3.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis
For women, the results of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.87) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity [\({\chi }^{2}\)(91) = 1480.79, p < .001] suggested the appropriability of the data for EFA. As shown in Figure S1, parallel analysis (\({\lambda }_{1}\)= 4.86 > 0.71, \({\lambda }_{2}\)= 2.39 > 0.45, \({\lambda }_{3}\)= 1.36 > 0.33, and \({\lambda }_{4}\)= -0.05 < 0.24) indicated three factors, which could account for 73.42% of the total variance. The factor loadings of EFA on the intended factors ranged from .73 to .92 (see Table 2).
Table 2
Factor loadings of the exploratory factor analyses for women and men
Item
|
Women (n = 150)
|
|
Men (n = 150)
|
|
Negative fat talk
|
Positive fat talk
|
Negative muscle talk
|
|
Negative fat talk
|
Positive fat talk
|
Negative muscle talk
|
1. I need to lose some weight
|
.91
|
− .01
|
− .04
|
|
.92
|
.01
|
− .13
|
2. I feel fat.
|
.87
|
− .11
|
− .08
|
|
.90
|
− .16
|
− .07
|
3. My clothes are too tight.
|
.79
|
− .10
|
− .02
|
|
.67
|
− .05
|
.06
|
4. I should stop eating fattening foods.
|
.73
|
.00
|
.02
|
|
.81
|
.01
|
.15
|
5. I need to exercise more so I can lose some weight.
|
.82
|
.07
|
.15
|
|
.90
|
.09
|
.08
|
6. I wish I was more muscular.
|
− .09
|
− .14
|
.92
|
|
.08
|
− .07
|
.82
|
7. I wish my body were stronger.
|
− .03
|
.04
|
.89
|
|
− .04
|
− .02
|
.84
|
8. I should eat foods that promote muscle growth.
|
.01
|
− .02
|
.85
|
|
− .13
|
− .05
|
.85
|
9. I need to lift weights more often to build muscle.
|
.14
|
.15
|
.82
|
|
.16
|
.09
|
.77
|
10. I like the way I look.
|
− .15
|
.82
|
− .05
|
|
− .08
|
.78
|
− .07
|
11. I feel good about my body.
|
− .21
|
.78
|
.04
|
|
.01
|
.89
|
− .12
|
12. I am proud of what my body can do.
|
− .02
|
.83
|
.02
|
|
− .05
|
.78
|
.04
|
13. I am happy with my eating habits.
|
− .08
|
.78
|
− .07
|
|
− .08
|
.76
|
− .06
|
14. I am satisfied with my exercise habits.
|
.23
|
.85
|
.04
|
|
.08
|
.84
|
.16
|
Inter-factor correlation matrix
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Negative fat talk
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
Positive fat talk
|
− .43
|
1
|
|
|
− .36
|
1
|
|
Negative muscle talk
|
.08
|
.09
|
1
|
|
.18
|
− .18
|
1
|
For the data of men, the results of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.87) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity [\({\chi }^{2}\)(91) = 1353.50, p < .001] also suggest the appropriability for EFA. As shown in Figure S2, parallel analysis (\({\lambda }_{1}\)= 4.84 > 0.69, \({\lambda }_{2}\)= 1.82 > 0.43, \({\lambda }_{3}\)= 1.67 > 0.34, and \({\lambda }_{4}\)= -0.04 < 0.26) indicated three factors, which could account for 71.06% of the total variance. The factor loadings of EFA on the intended factors ranged from .67 to .92 (see Table 2).
3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
For women, results of the CFA showed that the three-factor structure had adequate model fit, with \({\chi }^{2}\)(74) = 199.04 (p < .001), CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, and SRMR = 0.08. For men, the CFA results also showed adequate model fit for the three-factor structure, with \({\chi }^{2}\)(74) = 149.64 (p < .001), CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98, and SRMR = 0.07. The factor loadings for women (a range of .71 to .97) and men (a range of .75 to .98) are described in Table 3.
Table 3
Factor loadings of the confirmatory factor analyses for women and men
Item
|
Women (n = 150)
|
|
Men (n = 150)
|
|
Negative fat talk
|
Positive fat talk
|
Negative muscle talk
|
|
Negative fat talk
|
Positive fat talk
|
Negative muscle talk
|
1. I need to lose some weight
|
.86
|
|
|
|
.98
|
|
|
2. I feel fat.
|
.97
|
|
|
|
.91
|
|
|
3. My clothes are too tight.
|
.71
|
|
|
|
.76
|
|
|
4. I should stop eating fattening foods.
|
.75
|
|
|
|
.77
|
|
|
5. I need to exercise more so I can lose some weight.
|
.75
|
|
|
|
.84
|
|
|
6. I wish I was more muscular.
|
|
|
.86
|
|
|
|
.92
|
7. I wish my body were stronger.
|
|
|
.85
|
|
|
|
.87
|
8. I should eat foods that promote muscle growth.
|
|
|
.84
|
|
|
|
.75
|
9. I need to lift weights more often to build muscle.
|
|
|
.85
|
|
|
|
.75
|
10. I like the way I look.
|
|
.88
|
|
|
|
.90
|
|
11. I feel good about my body.
|
|
.91
|
|
|
|
.94
|
|
12. I am proud of what my body can do.
|
|
.84
|
|
|
|
.76
|
|
13. I am happy with my eating habits.
|
|
.81
|
|
|
|
.87
|
|
14. I am satisfied with my exercise habits.
|
|
.74
|
|
|
|
.77
|
|
Inter-factor correlation matrix
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Negative fat talk
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
Positive fat talk
|
− .58***
|
1
|
|
|
− .57***
|
1
|
|
Negative muscle talk
|
− .03
|
.07
|
1
|
|
− .16*
|
.003
|
1
|
3.3. Gender Invariance and Differences
As shown in Table 4, placing constraints subsequently on configuration, factor loadings, and intercepts did not lead to a worsening of model fit, suggesting that a scalar invariance across women and men was supported for the C-BTS. Independent t tests showed that there was significantly more frequency of fat talk in women (M = 3.19, SD = 1.15) than men (M = 2.78, SD = 1.16), t(598) = 4.43 (p < .001; d = 0.35), and there was significantly less frequency of muscle talk in women (M = 2.40, SD = 1.15) than men (M = 3.65, SD = 1.10), t(598) = 13.67 (p < .001; d = 1.11). However, there were no significant differences between women (M = 3.50, SD = 1.15) and men (M = 3.46, SD = 1.09) on the frequency of positive body talk, t(598) = 0.45 (p = .651; d = 0.04).
Table 4
Measurement invariance across women and men
|
\({\chi }^{2}\)
|
df
|
CFI
|
TLI
|
SRMR
|
\({\Delta }\)CFI
|
\({\Delta }\)SRMR
|
Women (N = 300)
|
290.58***
|
74
|
0.968
|
0.961
|
0.073
|
|
|
Men (N = 300)
|
240.26***
|
74
|
0.981
|
0.976
|
0.065
|
|
|
Configural Model
|
528.92***
|
148
|
0.975
|
0.970
|
0.069
|
|
|
Metric Model
|
551.42***
|
159
|
0.974
|
0.971
|
0.071
|
-0.001
|
0.002
|
Scalar Model
|
661.56***
|
212
|
0.971
|
0.975
|
0.069
|
-0.003
|
-0.002
|
3.4. Reliability
For women, the Cronbach’s \(\alpha\)values were .91, .92, and .92 for the Negative Fat Talk, Negative Muscle Talk, and Positive Body Talk subscales, respectively. The McDonald’s \(\omega\) values were .91, .90, and .91 for the Negative Fat Talk, Negative Muscle Talk, and Positive Body Talk subscales, respectively. Furthermore, the two-week ICC values were .78, .85, and .80 for the Negative Fat Talk, Negative Muscle Talk, and Positive Body Talk subscales, respectively. Thus, all three subscales all had good internal consistency reliability and good test-retest reliability for women.
For men, the Cronbach’s \(\alpha\)values were .93, .89, and .92 for the Negative Fat Talk, Negative Muscle Talk, and Positive Body Talk subscales, respectively. The McDonald’s \(\omega\) values were .92, .88, and .90 for the Negative Fat Talk, Negative Muscle Talk, and Positive Body Talk subscales, respectively. Furthermore, the two-week ICC values were .79, .68, and .80 for the Negative Fat Talk, Negative Muscle Talk, and Positive Body Talk subscales, respectively. Thus, for men, all three subscales all had good internal consistency reliability, the Negative Fat Talk and Positive Body Talk subscales had good test-retest reliability, and the Negative Muscle Talk scale had moderate test-retest reliability.
3.5. Convergent and Concurrent Validity
For women, as described in Table 5, the Negative Fat Talk subscale scores correlated significantly with the NBTS total scores (r = .74, p < .001), suggesting good convergent validity of the Negative Fat Talk subscale. Furthermore, each subscale of the C-BTS also had significant correlations with corresponding eating and body image outcomes (e.g., the Negative Fat Talk subscale and body fat dissatisfaction, r = .67, p < .001; the Negative Muscle Talk subscale and drive for muscularity, r = .66, p < .001; and the Positive Body Talk subscale and body appreciation, r = .75, p < .001), suggesting the strong concurrent validity of the C-BTS in women.
Table 5
Bivariate correlations between the Body Talk Scale and related variables for women (N = 300)
Variables
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
1. BTS-Negative fat talk
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. BTS-Negative muscle talk
|
.03
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. BTS-Positive body talk
|
− .45***
|
.08
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. NBTS-Total
|
.74***
|
.08
|
− .51***
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. NBTS-Body concerns
|
.82***
|
− .10
|
− .57***
|
.90***
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. NBTS-Body comparison
|
.45***
|
.28***
|
− .31***
|
.86***
|
.56***
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. EDI-BD-Body fat dissatisfaction
|
.67***
|
− .02
|
− .73***
|
.70***
|
.77***
|
.45***
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. FMS-Drive for muscularity
|
.22***
|
.66***
|
− .01
|
.34***
|
.15**
|
.47***
|
.14*
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. EDE-QS-Thinness-oriented disordered eating
|
.62***
|
.00
|
− .38***
|
.68***
|
.67***
|
.51***
|
.59***
|
.23***
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10. MOET-Muscularity-oriented disordered eating
|
.50***
|
.28***
|
− .16**
|
.59***
|
.50***
|
.55***
|
.34***
|
.49***
|
.70***
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. BAS-2-Body appreciation
|
− .46***
|
− .02
|
.75***
|
− .57***
|
− .57***
|
− .42***
|
− .73***
|
− .07
|
− .55***
|
− .30***
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
12. FAS-Functionality appreciation
|
− .19***
|
.07
|
.36***
|
− .24***
|
− .25***
|
− .16**
|
− .35***
|
.03
|
− .22***
|
− .12*
|
.49***
|
1
|
|
|
|
13. BI-AAQ-Body image flexibility
|
− .56***
|
− .01
|
.46***
|
− .66***
|
− .65***
|
− .50***
|
− .62***
|
− .16**
|
− .69***
|
− .58***
|
.59***
|
.34***
|
1
|
|
|
14. Age
|
.03
|
.05
|
.06
|
− .01
|
− .002
|
− .01
|
− .02
|
.06
|
− .05
|
.02
|
.09
|
.06
|
.10
|
1
|
|
15. BMI
|
.51***
|
.01
|
− .32***
|
.35***
|
.47***
|
.12*
|
.55***
|
.02
|
.32***
|
.14*
|
.34***
|
− .15*
|
− .35***
|
.24***
|
1
|
Mean
|
3.19
|
2.40
|
3.50
|
4.08
|
3.89
|
4.28
|
30.91
|
3.01
|
9.84
|
1.40
|
3.64
|
4.31
|
5.12
|
29.48
|
20.32
|
SD
|
1.15
|
1.15
|
1.15
|
1.18
|
1.44
|
1.22
|
10.92
|
0.80
|
5.99
|
0.70
|
0.70
|
0.44
|
1.28
|
7.26
|
2.12
|
The correlation patterns of men are described in Table 6. Specifically, the Negative Fat Talk subscale scores correlated significantly with the MBTS Fat Talk subscale scores (r = .84, p < .001), suggesting its good convergent validity. The Negative Muscle Talk subscale scores had a significant correlation with the MBTS Muscle Talk subscale scores (r = .77, p < .001), suggesting its good convergent validity. Furthermore, like women, each subscale of the C-BTS also had significant correlations with corresponding eating and body image outcomes (e.g., the Negative Fat Talk subscale and body fat dissatisfaction, r = .72, p < .001; the Negative Muscle Talk subscale and drive for muscularity, r = .79, p < .001; and the Positive Body Talk subscale and body appreciation, r = .75, p < .001), suggesting the strong concurrent validity of the C-BTS in men.
Table 6
Bivariate correlations between the Body Talk Scale and related variables for men (N = 300)
Variables
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
1. BTS-Negative fat talk
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. BTS-Negative muscle talk
|
.17**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. BTS-Positive body talk
|
− .45***
|
− .08
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. MBTS-Fat talk
|
.84***
|
.23***
|
− .42***
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. MBTS-Muscle talk
|
.10
|
.77***
|
.01
|
.23***
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. EDI-BD-Body fat dissatisfaction
|
.72***
|
.14**
|
− .72***
|
.71***
|
.03
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. DMS-Drive for muscularity
|
.19**
|
.79***
|
− .14*
|
.30***
|
.79***
|
.18**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. EDE-QS-Thinness-oriented disordered eating
|
.73***
|
.29***
|
− .44***
|
.74***
|
.27***
|
.68***
|
.41***
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. MOET-Muscularity-oriented disordered eating
|
.54***
|
.49***
|
− .25***
|
.64***
|
.53***
|
.45***
|
.65***
|
.69***
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
10. BAS-2-Body appreciation
|
− .45***
|
− .09
|
.75***
|
− .41***
|
.03
|
− .74***
|
− .14*
|
− .53***
|
− .31***
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
11. FAS-Functionality appreciation
|
− .11
|
− .04
|
.34***
|
− .07
|
.11
|
− .30***
|
− .03
|
− .25***
|
− .09
|
.47***
|
1
|
|
|
|
12. BI-AAQ-Body image flexibility
|
− .61***
|
− .31***
|
.43***
|
− .62***
|
− .33***
|
− .62***
|
− .44***
|
− .75***
|
− .71***
|
.52***
|
.21***
|
1
|
|
|
13. Age
|
.12*
|
− .08
|
.10
|
.06
|
− .04
|
− .07
|
− .06
|
.01
|
.05
|
.18**
|
.11
|
− .001
|
1
|
|
14. BMI
|
.55***
|
− .12*
|
− .20***
|
.50***
|
− .16**
|
.42***
|
− .10
|
.41***
|
.22***
|
− .20***
|
− .02
|
− .30***
|
.31***
|
1
|
Mean
|
2.78
|
3.65
|
3.46
|
3.65
|
4.52
|
28.56
|
3.11
|
8.50
|
1.38
|
3.61
|
4.28
|
5.10
|
29.36
|
22.62
|
SD
|
1.16
|
1.10
|
1.09
|
1.58
|
1.30
|
9.97
|
0.82
|
5.66
|
0.71
|
0.67
|
0.43
|
1.15
|
6.81
|
2.38
|
3.6. Incremental Validity
As presented in Table S1, for women, when adjusting for covariates (i.e., age and BMI) and the NBTS scores, hierarchical linear regressions revealed that except for body image flexibility (\({\varDelta R}_{adj}^{2}\) = .01, p = .054), the C-BTS subscale scores could explain additional variance in all other potential body image and disordered eating outcomes, namely body fat dissatisfaction (\({\varDelta R}_{adj}^{2}\) = .15, p < .001), drive for muscularity (\({\varDelta R}_{adj}^{2}\) = .40, p < .001), thinness-oriented disordered eating (\({\varDelta R}_{adj}^{2}\) = .03, p = .002), muscularity-oriented disordered eating (\({\varDelta R}_{adj}^{2}\) = .09, p < .001), body appreciation (\({\varDelta R}_{adj}^{2}\) = .27, p < .001), and functionality appreciation (\({\varDelta R}_{adj}^{2}\) = .07, p < .001). These findings suggest the incremental validity of the C-BTS in women.
For men, the hierarchical linear regressions (Table S2) showed that when adjusting for covariates (i.e., age and BMI) and the MBTS scores, the BTS subscale scores could explain additional variance in all potential body image and disordered eating outcomes, including body fat dissatisfaction (\({\varDelta R}_{adj}^{2}\) = .20, p < .001), drive for muscularity (\({\varDelta R}_{adj}^{2}\) = .08, p < .001), thinness-oriented disordered eating (\({\varDelta R}_{adj}^{2}\) = .06, p < .001), muscularity-oriented disordered eating (\({\varDelta R}_{adj}^{2}\) = .01, p = .022), body appreciation (\({\varDelta R}_{adj}^{2}\) = .37, p < .001), functionality appreciation (\({\varDelta R}_{adj}^{2}\) = .12, p < .001), and body image flexibility (\({\varDelta R}_{adj}^{2}\) = .07, p < .001). These findings suggest the incremental validity of the C-BTS in men.