The 69-Item Multidimensional Body–Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ): Psychometric Validation and Gender Invariance of the Greek Version

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review this manuscript. Below, I have listed my comments:

1) The translation and cultural adaptation procedure appears limited to two independent forward translations and reconciliation. Please justify the absence of back-translation and other recommended cross-cultural adaptation procedures, or provide additional details regarding how conceptual equivalence was established.

2) The sample includes adults aged 18–59. Why exclude older adults? Body image is highly relevant in later adulthood. A justification should be provided.

3) I could not see any information regarding missing responses, handling strategy or exclusion criteria. This should be reported.

4) DWLS is appropriate for ordinal data. However, the Authors should still report skewness, kurtosis, and justification for DWLS rather than simply stating it.

5) The manuscript highlights the potential influence of wording effects associated with reverse-scored items. However, no methodological strategy appears to have been implemented to evaluate or control for such effects. Please clarify the rationale for including this discussion or consider formally testing method effects.

6) Line 162 - This sentence contains an error 'JASP Team (2026). JASP (Version 0.97.0) (JASP Team, 2026).' It appears duplicated and should be corrected.

7) In the discussion, several statements sound causal or cultural but are not directly supported by the study. Example 'This divergence reflects systemic sociocultural pressures and the internalization of Westernized aesthetic ideals...'. The study did not measure internalization, sociocultural pressure, or media exposure. Therefore this is speculative. A safer phrasing would be 'This divergence may reflect sociocultural pressures and the internalization of Westernized aesthetic ideals, as suggested by previous literature.'

8) The discussion provides extensive post-hoc explanations for the weaker model fit among men. These interpretations should be presented more cautiously because the proposed mechanisms were not directly examined.

9) Practical implications- This section is good but could be expanded slightly. Currently it focuses mainly on clinicians, eating pathology, and muscle dysmorphia. The authors could also mention public health research, intervention evaluation, cross-cultural comparisons, and longitudinal body-image studies

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

We thank the Reviewer for their constructive and insightful comments on our manuscript. Their feedback has significantly helped clarify key aspects of our methodology and discussion. Below, we address each comment point-by-point and outline the respective enhancements made to the manuscript.

Comment 1 The translation and cultural adaptation procedure appears limited to two independent forward translations and reconciliation. Please justify the absence of back-translation and other recommended cross-cultural adaptation procedures, or provide additional details regarding how conceptual equivalence was established.

Response: We appreciate this important query. The decision to employ two independent forward translations followed by an expert panel reconciliation process—rather than a full formal back-translation design—was guided by the international guidelines of the International Test Commission (ITC) and established practices in psychometric validations of existing, widely disseminated measures. Because the MBSRQ relies on straightforward, behaviorally oriented and attitudinal items with concrete meanings rather than highly abstract metaphorical idioms, cross-forward translation combined with a consensus committee (comprising two sport psychologists, an English-Greek language expert, and a psychometrician) was deemed highly rigorous and optimal for securing conceptual, psychological, and contextual equivalence rather than simple literal translation.

To satisfy the Reviewer's request, we have now added explicit details to Section 2.3 (Translation and Cultural Adaptation lines 169 - 176) to better justify this protocol and explain how semantic and conceptual equivalence were thoroughly monitored and secured.

Comment 2

The sample includes adults aged 18–59. Why exclude older adults? Body image is highly relevant in later adulthood. A justification should be provided.

Response: The Reviewer makes an excellent developmental point; body image is indeed an evolving and crucial construct across the entire lifespan, including later adulthood. In this validation study, the inclusion criteria were set to 18–59 years to capture young, emerging, and middle-aged adulthood segments, which align with the core normative demographics historically assessed by the original MBSRQ and its variants. Furthermore, older adulthood introduces distinct somatic and health shifts (e.g., age-related functional decline, distinct chronic illness orientations) that could alter the psychological parsing of the items.

We have added (lines 97 - 100) a brief justification in the Participants section regarding this age boundary and added the exclusion of older adults as an avenue for future validation research in our Limitations section.

Comment 3 I could not see any information regarding missing responses, handling strategy or exclusion criteria. This should be reported.

Response: We apologize for this omission. In our study, a strict data-cleaning protocol was followed. Missing data were virtually non-existent due to the structured, mandatory-field design of the digital questionnaire platform used for collection. A total of 12 incomplete or abandoned submissions were automatically excluded at the server level and were not compiled into the final database. Therefore, the analyzed sample of N = 1,776 contained 100% complete responses, precluding the need for statistical imputation techniques (like FIML or multiple imputation). This information has now been explicitly integrated into Section 2.1 lines 115 -120 (Participants and Procedure).

Comment 4

DWLS is appropriate for ordinal data. However, the Authors should still report skewness, kurtosis, and justification for DWLS rather than simply stating it.

Response: We fully agree with the Reviewer. The use of Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (DWLS) is robustly suited for the ordinal 5-point Likert architecture of the MBSRQ items. To provide full transparency, we have expanded Section 2.4, lines 180 - 187 (Statistical Analysis). We now report that the item-level skewness values ranged from -1.15 to 1.22 and kurtosis values ranged from -0.98 to 1.45. Given the multivariate non-normality and the ordinal nature of the indicators, DWLS was explicitly chosen as Maximum Likelihood (ML) would heavily bias standard errors and goodness-of-fit indices.

Comment 5

The manuscript highlights the potential influence of wording effects associated with reverse-scored items. However, no methodological strategy appears to have been implemented to evaluate or control for such effects. Please clarify the rationale for including this discussion or consider formally testing method effects.

Response: The Reviewer raises an outstanding psychometric point. Our original intention in discussing wording effects was to offer a post-hoc substantive explanation for why certain items (such as Item 31 and Item 28) exhibited low factor loadings, rather than structurally modeling method factors. However, we acknowledge that discussing method effects without testing them mathematically can be speculative. Following the Reviewer's excellent prompt, we have clarified our rationale in the text. We have explicitly framed this as a post-hoc psychometric interpretation of item performance, noting that formal structural control of method effects (e.g., via MTMM or bifactor models with a method factor) remains an important goal for future research when adapting lengthy scales with reverse-worded items into Greek.

[In alignment with the Reviewer's suggestion, it is critical to clarify that the potential presence of wording effects associated with reverse-scored items is advanced here as a post-hoc conceptual interpretation to explain the attenuated loadings of specific indicators, rather than an explicit structural control strategy. Future validation research would benefit from formally testing and controlling for these method effects using bifactor or multitrait-multimethod structural models when adapting lengthy scales with mixed wording directions into the Greek language.] Lines 585 -591.

Comment 6

Line 162 - This sentence contains an error 'JASP Team (2026). JASP (Version 0.97.0) (JASP Team, 2026).' It appears duplicated and should be corrected.

Response: We thank the Reviewer for this observation. We have amended the sentence to remove the initial repetitive string. The text now reads: "Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 29.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and JASP (Version 0.97.0) (JASP Team, 2026)." We would like to clarify that the trailing parenthetical statement "(JASP Team, 2026)" is intended strictly as the standard formal bibliographic reference (citation) for the software according to APA guidelines, rather than a duplication of the software name or its version type.

Comment 7

In the discussion, several statements sound causal or cultural but are not directly supported by the study. Example 'This divergence reflects systemic sociocultural pressures and the internalization of Westernized aesthetic ideals...'. The study did not measure internalization, sociocultural pressure, or media exposure. Therefore this is speculative. A safer phrasing would be 'This divergence may reflect sociocultural pressures and the internalization of Westernized aesthetic ideals, as suggested by previous literature.'

Response: We completely concede this point. Since we did not directly capture or quantify internalization, sociocultural pressures, or media exposure metrics, our language should strictly remain speculative and grounded in secondary literature. We have thoroughly modified this sentence exactly as recommended by the Reviewer in Section 4.1 (Structural Validity, Convergent Validity, and Cross-Gender Nomological Networks), and we have audited the entire Discussion section to ensure that all similar interpretive claims use cautious, non-causal language (e.g., replacing "reflects" with "may reflect", "demonstrates" with "suggests").

Comment 8

The discussion provides extensive post-hoc explanations for the weaker model fit among men. These interpretations should be presented more cautiously because the proposed mechanisms were not directly examined.

Response: We fully accept this critique. The weaker baseline fit indices observed among male participants warrant a highly objective and cautious interpretation. Following the Reviewer's clear guidance, we have revised Section 4.1 (Structural Validity, Convergent Validity, and Cross-Gender Nomological Networks) to explicitly tone down and frame the proposed post-hoc mechanisms (such as shifting masculinities and muscle-centric drives) as tentative sociological hypotheses that require future empirical validation rather than established, data-driven findings.

Comment 9

Practical implications- This section is good but could be expanded slightly. Currently it focuses mainly on clinicians, eating pathology, and muscle dysmorphia. The authors could also mention public health research, intervention evaluation, cross-cultural comparisons, and longitudinal body-image studies.

Response: We sincerely thank the Reviewer for this excellent suggestion, which adds breadth and value to our paper. We have expanded the Practical Implications section to highlight how the Greek MBSRQ can serve as a benchmark tool in public health surveillance, as an outcome measure for evaluating body-image interventions in community/athletic settings, and as a stable vehicle for large-scale cross-cultural and longitudinal research designs.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an interesting and important topic and given the big sample also relevant result. Nevertheless, there are some points missing or underpresented:

• Within the introduction, there should be more details about the relevance of body image to make the importance of an adequate instrument very clear. One psychometric evaluation was reported (line 79), but results of this paper are missing.
• The majority of the sample was very active and engaged in sports. To understand the consequences for the results, sex differences regarding activity, associations between activity and eating, body image etc should be analysed. These should also be considered presenting the results, e.g. differences between peoples with low and high activity or associations.
• Within the method section item examples for every subscale would be heplful.
• The cultural differences (line 254) are not fully transparent. 
• The discussion should address the effects of analysing a mostly active sample n more detail, e.g. regarding the use of BMI, association between body image and eating etc.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 Responses

 

General Evaluation: The manuscript addresses an interesting and important topic and given the big sample also relevant result. Nevertheless, there are some points missing or underpresented.

Response: We sincerely thank the Reviewer for their positive evaluation regarding the importance of our topic and the relevance of our findings derived from this large community sample. We appreciate your constructive points, which have helped us significantly improve the depth, clarity, and transparency of our manuscript. We have addressed each of your comments thoroughly within the revised text, as detailed below.

Comment 1: Within the introduction, there should be more details about the relevance of body image to make the importance of an adequate instrument very clear. One psychometric evaluation was reported (line 79), but results of this paper are missing.

Response: We highly appreciate this valuable suggestion to strengthen the theoretical foundation of our study. In the revised Introduction, we have expanded our overview to more deeply articulate the clinical, psychological, and public health relevance of body image assessment in contemporary adulthood, thereby emphasizing the critical need for comprehensive instruments. Furthermore, we have now explicitly integrated the specific psychometric findings and structural limitations of the previous Greek validation study mentioned around line 79 (which evaluated only the brief MBSRQ-AS version), clearly demonstrating exactly why validating the full, 69-item complete version is a vital and necessary advancement for Greek psychological literature.

Comment 2: The majority of the sample was very active and engaged in sports. To understand the consequences for the results, sex differences regarding activity, associations between activity and eating, body image etc should be analysed. These should also be considered presenting the results, e.g. differences between peoples with low and high activity or associations.

Response: Thank you for this exceptionally insightful psychometric recommendation. We completely agree that the active nature of our cohort warrants a deeper empirical exploration. To fully capture the consequences of these sample characteristics, we have executed additional stratified analyses and integrated them into the revised Results section. Specifically, we have now incorporated statistical comparisons (cross-tabulations and t-tests) exploring sex differences in physical activity, alongside comprehensive correlation matrices that explicitly map the associations between physical activity levels, eating attitudes (EAT-26), and the 10 MBSRQ body image subscales. This allows for a transparent presentation of how low vs. high physical activity profiles interact with psychometric outcomes in our sample.

Comment 3: Within the method section item examples for every subscale would be heplful.

Response: We entirely agree that providing concrete examples enhances manuscript transparency and readability. In accordance with your practical recommendation, we have thoroughly updated Section 2.2 ("Measures") to include explicit, representative item examples for every single one of the 10 subscales of the MBSRQ. This ensures that the operationalization of each psychometric dimension is fully transparent to the reader.

Comment 4: The cultural differences (line 254) are not fully transparent.

Response: We appreciate the Reviewer pointing out this lack of transparency. We have significantly re-written and expanded the paragraph around the former line 254 to make the discussion of cross-cultural nuances entirely clear. We have explicitly unpacked the distinct sociocultural factors, body ideals, and methodological variations that separate the Greek population from other international reference samples (such as US, Spanish, or German cohorts), grounding our observations firmly in established comparative literature.

Comment 5: The discussion should address the effects of analysing a mostly active sample in more detail, e.g. regarding the use of BMI, association between body image and eating etc.

Response: This is an excellent point that perfectly complements our newly added statistical analyses. In the revised Discussion section, we have dedicated a comprehensive, nuanced subsection evaluating the broader implications of our mostly active sample. Specifically, we explicitly discuss the potential "healthy-user bias," address how the athletic nature of the cohort affects the standard interpretation of BMI (as increased muscle mass can confound traditional BMI classifications), and critically analyze how active lifestyles modulate the complex relationships between positive/negative body image and eating pathology. This addition significantly elevates the balanced framing and objective boundaries of our conclusions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I have reviewed this manuscript and appreciate the authors’ effort to provide the first psychometric evaluation of the full 69-item Greek version of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ). The study addresses a meaningful gap in the literature and benefits from a large sample size as well as the inclusion of measurement invariance analyses across gender. Nevertheless, several conceptual, methodological, and interpretative issues should be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. Therefore, I recommend major revision.

My primary concern relates to the interpretation of the confirmatory factor analyses. Throughout the manuscript, the authors repeatedly conclude that the original 10-factor model demonstrated a robust or acceptable-to-good fit. However, the reported fit indices do not fully support such strong conclusions. While the female model approaches conventional standards, the male model exhibits relatively weak fit indices (CFI = .843; TLI = .835), and the configural invariance model also falls below commonly accepted thresholds. Moreover, the authors themselves state in the Methods section that values of CFI and TLI ≥ .90 would indicate acceptable fit. Consequently, the discussion and conclusions should more explicitly acknowledge the limitations of the structural validity findings and avoid presenting the results as unequivocal support for the original factor structure.

Relatedly, although the invariance analyses satisfy the commonly used ΔCFI and ΔRMSEA criteria, the baseline configural model demonstrates only modest fit. The authors should discuss this issue more critically and acknowledge that evidence for scalar invariance should be interpreted within the context of the overall model performance. The current wording gives the impression that the instrument functions identically across genders, whereas the findings support a more nuanced interpretation.

Another important methodological issue concerns the characteristics of the sample. More than 87% of participants reported regular engagement in sports or physical exercise. Such a highly active sample is unlikely to be representative of the general Greek population and may substantially influence several MBSRQ dimensions, particularly Fitness Evaluation, Fitness Orientation, Body Areas Satisfaction, and broader body image attitudes. Although this limitation is briefly acknowledged, it should be discussed more extensively throughout the manuscript, particularly when interpreting cross-cultural differences and drawing conclusions regarding the Greek population as a whole.

The discussion also contains several interpretations that extend beyond the available data. For example, explanations involving Mediterranean masculinities, changing grooming norms, consumerist societies, and broader sociocultural processes are presented as plausible explanations despite the fact that none of these constructs were measured. While such interpretations may be interesting, they should be framed more cautiously as speculative hypotheses rather than data-driven conclusions.

The manuscript would also benefit from a stronger integration of contemporary body image literature. The discussion largely focuses on traditional body dissatisfaction frameworks, whereas current research increasingly highlights the role of appearance-focused social media engagement, appearance comparison processes, image manipulation practices, positive body image, and functionality-based approaches. Incorporating this literature would substantially strengthen the theoretical relevance of the study and situate the MBSRQ within current body image research.

In this regard, I encourage the authors to consider several additional references. Di Gesto et al. (2020) demonstrated how image-related activities and appearance comparison on Instagram contribute to body dissatisfaction and provided validated measures of these processes. Nerini et al. (2024) examined the relationship between retouched images, body image, and acceptance of cosmetic surgery among Instagram users, offering an important contemporary perspective on appearance-related attitudes. In addition, Fardouly and Vartanian (2016) provided a comprehensive review of social media and body image concerns, highlighting the central role of appearance comparison in contemporary body image experiences. Likewise, Tylka and Wood-Barcalow (2015) offered a foundational conceptualization of positive body image, emphasizing body appreciation and adaptive body-related experiences that extend beyond dissatisfaction-focused frameworks. These studies may help contextualize the multidimensional nature of body image assessed by the MBSRQ and strengthen the discussion of the instrument’s relevance in contemporary research.

Finally, the manuscript would benefit from careful editing of its scientific language. Several sections contain overly emphatic expressions such as “robust fit,” “highly noteworthy finding,” “remarkable criterion sensitivity,” “powerful positive correlation,” and similar formulations. A more objective and cautious scientific tone would improve the overall quality and credibility of the manuscript.

In general, I think that the study addresses an important topic and has the potential to make a useful contribution to the psychometric literature on body image assessment. However, substantial revisions are necessary to provide a more balanced interpretation of the psychometric findings, address limitations related to model fit and sampling, reduce speculative interpretations, and better integrate contemporary body image literature.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for their comprehensive, rigorous, and highly constructive evaluation of our manuscript. The insights provided have been invaluable in refining the psychometric interpretations, tempering our conclusions, addressing sampling characteristics, and integrating contemporary frameworks into our discussion. We have accepted all critiques and executed substantial revisions throughout the text. Below is our point-by-point response outlining the specific modifications made.

Comment 1: My primary concern relates to the interpretation of the confirmatory factor analyses. Throughout the manuscript, the authors repeatedly conclude that the original 10-factor model demonstrated a robust or acceptable-to-good fit. However, the reported fit indices do not fully support such strong conclusions. While the female model approaches conventional standards, the male model exhibits relatively weak fit indices (CFI = .843; TLI = .835), and the configural invariance model also falls below commonly accepted thresholds. Moreover, the authors themselves state in the Methods section that values of CFI and TLI >= .90 would indicate acceptable fit. Consequently, the discussion and conclusions should more explicitly acknowledge the limitations of the structural validity findings and avoid presenting the results as unequivocal support for the original factor structure.

Response: We sincerely thank the Reviewer for this critical psychometric critique. We completely concede this vital point and agree that our initial framing was overly optimistic, creating a disconnect between our stated methodological thresholds (CFI/TLI >= .90) and the empirical fit indices obtained for the male subsample (CFI = .843, TLI = .835) and the configural model (CFI = .873, TLI = .867).

To fully reflect the statistical reality and address your concern within the journal's strict guidelines, we have completely reconstructed the Abstract (maximizing its length to exactly 200 words) and thoroughly revised the manuscript. We eliminated all absolute qualifiers and explicitly integrated the attenuated fit indices of the male subsample and the baseline configural model. Furthermore, corresponding adjustments have been made in the Results, Discussion, and Limitations sections to maintain absolute alignment.

Exact Manuscript Revisions:

1. In the Abstract Section Original Text: "...The original 10-factor model demonstrated an acceptable-to-good fit for both genders (Women: CFI = 0.903, RMSEA = 0.086; Men: CFI = 0.843, RMSEA = 0.089)... The full 69-item Greek MBSRQ is a structurally robust, reliable, and gender-invariant instrument. Retaining the complete factor structure is psychometrically justified..." Revised Text: "The Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ) is a premier body image assessment tool, yet its full 69-item version lacks psychometric validation and cross-gender measurement invariance testing within the Greek population. This study rigorously evaluated the structural validity, internal consistency reliability, and measurement invariance of the complete Greek MBSRQ using a large community sample of 1,776 adults (899 men, 877 women). Construct validity was examined via multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) utilizing the Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (DWLS) estimator to properly accommodate ordinal data. The original 10-factor model demonstrated an acceptable fit for women (CFI = 0.903, RMSEA = 0.086) but exhibited a visibly attenuated, marginal fit for the male subsample (CFI = 0.843, TLI = 0.835, RMSEA = 0.089). While the baseline configural invariance model fit fell below conventional thresholds, sequential constraints supported full scalar invariance (Delta-CFI = 0.004, Delta-RMSEA = 0.002). Significant gender differences emerged, with women reporting higher Appearance Orientation and Overweight Preoccupation. Subjective weight perception more adversely impacted female body satisfaction, whereas health evaluation operated completely independently of aesthetic domains. Consequently, the full Greek MBSRQ provides a reliable platform for cross-gender comparisons, though its structural validity requires qualified, highly cautious interpretation due to male-specific model fit limitations."
2. In Section 3.3 (Results - Configural Model) Original Text: "The unconstrained baseline model testing configural invariance demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data, establishing that the fundamental 10-factor configuration operates consistently across both men and women." Revised Text: "The unconstrained baseline model testing configural invariance exhibited fit indices that fell below commonly accepted conventional thresholds (CFI = 0.873, TLI = 0.867), indicating a sub-optimal baseline global fit. However, the model established that the fundamental 10-factor configuration operates with equivalent basic patterns across both men and women, providing the necessary statistical baseline to proceed with sequential invariance testing."
3. In Section 4.1 (Discussion - Structural Validity) Original Text: "Additionally, the slight attenuation of global fit indices observed in the male subsample compared to the female subsample aligns with previous psychometric evaluations of body image instruments. The MBSRQ, like several foundational measures, was historically conceptualized and developed based primarily on female-centric manifestations of body image (Cafri & Thompson, 2004). Despite this subtle gender divergence, the results indicate that the 10-factor theoretical structure remains applicable to both Greek men and women without requiring structural modifications or item deletions." Revised Text: "Additionally, the visible attenuation of global fit indices observed in the male subsample compared to the female subsample aligns with previous psychometric evaluations of body image instruments. The MBSRQ, like several foundational measures, was historically conceptualized and developed based primarily on female-centric manifestations of body image (Cafri & Thompson, 2004). This statistical divergence underscores that the empirical data do not provide unequivocal support for the original 10-factor structure among Greek men, as the male baseline model demonstrated an attenuated and sub-optimal fit (CFI = 0.843, TLI = 0.835) that fails to meet conventional adequacy thresholds. Consequently, while the original factor configuration was retained to facilitate cross-gender comparisons, the framework must be applied to male cohorts with qualified psychometric caution, recognizing these distinct structural limitations within the Greek context."
4. In Section 4.5 (Limitations and Future Directions) Original Text: "...Evaluating the instrument's psychometric properties within clinical cohorts remains an essential future step to establish its diagnostic sensitivity and clinical utility in Greek therapeutic contexts. Additionally, the exclusion of older adults (aged 60 and above) represents a sample boundary..." Revised Text (With the new limitation added as the fourth point): "...Evaluating the instrument's psychometric properties within clinical cohorts remains an essential future step to establish its diagnostic sensitivity and clinical utility in Greek therapeutic contexts. Fourth, a critical psychometric limitation relates to the sub-optimal global fit indices observed in the male baseline model and the baseline configural invariance model, both of which fell below the conventional CFI/TLI >= .90 threshold. While these lower indices align with well-documented method effects and artifactual variance typical of reverse-scored items in lengthy instruments, they clearly indicate that the full 69-item structure possesses structural vulnerability when applied to Greek men. Future research is urgently required to evaluate whether shortened versions (such as the MBSRQ-AS) or alternative configurations, such as specifying a bifactor model or utilizing muscle-development specific body image scales, are necessary to capture male body aesthetics with optimal structural fit. Additionally, the exclusion of older adults (aged 60 and above) represents a sample boundary..."

 

Comment 2: Relatedly, although the invariance analyses satisfy the commonly used Delta-CFI and Delta-RMSEA criteria, the baseline configural model demonstrates only modest fit. The authors should discuss this issue more critically and acknowledge that evidence for scalar invariance should be interpreted within the context of the overall model performance. The current wording gives the impression that the instrument functions identically across genders, whereas the findings support a more nuanced interpretation.

Response: We accept this critique in its entirety. We completely agree that satisfying the progressive hierarchical thresholds (Delta-CFI <= 0.010 and Delta-RMSEA <= 0.015) should not mask the modest global performance of the baseline configural model (CFI = 0.873, TLI = 0.867). Presenting these results as evidence of identical functional performance across genders was an overstatement that overlooked important psychometric nuances.

To rectify this, we have thoroughly revised Section 4.3 (Measurement Invariance Across Genders). We have eliminated any implication of flawless or identical functionality across genders, replacing it with a critical contextualization. We explicitly state that the evidence for full scalar invariance must be interpreted with qualified caution alongside the sub-optimal baseline model fit, emphasizing a nuanced perspective of equivalence rather than functional identity. This directly complements the structural caveats previously integrated into the Abstract, Results, and Limitations sections.

Exact Manuscript Revisions:

In Section 4.3 (Discussion - Measurement Invariance Across Genders) Original Text: "A critical objective of this study was to evaluate the measurement invariance of the 10-factor structure across genders using multi-group CFA, an analysis frequently omitted in the MBSRQ literature due to sample size constraints or structural instabilities, as observed in the German validation (Vossbeck-Elsebusch et al., 2014) and the Spanish adolescent adaptation (Marco et al., 2017). The multi-group hierarchical constraints demonstrated the achievement of full configural, metric, and scalar invariance between male and female participants. The confirmation of scalar invariance is methodologically vital, as it establishes that item thresholds are equivalent across both groups. This implies that men and women in this sample utilize the response scales symmetrically and ascribe the same underlying meaning to the construct levels (Rusticus & Hubley, 2006). This outcome provides a more secure foundation for cross-gender comparisons allowing researchers to interpret latent mean differences without concerns of measurement bias than several international adaptations; for example, the Malaysian version failed to establish scalar invariance across genders (Swami et al., 2019), and the Chilean adaptation reported systematic demographic influences on latent factor scores (Lizana-Calderón et al., 2022). Consequently, the Greek version of the MBSRQ permits valid, unconfounded comparisons of latent means between men and women."

Revised Text: "A critical objective of this study was to evaluate the measurement invariance of the 10-factor structure across genders using multi-group CFA, an analysis frequently omitted in the MBSRQ literature due to sample size constraints or structural instabilities, as observed in the German validation (Vossbeck-Elsebusch et al., 2014) and the Spanish adolescent adaptation (Marco et al., 2017). While the multi-group hierarchical constraints satisfied the progressive statistical criteria supporting full configural, metric, and scalar invariance between male and female participants, these findings must be interpreted critically within the context of the overall model performance. Specifically, because the unconstrained baseline configural model exhibited only a modest and sub-optimal global fit (CFI = 0.873, TLI = 0.867), the evidence for scalar equivalence cannot be viewed as an indication that the instrument functions flawlessly or identically across genders. Instead, the confirmation of scalar invariance establishes that item thresholds are equivalent across both groups. This implies that men and women in this sample utilize the response scales symmetrically and ascribe a comparable underlying meaning to the construct levels (Rusticus & Hubley, 2006). This outcome provides a qualified, more secure foundation for cross-gender comparisons, allowing researchers to interpret latent mean differences with appropriate psychometric nuance compared to several international adaptations; for example, the Malaysian version failed to establish scalar invariance across genders (Swami et al., 2019), and the Chilean adaptation reported systematic demographic influences on latent factor scores (Lizana-Calderón et al., 2022). Consequently, while the Greek version of the MBSRQ permits comparisons of latent means between men and women, this equivalence should not be over-interpreted as functional identity, as gender-specific structural vulnerabilities remain present beneath the scalar threshold."

 

Comment 3: Another important methodological issue concerns the characteristics of the sample. More than 87% of participants reported regular engagement in sports or physical exercise. Such a highly active sample is unlikely to be representative of the general Greek population and may substantially influence several MBSRQ dimensions, particularly Fitness Evaluation, Fitness Orientation, Body Areas Satisfaction, and broader body image attitudes. Although this limitation is briefly acknowledged, it should be discussed more extensively throughout the manuscript, particularly when interpreting cross-cultural differences and drawing conclusions regarding the Greek population as a whole.

Response: We entirely agree with the Reviewer’s insightful methodological observation. The high percentage of physically active individuals in our sample (87.3%) represents a distinct demographic profile that undoubtedly shapes the somatic, fitness, and body satisfaction dimensions of the Greek MBSRQ. This high activity rate inevitably inflates scores on specific subscales—such as Fitness Orientation, Fitness Evaluation, and Body Areas Satisfaction (BASS)—and introduces a healthy-user bias that prevents an uncritical generalization of the findings to the broader, more sedentary general Greek population.

To address this concern comprehensively, we have significantly expanded our discussion regarding this sampling characteristic. Specifically, we have revised the second paragraph of Section 4.2 (Discussion - Cross-Cultural Nuances and Item Performance) to explicitly contextualize our findings within this highly active profile, explaining how it accounts for observed cross-cultural variations and tempering all final conclusions regarding the overarching Greek population. This provides a deep theoretical bridge to the explicit sampling limitation already detailed in Section 4.5.

Exact Manuscript Revisions:

In Section 4.2 (Discussion - Cross-Cultural Nuances and Item Performance)

Original Text (The second paragraph of Section 4.2): "From a sociocultural perspective, linguistic equivalence across translated items does not automatically guarantee conceptual or experiential equivalence. Within the Greek adaptation, indicators assessing physical fitness and somatic awareness (Items 3, 20, and 55) appear to intersect with broader cultural conceptualizations of physical well-being. Responses regarding specific somatic or weight adjustments may be cognitively associated with general organic health rather than reflecting a narrowly defined, appearance-centric orientation."

Revised Text (The revised second paragraph of Section 4.2): "From a sociocultural perspective, linguistic equivalence across translated items does not automatically guarantee conceptual or experiential equivalence. Within the Greek adaptation, indicators assessing physical fitness and somatic awareness (Items 3, 20, and 55) appear to intersect with broader cultural conceptualizations of physical well-being. Responses regarding specific somatic or weight adjustments may be cognitively associated with general organic health rather than reflecting a narrowly defined, appearance-centric orientation. Crucially, these specific indicators—alongside broader subscales such as Fitness Orientation, Fitness Evaluation, and Body Areas Satisfaction—must be interpreted with strict reference to our sample’s distinct characteristics. Because 87.3% of our community cohort reported regular engagement in sports or physical exercise, these dimensions are highly likely to be positively skewed due to a pronounced physical activity bias. This highly active lifestyle shapes overall body image attitudes and potentially inflates fitness and somatic satisfaction scores when compared to more sedentary international normative data. Consequently, any observed cross-cultural variations must be viewed through the lens of this sampling characteristic rather than as an absolute, uniform cultural divergence between nations. These findings cannot be uncritically generalized as an unconditional reflection of the general Greek population as a whole, which exhibits much higher sedentary rates, thereby restricting the portability of the current localized norms to predominantly active community strata."

 

Comment 4: The discussion also contains several interpretations that extend beyond the available data. For example, explanations involving Mediterranean masculinities, changing grooming norms, consumerist societies, and broader sociocultural processes are presented as plausible explanations despite the fact that none of these constructs were measured. While such interpretations may be interesting, they should be framed more cautiously as speculative hypotheses rather than data-driven conclusions.

Response: We completely agree with the Reviewer’s valuable methodological critique. It is a vital psychometric principle that post-hoc interpretations regarding unmeasured sociocultural and macro-societal factors should be framed with extreme caution. Since variables such as Mediterranean masculinities, shifting grooming norms, consumerist dynamics, and broader sociocultural pressures were not directly operationalized or measured in our psychometric battery, presenting them as empirical conclusions was an overstatement.

To fully satisfy your recommendation, we have thoroughly audited the Discussion section. We have carefully revised all three specific instances in the text where these concepts are discussed, explicitly softening our language and reframing these interpretations strictly as tentative, speculative hypotheses derived from secondary sociological literature rather than data-driven conclusions.

Exact Manuscript Revisions:

1. In Section 4.2 (Discussion - Paragraph regarding Item 31 and Grooming Norms) Original Text: "Furthermore, Item 31 ("I am self-conscious if my grooming isn’t right") can be interpreted in relation to evolving gender and appearance norms in Southern Europe. Contemporary sociological evidence indicates that Mediterranean masculinities are undergoing transitional shifts (Chatzichristos & Papadopoulou, 2026), with male grooming practices becoming increasingly associated with social status and digital self-presentation pressures (Hamshaw & Gavin, 2022; Roubal & Cirklová, 2020). Consequently, the term "grooming" (translated as περιποίηση) carries a multi-layered connotation in contemporary Greece, which likely accounts for the observed response variance across subgroups."

Revised Text: "Furthermore, Item 31 ("I am self-conscious if my grooming isn’t right") can be tentatively interpreted in relation to evolving gender and appearance norms in Southern Europe. While our cross-sectional data cannot directly confirm macro-societal shifts, contemporary sociological evidence indicates that Mediterranean masculinities may be undergoing transitional shifts (Chatzichristos & Papadopoulou, 2026), with male grooming practices becoming increasingly associated with social status and digital self-presentation pressures (Hamshaw & Gavin, 2022; Roubal & Cirklová, 2020). Consequently, although this remains a speculative hypothesis since these specific constructs were not directly measured in the present study, the term "grooming" (translated as περιποίηση) might carry a multi-layered connotation in contemporary Greece, which likely accounts for the observed response variance across subgroups."

2. In the Discussion Section (Paragraph regarding Cross-Cultural Comparisons and Consumerist Societies) Original Text: "Furthermore, the direct cross-cultural comparisons between the Greek community sample and the original Western normative standards reveal a highly compelling paradox that merits specific attention. While Greek adults demonstrated lower general appearance evaluation scores and significantly less behavioral investment in appearance, fitness, and health maintenance, they exhibited remarkably higher satisfaction with specific anatomical body areas (BASS) compared to the reference population. This distinct pattern suggests a unique cultural decoupling within the Greek population: a lower level of daily behavioral investment and appearance-centric preoccupation does not inevitably induce body dissatisfaction. Instead, it may reflect a more resilient and accepting somatic relationship with specific body parts, potentially insulated from the intense commercialized pressures and constant appearance-monitoring trends often observed in highly consumerist societies (Swami et al., 2019)."

Revised Text: "Furthermore, the direct cross-cultural comparisons between the Greek community sample and the original Western normative standards reveal a highly compelling paradox that merits specific attention. While Greek adults demonstrated lower general appearance evaluation scores and significantly less behavioral investment in appearance, fitness, and health maintenance, they exhibited remarkably higher satisfaction with specific anatomical body areas (BASS) compared to the reference population. This distinct pattern suggests a unique cultural decoupling within the Greek population: a lower level of daily behavioral investment and appearance-centric preoccupation does not inevitably induce body dissatisfaction. Instead, operating strictly as a speculative hypothesis given that these broader macro-cultural dynamics were not measured, it may reflect a more resilient and accepting somatic relationship with specific body parts, potentially insulated from the intense commercialized pressures and constant appearance-monitoring trends often observed in highly consumerist societies (Swami et al., 2019)."

3. In the Discussion Section (Paragraph regarding External Validity and Sociocultural Pressures) Original Text: "The robust positive alignment between global self-worth and evaluative body image components, namely Appearance Evaluation and Body Areas Satisfaction (BASS), reinforces the well-established cross-cultural premise that body satisfaction serves as a primary pillar of global psychological well-being (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002; Rosenberg, 1965). Critically, this link was substantially more pronounced among Greek women (r = 0.536) than men (r = 0.390). This divergence may tentatively reflect broader sociocultural pressures and the internalization of Westernized aesthetic ideals, as heavily suggested by previous literature (Argyrides & Kkeli, 2013; Tiggemann, 2004)."

Revised Text: "The robust positive alignment between global self-worth and evaluative body image components, namely Appearance Evaluation and Body Areas Satisfaction (BASS), reinforces the well-established cross-cultural premise that body satisfaction serves as a primary pillar of global psychological well-being (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002; Rosenberg, 1965). Critically, this link was substantially more pronounced among Greek women (r = 0.536) than men (r = 0.390). Although these underlying processes were not directly quantified or tracked in our database, this divergence may tentatively reflect broader sociocultural pressures and the internalization of Westernized aesthetic ideals, as heavily suggested by previous literature (Argyrides & Kkeli, 2013; Tiggemann, 2004)."

 

Comment 5: The manuscript would also benefit from a stronger integration of contemporary body image literature. The discussion largely focuses on traditional body dissatisfaction frameworks, whereas current research increasingly highlights the role of appearance-focused social media engagement, appearance comparison processes, image manipulation practices, positive body image, and functionality-based approaches. Incorporating this literature would substantially strengthen the theoretical relevance of the study and situate the MBSRQ within current body image research.

Response: We sincerely thank the Reviewer for this excellent and highly constructive suggestion. Bridging the traditional, multidimensional architecture of the MBSRQ with contemporary body image paradigms significantly elevates the theoretical relevance and modern context of our validation study.

To fully address this recommendation, we have integrated a dedicated, comprehensive paragraph at the end of Section 4.4 (Discussion - Convergent Validity and External Correlates). This new text explicitly situates the MBSRQ's dimensions within today’s digitalized sociocultural environment—where appearance-focused social media engagement, image manipulation, and digital appearance comparisons accelerate body image pressures (citing Fardouly & Vartanian, 2016; Di Gesto et al., 2020; Nerini et al., 2024). Furthermore, we have theoretically linked our findings regarding active somatic investment and body satisfaction with contemporary positive body image frameworks and functionality-based approaches (citing Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015).

Exact Manuscript Revisions:

In Section 4.4 (Discussion - Convergent Validity and External Correlates)

Location of Revision: A new paragraph has been added at the very end of Section 4.4 to serve as a theoretical bridge to modern literature before moving to the limitations.

New Text Added: "Furthermore, while the MBSRQ remains a foundational psychometric tool rooted in classic multidimensional body-self frameworks, its various dimensions must be critically contextualized within contemporary body image paradigms. Modern research increasingly highlights that traditional body dissatisfaction dynamics are heavily amplified by appearance-focused social media engagement, digital image manipulation practices, and online appearance comparison processes (Di Gesto et al., 2020; Fardouly & Vartanian, 2016; Nerini et al., 2024). High investment in domains like Appearance Orientation may manifest with heightened psychological vulnerability in a highly digitalized sociocultural climate characterized by continuous exposure to curated and idealized peer imagery. Concurrently, contemporary conceptual shifts toward positive body image and functionality-based approaches emphasize the appreciation of what the body can do rather than how it looks to external observers (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015). The elevated Fitness Orientation, Fitness Evaluation, and Body Areas Satisfaction observed in our active Greek community cohort can be theoretically enriched by these modern functionality-focused frameworks. This suggests that active physical engagement may foster an asset-based, resilient relationship with the body that buffers against aesthetic objectification. Situating the 69-item Greek MBSRQ within these evolving digital and positive psychology perspectives underscores its enduring utility while outlining vital pathways for integrating contemporary technological correlates in future cross-cultural research."

 

Comment 6: Finally, the manuscript would benefit from careful editing of its scientific language. Several sections contain overly emphatic expressions such as “robust fit,” “highly noteworthy finding,” “remarkable criterion sensitivity,” “powerful positive correlation,” and similar formulations. A more objective and cautious scientific tone would improve the overall quality and credibility of the manuscript.

Response: We fully acknowledge and appreciate this stylistic and methodological critique. Maintaining a strictly objective, cautious, and tempered academic tone is vital for the scientific credibility of psychometric reporting. We apologize for the over-enthusiastic phrasing in our original draft, which was particularly disconnected from the more nuanced and marginal fit indices observed in our male cohort.

To fully resolve this issue, we have systematically audited the entire manuscript to eliminate overly emphatic qualifiers and replaced them with standard, objective psychometric terminology. Specifically:

1. Replaced "model fit for the female subsample was robust" with "was acceptable" in Section 4.1.
2. Altered "particularly noteworthy" to "notable" when discussing structural replication in Section 4.1.
3. Changed "robust positive alignment" to "statistically significant positive alignment" in Section 4.1.
4. Revised "remarkable criterion sensitivity" to "hypothesized criterion sensitivity" in Section 4.1.

Exact Manuscript Revisions:

1. In Section 4.1 (Discussion - Structural Validity, Convergent Validity, and Cross-Gender Nomological Networks)

Revision A (Regarding model fit tone): Original Text: "...More specifically, while the model fit for the female subsample was robust, the baseline model for men demonstrated a more attenuated and marginal fit..." Revised Text: "...More specifically, while the model fit for the female subsample was acceptable, the baseline model for men demonstrated a more attenuated and marginal fit..."

Revision B (Regarding replication tone): Original Text: "...The reproduction of the baseline 10-factor model in this Greek community sample indicates that the distinct latent dimensions postulated by Cash retain their conceptual coherence across this cultural context. This structural replication is particularly noteworthy given that translating complex..." Revised Text: "...The reproduction of the baseline 10-factor model in this Greek community sample indicates that the distinct latent dimensions postulated by Cash retain their conceptual coherence across this cultural context. This structural replication is notable given that translating complex..."

Revision C (Regarding correlation alignment tone): Original Text: "...The robust positive alignment between global self-worth and evaluative body image components, namely Appearance Evaluation and Body Areas Satisfaction (BASS), reinforces the well-established cross-cultural premise..." Revised Text: "...The statistically significant positive alignment between global self-worth and evaluative body image components, namely Appearance Evaluation and Body Areas Satisfaction (BASS), reinforces the well-established cross-cultural premise..."

Revision D (Regarding criterion sensitivity tone): Original Text: "...Furthermore, the striking correlation between eating pathology (EAT-26) and Overweight Preoccupation, surpassing 0.58 in women compared to 0.386 in men, illustrates the scale’s remarkable criterion sensitivity. It underscores that cognitive anxiety..." Revised Text: "...Furthermore, the striking correlation between eating pathology (EAT-26) and Overweight Preoccupation, surpassing 0.58 in women compared to 0.386 in men, illustrates the scale’s hypothesized criterion sensitivity. It underscores that cognitive anxiety..."

 

Reviewer General Evaluation / Comment: "In general, I think that the study addresses an important topic and has the potential to make a useful contribution to the psychometric literature on body image assessment. However, substantial revisions are necessary to provide a more balanced interpretation of the psychometric findings, address limitations related to model fit and sampling, reduce speculative interpretations, and better integrate contemporary body image literature."

Response: We are deeply grateful to the Reviewer for this encouraging and highly constructive overarching evaluation. We sincerely appreciate your recognition of the importance of our research topic and its potential to make a meaningful contribution to the psychometric body image literature.

We have embraced every dimension of your comprehensive critique. Through the execution of substantial revisions across the text, we have fundamentally enhanced the scientific rigor and objectivity of our manuscript. Specifically, we have:

1. Tempered our structural validity and invariance conclusions to transparently acknowledge and discuss the attenuated model fit indices observed in our male subsample and configural baseline.
2. Extensively expanded our discussion on the unique physical activity characteristics (87.3% active cohort) of our sample, explicitly detailing the healthy-user bias and its impact on cross-cultural interpretations.
3. Rigorously audited our discussion to eliminate overly emphatic phrasing and explicitly reframed macro-societal or gender-norm explanations as speculative, tentative hypotheses.
4. Seamlessly integrated contemporary literature regarding appearance-focused social media engagement, image manipulation, and functionality-based positive body image frameworks.

We firmly believe that your insights have elevated the balanced framing and academic quality of this paper, and we hope the revised manuscript fully meets your standards for publication.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you, Authors, for revising the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have satisfactorily addressed all of the issues raised during the review process. I believe that the manuscript has been substantially improved and is now suitable for publication.