Method of presentation and sex differences when using a revised figural drawing scale to measure body size estimation and dissatisfaction.

The present study examined whether a revision of the Gardner, Jappe, and Gardner (2009) BIAS-BD figural drawing scale gave more accurate estimations of body size estimation and body dissatisfaction than a prior version. It also examined whether the order of figure presentation led to differing values for body size estimation and body dissatisfaction. The revised BIAS-BD scale included a continuous line beneath 17 figural drawings ordered in either ascending or descending size. Results were compared with previous studies using the original scale in which the 17 figural drawings were presented in a random order and, additionally, with a method using an adjustable video image by which the participants estimated their perceived body size by adjusting the width of their static image. The scale was presented to 330 undergraduate university students, including 199 women and 131 men. Overall, compared to BMIs calculated from the participants' reports of their height and weight, men and women participants gave less accurate estimations of body size using the revised scale when compared to the original BIAS-BD scale and video methodology. Participants reported significantly less body dissatisfaction than with the original scale. There was no significant difference in body size estimation when the figures were presented in ascending or descending size. Body dissatisfaction was greater for women than men, and when the figures were presented in descending order. Methodological considerations for using figural drawing scales in body image research are discussed.