-related scales in Study 2.
ScaleSPAS-12SPAS-9SPAS-8SPAS-7aSPAS-7bSPAS-7
α = 0.88α = 0.84α = 0.83α = 0.80α = 0.82α = 0.86
ω = 0.88ω = 0.85ω = 0.84ω = 0.80ω = 0.82ω = 0.86
SPAS-121
SPAS-90.97 **1
SPAS-80.96 **0.98 **1
SPAS-7a0.94 **0.98 **0.97 **1
SPAS-7b0.92 **0.97 **0.99 **0.97 **1
SPAS-70.96 **0.97 **0.99 **0.95 **0.97 **1
Divergent Validity
SWLS−0.40 **−0.36 **−0.35 **−0.35 **−0.31 **−0.36 **
RSE−0.38 **−0.33 **−0.33 **−0.32 **−0.30 **−0.33 **
WHO-5−0.54 **−0.49 **−0.48 **−0.47 **−0.44 **−0.47 **
GSE−0.38 **−0.35 **−0.33 **−0.33 **−0.31 **−0.33 **
Convergent Validity
SIAS-60.53 **0.55 **0.55 **0.52 **0.54 **0.55 **
Note. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jin, J.; Fung, S.-f. Social Physique Anxiety Scale: Psychometric Evaluation and Development of a Chinese Adaptation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10921. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010921

AMA Style

Jin J, Fung S-f. Social Physique Anxiety Scale: Psychometric Evaluation and Development of a Chinese Adaptation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(20):10921. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010921

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jin, Jiahui, and Sai-fu Fung. 2021. "Social Physique Anxiety Scale: Psychometric Evaluation and Development of a Chinese Adaptation" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 20: 10921. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010921

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop