Stephanie Papadopoulos1, Xochitl de la Piedad Garcia1, Leah Brennan2. 1. School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Albury-Wodonga, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Conceptualisation and measurement of weight stigma varies across available studies assessing those affected. This paper aims to systematically review the psychometric properties of available self-reported measures of weight stigma. METHOD: Studies exploring the development and/or validation of weight stigma measures were identified through systematically searching Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. The Consensus-based Standards of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess the psychometric properties of measures. RESULTS: Thirty-six articles, reporting 18 different weight stigma measures, were included. For most included measures, measure development and content validity have not been assessed/reported. Structural validity, internal consistency, and hypothesis testing were the most commonly assessed/reported psychometric properties. High-quality ratings were given only for these properties. Most measures were rated as "indeterminate" and received an overall quality rating of "Very Low" as results were based on limited evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Psychometric properties for published weight stigma measures have rarely been assessed/reported. The observed poor methodological quality for measure development, and limited content validity evidence, negatively impact the quality of evidence for the measures. There is a need for studies assessing the psychometric properties of existing weight stigma measures using COSMIN guidelines, and for a well-designed weight stigma measure informed by both theory and research.
OBJECTIVE: Conceptualisation and measurement of weight stigma varies across available studies assessing those affected. This paper aims to systematically review the psychometric properties of available self-reported measures of weight stigma. METHOD: Studies exploring the development and/or validation of weight stigma measures were identified through systematically searching Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. The Consensus-based Standards of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess the psychometric properties of measures. RESULTS: Thirty-six articles, reporting 18 different weight stigma measures, were included. For most included measures, measure development and content validity have not been assessed/reported. Structural validity, internal consistency, and hypothesis testing were the most commonly assessed/reported psychometric properties. High-quality ratings were given only for these properties. Most measures were rated as "indeterminate" and received an overall quality rating of "Very Low" as results were based on limited evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Psychometric properties for published weight stigma measures have rarely been assessed/reported. The observed poor methodological quality for measure development, and limited content validity evidence, negatively impact the quality of evidence for the measures. There is a need for studies assessing the psychometric properties of existing weight stigma measures using COSMIN guidelines, and for a well-designed weight stigma measure informed by both theory and research.