Table 2 Description of studies

Beliefs About Appearance Questionnaire

(BAAS)

Spangler and Stice [82]

No

PCA and CFA indicated a one-factor model

University Sample 1 = 462

University Sample 2 = 117

64% aged 18–21

Age range 17–29

53%

100%

Bulimic Automatic Thoughts Test

(BATT)

Franko and Zuroff [31]

No

No factor analysis performed

BN = 64

Depressed college = 20

Non-binge obese = 20

Control college = 20

25.20 (?)

20.60 (?)

20.60 (?)

20.60 (?)

?

?

?

?

Body Checking Cognitions Scale

(BCCS)

Mountford et al. [60]

Yes

PCA and CFA indicated a four-factor model:

1. Objective verification beliefs

2. Reassurance beliefs

3. Safety beliefs

4. Body control beliefs

Non-clinical = 180

Clinical ED = 84

22.40 (6.64)

28.30 (8.69)

100%

100%

Bulimia Cognitive Distortions Scale

(BCDS)

Bonifazi et al. [7]

No

No factor analysis performed

BN = 15

Restrained eaters = 15

Control = 15

20.10 (2.20)

19.50 (2.60)

19.40 (1.30)

100%

100%

100%

Schulman et al. [80]

Yes

EFA indicated two-factor model:

1. Cognitive distortions associated with automatic eating behaviours

2. Cognitive distortions associated with physical appearance

BN = 55

Control = 55

24.50 (?)

22.60 (?)

100%

100%

Bulimic Thoughts Questionnaire

(BTQ)

Phelan [68]

Yes

CFA indicated a three-factor model:

1. Self-schema

2. Self-efficacy

3. Salient beliefs

BN = 31

Obese = 20

Control = 22

N/A (‘college’)

100%

Eating Beliefs Questionnaire

(EBQ)

Burton et al. [12]

No

CFA indicated a two-factor model:

1. Positive beliefs about eating

2. Negative Beliefs about eating

Community = 290

University = 283

BE = 76

Obese = 120

27.54 (9.57)

20.23 (4.80)

35.97 (17.68)

42.32 (9.51)

67.9%

52.3%

100%

58%

Burton et al. [14]

No

No factor analysis performed

BN = 38

BED = 36

Control = 114

23.08 (4.45)

49.72 (16.35)

29.12 (10.34)

100%

100%

70.2%

Eating Beliefs Questionnaire 18

(EBQ-18)

Burton and Abbott [10]

No

EFA indicated and CFA supported a three-factor model:

1. Positive beliefs about eating

2. Negative beliefs about eating

3. Permissive beliefs about eating

University = 907

20.38 (4.88)

72%

Burton et al. [13]

No

CFA supported a three-factor model as in Burton and Abbott [10]

Total sample = 688

25.38 (11.82)

63.1%

Eating Disorder Beliefs Questionnaire

(EDBQ)

Cooper et al. [18]

Yes

PCA indicated a four-factor model:

1. Negative self-beliefs

2. Weight and shape as a means of acceptance by others

3. Weight and shape as a means to self-acceptance

4. Control over eating

Study 1: Non-clinical = 249

20.90 (?)

100%

Bergin and Wade [6]

No

CFA supported four-factor model as in Cooper et al. [18]

Non-clinical = 298

BN = 44

24.00 (9.65)

27.00 (7.76)

100%

97.7%

Eating Disorder Core Beliefs Questionnaire

(ED-CBQ)

Fairchild and Cooper [28]

Yes

EFA indicated five-factor model:

1. Self-loathing

2. Unassertive/inhibited

3. High standards for self

4. Demanding/in need of help and support

5. Abandoned/deprived

Non-clinical = 500

26.25 (8.70)

100%

Eating Disorder Core Beliefs Questionnaire Revised

(ED-CBQ-R)

Hatoum et al. [40]

No

CFA indicated four-factor model:

1. Self-loathing

2. Unassertive/inhibited

3. Demanding/in need of help and support

4. Abandoned/deprived

Non-clinical = 763

19.21 (3.21)

71%

Hatoum et al. [41]

No

CFA supported four-factor model as in Hatoum et al. [40]

Non-clinical = 283

20.23 (4.80)

52.3%

Eating Disorder Inventory—Body Dissatisfaction Subscale

(EDI [BD])

Garner et al. [36]

Yes

No factor analysis performed

AN Restrictors = 48

AN Bulimics = 65

Non-clinical 1 = 577

Non-clinical 2 = 166

Normal weight bulimic = 195

Obese = 44

Formerly obese = 52

Recovered anorexic = 17

21.00 (?)

22.40 (?)

19.90 (?)

20.30 (?)

20.80 (?)

32.50 (?)

36.70 (?)

23.90 (?)

100%

100%

100%

0%

100%

100%

100%

?

Cooper et al. [19]

No

No factor analysis performed

Psychiatric outpatients = 27

N/A (Range 17–39)

100%

Gross et al. [38]

No

No factor analysis performed

Bulimia = 82

24.30 (?)

100%

Raciti and Norcross [71]

No

PCA supported the hypothesised eight-factor model

(including the body dissatisfaction subscale)

Non-clinical = 268

18.00 (0.78)

100%

Wear and Pratz [95]

No

No factor analysis performed

University = 70

N/A (‘University’)

75.7%

Welch et al. [96]

No

PCA indicated a three-factor model, not supporting the eight original EDI subscales

(body dissatisfaction subscale not indicated as a separate factor/subscale)

University 1 = 

University 2 = 

Aerobic dancers = 142

20.00 (?)

21.00 (?)

26.00 (?)

?

?

?

tt et al. (1990)

No

No factor analysis performed

AN = 65

General psychiatric = 69

Bulimia = 66

23.00 (7.00)

31.00 (6.30)

26.10 (5.70)

100%

100%

100%

Klemchuk et al. [47]

No

PCA indicated a six-factor model, not supporting the eight original EDI subscales

(body dissatisfaction subscale not indicated as a separate factor/subscale)

University 1 = 621

University 2 = 636

University 3 = 249

18.30 (1.00)

18.80 (0.70)

20.60 (0.80)

100%

100%

100%

Schaefer et al. [79]

No

EFA indicated a five-factor model, not supporting the eight original EDI subscales

(including the body dissatisfaction subscale)

BN subsample = 48

EDNOS subsample = 17

Total ED sample = 79

24.40 (4.00)

29.00 (7.77)

? (?)

100%

100%

100%

Eating Disorder Inventory II—Body Dissatisfaction Subscale

(EDI-II [BD])

Tasca et al. [86]

No

CFAs supported a second-order two factor structure for the original EDI scales in the BED sample but not the BN sample

CFAs did not support the hypothesised two-factor structure in either sample

BED = 144

BN Purging = 152

41.97 (12.35)

29.39 (8.80)

100%

100%

Spillane et al. [83]

No

CFA supported the hypothesised eight-factor structure, and provided evidence for invariance of body dissatisfaction subscale across gender

University 1 = 215

University 2 = 214

18.48 (1.07)

18.83 (1.15)

100%

0%

Reilly et al. [72]

No

No factor analysis performed

University = 529

N/A (‘University’)

55.4%

Eating Disorder Inventory III—Body Dissatisfaction Subscale

(EDI-III [BD])

Kashubeck-West et al. [46]

No

CFA did not support one-factor structure hypothesised for the body dissatisfaction subscale

EFA suggested a two-factor model:

1. Stomach sizes

2. Thighs, hips, butt

University = 278

29.04 (9.35)

100%

Cordero et al. [22]

No

EFA using the ‘eating disorder risk composite’ subscales supported the hypothesised three-factor model:

1. Drive for thinness

2. Bulimia

3. Body dissatisfaction*

University = 248

20.30 (4.50)

97.6%

Stein et al. [85]

No

No factor analysis performed

University = 477

19.80 (2.40)

100%

Belon et al. [4]

No

CFA using the ‘eating disorder risk composite’ subscales supported the hypothesised three-factor model in the full sample:

1. Drive for thinness

2. Bulimia

3. Body dissatisfaction*

Measurement invariance not supported in subsamples for the body dissatisfaction subscale (Caucasian and Hispanic subsamples)

University = 688

20.40 (3.50)

100%

Rothstein et al. [74]

No

CFA using the ‘eating disorder risk composite’ subscales supported the hypothesised three-factor model in European American subsample

1. Drive for thinness

2. Bulimia

3. Body dissatisfaction*

A follow-up EFA using the ‘eating disorder risk composite’ subscales indicated a four-factor model in African American subsample:

1. Drive for thinness

2. Bulimia

3. Body dissatisfaction*

4. Body satisfaction

African American = 104

European American = 197

29.03 (11.37)

27.30 (9.82)

100%

Forbush et al. [30]

No

No factor analysis performed

University = 227

19.80 (3.00)

58.2%

Eating Expectancy Inventory

(EEI)

Williams-Kerver et al. [99]

No

CFA supported the hypothesised five-factor model:

1. Eating helps manage negative affect

2. Eating is pleasurable and useful as a reward

3. Eating leads to feeling out of control

4. Eating enhances cognitive competence

5. Eating alleviates boredom

Bariatric = 262

45.30 (12.80)

100%

Functions of Binge Eating Scale

(FBES)

O’Loghlen et al. [62]

Yes

EFA and CFA indicated an eight-factor model:

1. Self-protection

2. Compensatory eating

3. Hedonic hunger

4. Emotional regulation

5. Control

6. Self-punishment

7. Emotion expression

8. Numbness/dissociation

Non-clinical = 882

28.52 (9.55)

76.6%

Irrational Food Beliefs Scale

(IFBS)

Osberg et al. [64]

Yes

EFA indicated a two-factor model:

1. Irrational beliefs about food and eating

2. Rational beliefs about food and eating

University sample 1 = 139

University sample 2 = 58

University sample 3 = 301

Obese = 96

19.25 (2.56)

N/A (‘college’)

19.54 (2.93)

49.50 (11.90)

81.3%

79.3%

68.1%

80.2%

Interpersonal Outcome Expectancy for Thinness Scale

(IOET)

Li et al. [49]

Yes

EFA indicated a one-factor model:

1. Positive interpersonal outcome expectancies for being thin

University sample 1 = 361

University sample 2 = 184

19.37 (1.56)

19.10 (1.55)

100%

100%

Mizes Anorectic Cognitions Questionnaire

(MACQ)

Mizes and Klesges [58]

Yes

PCA indicated a three-factor model:

1. Rigid weight and eating regulation

2. Weight and eating behaviour as the basis of approval from others

3. Self-esteem based off excessive self-control

Non-clinical = 205

N/A (‘college’)

48.8%

Mizes [54]

No

No factor analysis performed

Non-clinical = 205

N/A (‘college’)

48.8%

Mizes [55]

No

PCA supported three-factor model as in Mizes and Klesges [58]

Non-clinical = 100

18.50 (1.70)

100%

Mizes [56]

No

No factor analysis performed

BN = 15

AN = 8

Psychiatric Control = 11

‘18 + ’ (N/A)

86.7%

87.5%

90.9%

Bonifazi et al. [7]^a

No

No factor analysis performed

BN = 15

Restrained eaters = 15

Control = 15

20.10 (2.20)

19.50 (2.60)

19.40 (1.30)

100%

Mizes Anorectic Cognitions Questionnaire Brief

(MACQ-B)

Osman et al. [65]

No

CFA indicated a three-factor model as in Mizes et al. [57]

Non-clinical = 290

20.63 (1.98)

66.6%

Mizes Anorectic Cognitions Questionnaire Revised

(MACQ-R)

Mizes et al. [57]

No

PCA supported three-factor model:

1. Self-control and self esteem

2. Weight and approval

3. Rigid weight regulation and fear of weight gain

AN = 44

BN = 97

AN (B/P) = 7

EDNOS = 57

25.90 (9.20)

97.1%

Muscle Dysmorphia Inventory—Drive for Size Subscale

(MDDI [DS])

Hildebrandt et al. [43]

Yes

PCA indicated a three-factor model:

1. Drive for size*

2. Appearance intolerance

3. Functional impairment

Weightlifters = 42

Weightlifters = 237

28.23 (8.07)

32.64 (12.37)

0%

0%

Compte et al. [16]

No

EFA and CFA supported the three-factor model as in Hildebrandt et al. [43]

Gay men = 715

Lesbian women = 404

35.40 (10.10)

31.60 (8.40)

0%

100%

Nagata et al. [61]

No

EFA and CFA supported the three-factor model as in Hildebrandt et al. [43]

Transgender men = 330

30.90 (9.80)

0%

Perceived Benefits of Thinness Scale

(PBTS)

Flatt et al. [29]

Yes

EFA and CFA indicated a one-factor model

Non-clinical = 3246

22.18 (5.31)

100%

Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire 4—Internalisation Thin/Low Body Fat subscale (SATAQ-4 [IT])

Schaefer et al. [75]

No

EFA and CFA indicated a five-factor model:

1. Internalisation—Thin/low body fat*

2. Internalization—Muscular/athletic

3. Pressures—Family

4. Pressures—Peers

5. Pressures—Media

Non-clinical = 859

Non-clinical = 440

Non-clinical = 304

Non-clinical = 349

Non-clinical = 362

Non-clinical = 271

20.17 (2.41)

18.71(1.01)

19.99 (1.69)

18.87 (1.61)

22.73 (2.82)

20.31 (1.75)

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

0%

Schaefer et al. [76]

No

No factor analysis performed

Non-clinical = 787

20.17 (2.41)

100%

Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire 4 Revised-Internalisation Thin/Low Body Fat subscale

(SATAQ-4R [IT])

Schaefer et al. [78]

No

EFA and CFA indicated a seven-factor model:

1. Internalisation—Thin/low body fat*

2. Internalization—Muscular/athletic

3. Internalisation: General attractiveness

4. Pressures—Family

5. Pressures—Peers

6. Pressures—significant others

7. Pressures—Media

Non-clinical = 566

Non-clinical = 548

Non-clinical = 133

Non-clinical = 290

20.53 (2.52)

20.55 (4.43)

19.59 (2.35)

20.84 (2.70)

100%

100%

100%

0%

Thompson et al. [88]

No

CFA indicated a bifactor model (indicating shared and unique constructs) for the

1. SATAQ-4R -Internalisation—Thin/low body fat subscale*

2. IBSS-R

University = 1114

20.54 (2.48)

100%

Convertino et al. [17]

No

CFA supported seven-factor model as in Schaefer et al. [78]

Non-clinical = 479

Non-clinical = 482

24.03 (3.76)

23.33 (3.69)

0%

100%

Stirling Eating Disorders Scales

Anorexic Dietary Cognitions subscale

(SEDS [ADC])

Bulimic Dietary Cognitions subscale

(SEDS [BDC])

Low Self-esteem subscale

(SEDS [LSE])

Williams et al. [98]¹

Yes

No factor analysis performed

AN = 38

BN = 36

Non-clinical control = 68

24.70 (5.30)

20.50 (6.10)

23.80 (4.90)

?

?

?

Openshaw and Waller [63]¹

No

No factor analysis performed

BN = 40

28.40 (6.60)

100%

Gamble et al. [33]¹

No

CFA did not support the original eight-factor model

PCA indicated a five-factor solution, not matching the original eight SEDS subscales

Clinical ED = 241

26.8 (7.8)

?

Testable Assumptions Questionnaire for Eating Disorders (TAQ-ED)

Hinrichsen et al. [44]

Yes

EFA indicated a three-factor model:

1. Dysfunctional assumptions about the world

2. Dysfunctional assumptions about the body

3. Dysfunctional assumptions about feelings

AN = 17

BN = 34

EDNOS = 28

28.59 (8.31)

100%

Testable Assumptions Questionnaire for Eating Disorders Revised

(TAQ-ED-R)

Dhokia et al. [25]

No

No factor analysis performed

Non-clinical = 128

AN = 25

BN = 47

25.60 (6.07)

27.10 (6.94)

28.30 (7.17)

100%

100%

100%

Thoughts Questionnaire

(TQ)

Cooper et al. [20]

Yes

PCA indicated a three-factor model:

1. Negative thoughts about eating

2. Positive thoughts about eating

3. Permissive thoughts

Study 1: Non-clinical = 258

Study 1: AN = 14

Study 1: Dieters = 17

Study 1: Control = 18

Study 2: BN = 12

Study 2: Dieters = 17

Study 2: Control = 20

25.70 (8.10)

31.10 (10.30)

29.30 (5.70)

29.80 (8.30)

27.50 (6.30)

28.10 (5.10)

28.00 (4.90)

100%

Weight Influenced Self-Esteem Questionnaire

(WISE-Q)

Trottier et al. [89]

Yes

EFA indicated a two-factor model:

1. ‘Generalised’ aspects of self-esteem

2. ‘Expected’ aspects of self-esteem

Study 1 Clinical ED = 184

Study 1 University = 248

Study 2 Clinical ED = 96

27.40 (8.60)

22.10 (4.04)

27.40 (8.40)

100%

100%

100%