Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Men Masc. 2020 Oct 26;22(1):1–6. doi: 10.1037/men0000273

Sexual Orientation-Based Differential Item Functioning in Measures of Body Image Concerns and Ideals among Men

Melissa Simone 1, Joseph M Donahue 2, Lisa M Anderson 1, Drew Anderson 2
PMCID: PMC7943039  NIHMSID: NIHMS1641807  PMID: 33708012

Abstract

Body image concerns and body ideals are linked with eating disorders and psychological health. Body image and ideals among men differ by sexual orientation, which may influence the utility of common measures of such constructs. The present study used differential item functioning (DIF) analyses to examine whether item endorsement differs as a function of sexual orientation in three commonly used measures of body image concerns and ideals. Participants were sexual minority (n=209) and heterosexual (n=494) men in the United States. Scores on the Drive for Muscularity Scale (DMS), Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire-4 (SATAQ-4), and Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS) were examined. DIF was tested in a three-step regression wherein item scores were predicted by: (1) subscale score, (2) subscale and sexual orientation, and (3) subscale, sexual orientation and their product term. Model fit and variance explain comparisons identified DIF. Δ pseudo R2 value ≥ .035 from step 1 to 3 signified clinical significant DIF. There was no evidence of clinically significant DIF for the DMS, SATAQ-4, or OBSC. Findings suggest that DMS, SATAQ-4, and OBSC perform similarly for sexual minority and heterosexual men.

Keywords: sexual orientation, body image, sociocultural ideals, muscularity, differential item functioning

Body image concerns are linked to a range of negative health consequences including eating disorders, disordered eating behaviors and poor psychological health (Calzo et al., 2015; Pistella et al., 2019). Substantial research indicates that sociocultural factors (e.g., media images, peer norms) contribute to body image and idealized body shapes (Blashill, 2010, 2011; Calzo et al., 2017; Calzo et al., 2015; Convertino, et al., 2019). To this end, research indicates that boys and men in Westernized cultures are regularly exposed to sociocultural pressures to attain a muscular body shape (Barlett et al., 2008), henceforth referred to as the muscular ideal. Sociocultural pressures to attain the muscular ideal are associated with increased body dissatisfaction and eating disorder symptomology, as well as poorer psychological health among men (Barlett et al., 2008; Wiseman & Moradi, 2010), highlighting a need for a deeper understanding of these relationships.

Sexual orientation has been shown to modify idealized body shape (e.g., leanness, muscularity) and body image concerns among men (Calzo et al., 2013; Calzo et al., 2015), highlighting one domain wherein heterogeneity in psychological health risk may be examined. Efforts to elucidate the processes contributing to sexual orientation-based differences in body image concerns and ideals are grounded in sociocultural and objectification theories (Brewster et al., 2014). Sociocultural theories posit that idealized body images or norms may differ among sexual minority men relative to heterosexual men (Calzo et al., 2017; Jankowski et al., 2014). For instance, sexual minority men are more likely to endorse a drive for thinness and leanness relative to heterosexual men (Calzo et al., 2015; Carper et al., 2010). In contrast, heterosexual men are more likely to attempt to gain weight (Calzo et al., 2013) than sexual minority men. Yet, sexual minority (e.g., gay, bisexual, queer) and heterosexual men are equally likely to seek the muscular ideal (Calzo et al., 2015). Taken together, sexual minority men may seek to attain a lean muscular ideal and heterosexual men may seek to attain a bulky muscular ideal.

Objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) expands upon sociocultural theories, and posits that sexual minority men may experience greater pressure to achieve an idealized body shape (ie, a thin or muscular body) relative to heterosexual men. Specifically, the objectification posits that men place a stronger emphasis on physical appearance when seeking a romantic partner than do women (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Thus, by extension, sexual minority men who seek to attract other men likely experience greater pressure to attain an idealized body than heterosexual men (Wiseman & Moradi, 2010).

Accumulating evidence suggests that the sociocultural processes contributing to body images concerns and idealized body shape among men vastly differ by sexual orientation (Calzo et al., 2017). Qualitative differences in sociocultural norms and pressures highlight the crucial need to examine the appropriateness of commonly used measures for use in research comparing body image by sexual orientation. Sexual orientation-based differences in body image concerns and ideals may diminish the utility of commonly used measures of the muscular ideal (Drive for Muscularity Scale [DMS]; McCreary et al., 2004), sociocultural pressures towards appearance (Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire-4 [SATAQ-4]; Schaefer et al., 2015), and objectified body consciousness (Objectified Body Consciousness Scale [OBSC]; McKinley & Hyde, 1996).

Sexual orientation-based differences in body image concerns and ideals bring cause for concern, as an implicit assumption underlying mean comparisons across groups is measurement invariance in the function of each item relative to the overarching scale (Thielemann et al., 2018). For instance, given the same total drive for muscularity, members of distinct sexual orientation subgroups should exhibit the same likelihood of endorsing a specific item (e.g., “I wish that I were more muscular”) on a measure of drive for muscularity (Thielemann et al., 2018). Given the known sexual orientation-based differences in idealized body shapes it is possible that the likelihood of endorsing such item differs by sexual orientation. If item-response probability is influenced by another variable (ie, sexual orientation) the item displays differential item functioning (DIF) and means should not be compared across distinct subgroups. Uniform DIF occurs when group differences in item response probabilities are found at all trait levels, such that the group differences are constant (e.g., giving one group a constant relative advantage across levels. Non-uniform DIF is found when there is an interaction between item response probability, group membership, and trait (or scale) level, wherein the magnitude or direction of group differences are varied by trait levels. To determine the appropriateness of existing measures used to identify the mechanisms through which eating disorder risk varies by sexual orientation among men, the goal of the current study was to examine sexual orientation-based DIF in three common measures of idealized body shapes, sociocultural pressures, and body objectification.

Method

Participants

Participants include adult men (N=703) in the United States. Sexual minority and heterosexual men were recruited using separate online advertisements; however, both groups completed the same study measures. Participants were recruited online through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, a data collection service that is commonly utilized by researchers across various disciplines (MTurk; www.mturk.com). MTurk is an internet-based crowdsourcing platform that offers individuals from the community compensation for the completion of various online tasks. MTurk was selected for recruitment, as internet-based data collection methods are particularly useful for recruiting difficult and hard-to-reach populations, such as individuals who identify as a sexual minority (Moradi et al., 2009; Riggle el al., 2005). Moreover, empirical studies have concluded that MTurk participants are equally honest and consistent in their responses as participants taken from other convenience sampling methods (Chandler & Shapiro, 2016). Internet Protocol (IP) addresses were evaluated by researchers following data collection to protect against duplicate responders and to prevent participants from responding to both study advertisements. To further ensure quality of data MTurk workers who had a satisfaction rating (determined by requesters who rated the workers previous submissions based on completeness, consistency, etc.) below 70% were excluded from participating in the current study. The study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board.

The analytic sample included men who self-identified as straight/heterosexual (n=494) or with a sexual minority identity (n =209). The majority of sexual minority men self-identified as gay/homosexual (59.1%), with others identifying as bisexual (36.1%) or queer (4.3%). The two groups did not differ in terms of racial/ethnic identity or Body Mass Index (BMI), however the group of heterosexual men were older (age=34.5±11 years) than sexual minority men (age=31.9±9.5 years, t[691]=−2.90, p=.004). Sample demographics by sexual orientation are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics by sexual orientation

Demographic Characteristic Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual Men
N = 494
 Sexual Minority Men
N = 209
n % n %
Race/Ethnicity
 American Indian/Alaska Native 5 1.0a 2 1.0a
 Asian 46 9.3a 18 8.6a
 Black or African American 36 7.3a 14 6.7a
 Latinx/Hispanic 23 4.7a 7 3.3a
 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 0.0a 1 .05a
 White 361 73.1a 160 76.6a
 Mixed or Other 17 3.4a 5 2.4a
 Prefer not to respond 6 1.2a 2 1.0a
Age [M(SD)] 34.5a 11.1 31.9b 9.5
BMI [M(SD)] 27.4a 5.9 26.9a 6.2
Open in a new tab

Note. Different superscripts represent statistically significant group differences (p<.05)

Measures

Sexual Orientation.

Sexual orientation was measured with the question “How do you identify your sexual orientation?” Response options included: heterosexual/straight, bisexual, homosexual/gay, or queer. Due to a lack of statistical power to examine gay, bisexual, and queer men as distinct subgroups of sexual minority men, participants who endorsed any of these three identities were grouped into an overarching sexual minority category.

Drive for Muscularity Scale (DMS).

The DMS is a widely used measure of muscularity-oriented attitudes and behaviors to assess the drive to achieve the standard of bodily attractiveness among men (McCreary et al., 2004). The 15-item scale is scored on a 6-point scale, wherein a higher score indicates a greater drive for muscularity. The DMS has been validated for use among heterosexual and sexual minority men (McCreary, 2007; McCreary et al., 2004). Internal consistency of the muscle-oriented body image and muscle-oriented behaviors subscales of the DMS were excellent for sexual minority (α=.91 and α=.93, respectively) and heterosexual men (α=.92 and α=.89, respectively).

Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire – 4 (SATAQ-4).

The SATAQ-4 is a widely used measure of inter- and intra-personal factors in the onset and maintenance of eating and body image disturbance (Schaefer et al., 2015), and has been validated for use with heterosexual and sexual minority men (Convertino et al., 2019). The SATAQ-4 includes 22 Likert-type items (range 1–5), which together yield a score reflecting participants’ internalization of appearance ideals and appearance-related sociocultural pressures, wherein higher scores indicate greater internalization and/or stronger sociocultural pressures. The SATAQ-4 includes 5 subscales: Internalization: Thin/Low Body Fat; Internalization: Muscular/Athletic; Pressures: Family; Pressures: Peers; and Pressures: Media. Internal consistencies for each of the subscales were excellent for sexual minority (α=.84–.94) and heterosexual men (α=.82–.95).

Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBSC).

The OBSC measures objectified body consciousness, including three distinct dimensions: body surveillance, body shame, and appearance control beliefs (McKinley & Hyde, 1996). The OBSC includes 24 items (response range: 1–7), with higher scores reflecting greater objective body consciousness. Internal consistency values for body surveillance was adequate for sexual minority (α=.61) and heterosexual (α=.62) men. Internal consistency values for body shame and appearance control beliefs were strong for sexual minority (α=.89 and .78, respectively) and heterosexual (α=.81 and .79, respectively) men.

Statistical Analyses

Sexual orientation-based differences on the DMS, SATAQ-4, and OBSC subscales were first examined with independent t-tests. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the model fit of each multi-factor model. Next, DIF analysis examined the extent to which DMS, SATAQ-4, and OBSC item endorsement was influenced by sexual orientation. Given the multidimensional nature of three measures included in the study, DIF was examined in relation to the items’ respective subscale, rather the global scale. The DIF analyses followed past recommendations (Gadermann et al., 2018; Scott et al., 2009; Gelin & Zumbo, 2003; Zumbo, 1999). Specifically, for each measure, item scores were entered into an Ordinal Logistic Regression analysis in a three-step approach, wherein predictors included: (1) subscale score, (2) subscale score and sexual orientation, and (3) subscale score, sexual orientation, and their product term (subscale*sexual orientation). Statistically significant uniform DIF was indicated by a significant chi-square difference test comparing fit at Steps 1 and 2 and non-uniform DIF was indicated by a significant chi-square difference test at Steps 2 and 3. To account for the high number of statistical tests performed, criteria for a statistically significant chi-square difference test was set at .01. To determine clinical significance of the DIF results, the Jodoin and Gierl (2001) modified effect size guidelines were used, wherein changes in Nagelkerke’s pseudo R2 between each step were characterized as: negligible (pseudo ΔR2 <.035), moderate (ΔR2 ≥.035 and <0.070), and large (ΔR2 ≥.070). Missingness was low (<3%) across all variables included in the study and thus a complete cases approach was used to handle missing data.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Results

Drive for Muscularity Scale DIF Results

The results from independent sample t-tests are presented in Table 2. Sexual minority men reported higher muscle-oriented body image and muscle-oriented behaviors relative to heterosexual men. The bifactor CFA model fit the DMS data well (RMSEA=0.077; CFI=0.93; TLI=0.92; SRMR=0.058), which supported the use of subscale-level DIF analyses. Statistically significant DIF (ie., Δχ2>9.21, p<.01) was observed for item 4: “I drink weight gain or protein shakes,” and item 10: “I think about taking anabolic steroids.” While no DMS items met or exceeded the threshold for clinical significant DIF (ie., ΔR2 ≥.035), sexual minority men reported higher item-level values on item 10: “I think about taking anabolic steroids” relative to heterosexual men while controlling for mean muscle-oriented behaviors. Results from all DIF analyses are presented in a Supplementary file.

Table 2.

Group Comparisons for the DMS, SATAQ-4, and OBSC scales by Sexual Orientation

Scale Subscale Heterosexual Men Sexual Minority Men Group Comparisons
M SD M SD df t p-value d
Drive for Muscularity Scale
 Muscle-oriented body image 3.32 1.35 3.63 1.27 701 2.78 .006 0.24
 Muscle-oriented behaviors 2.28 1.12 2.55 1.27 701 2.80 .005 0.23
Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire-4
 Internalization: thin/low body fat 2.91 0.94 3.32 0.94 701 5.28 <.001 0.44
 Internalization: muscular/athletic 2.93 1.02 3.16 1.02 701 2.66 .008 0.23
 Pressures: family 2.12 1.09 2.52 1.18 701 4.35 <.001 0.35
 Pressures: peers 2.03 1.08 2.64 1.21 701 6.27 <.001 0.53
 Pressures: media 2.79 1.34 3.42 1.26 701 5.92 <.001 0.48
Objectified Body Consciousness Scale
 Body surveillance 3.97 1.06 4.37 1.18 689 4.17 <.001 0.36
 Body shame 3.40 1.14 3.89 1.23 700 5.16 <.001 0.41
 Appearance control beliefs 4.90 1.00 4.58 1.05 691 −3.81 <.001 0.31
Open in a new tab

Note. M=mean; SD=standard deviation; df=degrees of freedom; t=t-value; d=Cohen’s d

Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire-4 DIF Results

Sexual minority men reported higher scores across all five SATAQ-4 subscales relative to heterosexual men (see Table 2). The five-factor CFA model fit was adequate (RMSEA=0.073; CFI: 0.91; TLI=0.90; SRMR=0.09), which supported the subscale approach to examine DIF for SATAQ-4 items. Statistically significant DIF was only observed for item 5 “I think a lot about looking thin.” No SATAQ-4 items met or exceeded the threshold for clinically significant DIF.

Objectified Body Consciousness Scale DIF Results

Sexual minority men reported higher body surveillance and body shame relative to heterosexual men, whereas heterosexual men reported higher appearance control beliefs relative to sexual minority men (see Table 2). The three factor CFA model fit was adequate (RMSEA=0.068; CFI: 0.87; TLI=0.86; SRMR=0.087), which supported the subscale approach to examine DIF. Statistically significant DIF was only observed for item 19 “I think a person’s weight is mostly determined by the genes they are born with.” While no OBSC item met the threshold for clinically significant DIF, sexual minority men reported higher values on item 5: “During the day, I think about how I look many times” relative to heterosexual men while controlling for mean body surveillance scores.

Discussion

The current study is the first to examine the extent to which three commonly used measures of sociocultural processes contributing to body image concerns and idealized body shape function similarly among heterosexual and sexual minority men, including the DMS (McCreary et al., 2004), SATAQ-4 (Schaefer et al., 2015), and OBSC (McKinley & Hyde, 1996). No items met or exceeded the threshold for clinical significance (Jodoin & Gierl, 2001; Gelin & Zumbo, 2003), and thus findings provide empirical evidence that the DMS, SATAQ-4, and OBSC function similarly among sexual minority and heterosexual men.

While past studies have tested the psychometric properties of the DMS, SATAQ-4, and OBSC in both heterosexual and sexual minority men (Convertino et al., 2019; McCreary et al., 2004), the present study extends prior findings by demonstrating an absence of sexual orientation-based DIF on items from the DMS, SATAQ-4, and OBSC. The present findings support the use of existing measures of body image concerns, body ideals, and sociocultural pressures in sexual minority men, as results strongly suggest that the items included in the three measures operate similarly for heterosexual and sexual minority men.

The results from this study serve as a crucial step in determining the utility of the DMS, SATAQ-4, and OBSC for use in sexual minority and heterosexual men. However, some limitations should be noted. First, the data were collected through with online sampling techniques, thus it is possible that the functioning of each scale may differ between an online and in-person sample. Yet, research suggests that online-based samples provide comparable results from psychometric tests when compared to in-person methods (Walter et al., 2019). Second, due to limited sample sizes, there was insufficient power to examine differences in the DIF analyses across subgroups of sexual minority men (e.g., gay, bisexual). While the bounds of the current study did not allow us to fully explore the nuances of sexual minority identities, it is an important first step in better understand the extent to which the DMS, SATAQ-4, and OBSC can be used to compare scores from heterosexual and sexual minority men. Future studies should examine the extent to which the DMS, SATAQ-4, and OBSC function similar across diverse subgroups of sexual minority men. Similarly, despite the diversity of the sample, there was inadequate power to test for racial/ethnic differences in the DIF analyses.

In sum, the present results indicate that the DMS, SATAQ-4, and OBSC are appropriate instruments to examine differences in sociocultural pressures and body ideals among men across sexual orientation. The three scales examined in the DIF analyses are commonly used to test psychological theories and theoretical frameworks (e.g., objectification theory; Frederickson & Roberts, 1997), many of which have been applied and adapted to explain differences in psychological health by sexual orientation (Wiseman & Moradi, 2010; Calzo et al., 2017). The results from the present study provide empirical support for the appropriateness of the DMS, SATAQ-4, and OBSC in testing, comparing, and extending psychological theories and theoretical frameworks among sexual minority and heterosexual men.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental file1

Public Significance Statement.

Body image concerns differentially relates to health among men with diverse sexual orientations. Differential item analyses revealed that measures of sociocultural pressure, drive for muscularity, and body objectification function similarly among heterosexual and sexual minority men, which supports the use of such measures in diverse samples.

Acknowledgments

Declaration of funding: The present study was supported by Award Number T32MH082761 (PI: Scott Crow) from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIMH or National Institutes of Health.

References

  1. Barlett CP, Vowels CL, & Saucier DA (2008). Meta-Analyses of the Effects of Media Images on Men’s Body-image Concerns. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(3), 279–310. 10.1521/jscp.2008.27.3.279 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Blashill AJ (2010). Elements of male body image: Prediction of depression, eating pathology and social sensitivity among gay men. Body Image, 7(4), 310–316. 10.1016/j.bodyim.2010.07.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blashill AJ (2011). Gender roles, eating pathology, and body dissatisfaction in men: A meta-analysis. Body Image, 8(1), 1–11. 10.1016/j.bodyim.2010.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brewster ME, Velez BL, Esposito J, Wong S, Geiger E, & Keum THB (2014). Moving beyond the binary with disordered eating research: A test and extension of objectification theory with bisexual women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(1), 50–62. 10.1037/a0034748 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Calzo JP, Blashill AJ, Brown TA, & Argenal RL (2017). Eating Disorders and Disordered Weight and Shape Control Behaviors in Sexual Minority Populations. Current Psychiatry Reports, Vol. 19. 10.1007/s11920-017-0801-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Calzo JP, Corliss HL, Blood EA, Field AE, & Austin BS (2013). Development of muscularity and weight concerns in heterosexual and sexual minority males. Health Psychology, 32(1), 42–51. 10.1037/a0028964 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Calzo JP, Masyn KE, Corliss HL, Scherer EA, Field AE, & Austin SB (2015). Patterns of body image concerns and disordered weight- and shape-related behaviors in heterosexual and sexual minority adolescent males. Developmental Psychology, 51(9), 1216–1225. 10.1037/dev0000027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carper TLM, Negy C, & Tantleff-Dunn S (2010). Relations among media influence, body image, eating concerns, and sexual orientation in men: A preliminary investigation. Body Image, 7(4), 301–309. 10.1016/j.bodyim.2010.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chandler J, & Shapiro D (2016). Conducting clinical research using crowdsourced convenience samples. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 53–81. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093623 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Convertino AD, Gonzales M, Malcarne VL, & Blashill AJ (2019). A psychometric investigation of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire-4-Revised among sexual minority adults in the U. S. Body Image, 31, 96–101. 10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.08.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Fredrickson BL, & Roberts T-A (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gadermann AM, Chen MY, Emerson SD, & Zumbo BD (2018). Examining validity evidence of self-report measures using differential item functioning. Methodology, 14(4), 164–175. 10.1027/1614-2241/a000156 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gelin MN, & Zumbo BD (2003). Differential item functioning results may change depending on how an item is scored: An illustration with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(1), 65–74 [Google Scholar]
  14. Jankowski GS, Diedrichs PC, & Halliwell E (2014). Can appearance conversations explain differences between gay and heterosexual men’s body dissatisfaction? Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 15(1), 68–77. 10.1037/a0031796 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Jodoin MG, & Gierl MJ (2001). Evaluating Type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with the logistic regression procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(4), 329–349 [Google Scholar]
  16. McCreary DR (2007). The Drive for Muscularity Scale: Description, psychometrics, and research findings. In Thompson JK & Cafri G (Eds.), The muscular ideal: Psychological, social, and medical perspectives (pp. 87–106). American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  17. McCreary DR, Sasse DK, Saucier DM, & Dorsch KD (2004). Measuring the Drive for Muscularity : Factorial validity of the Drive for Muscularity Scale in men and women. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5(1), 49–58. 10.1037/1524-9220.5.1.49 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. McKinley NM, & Hyde JS (1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181–215. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Moradi B, Mohr JJ, Worthington RL, & Fassinger RE (2009). Counseling Psychology Research on Sexual (Orientation) Minority Issues: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 5–22. 10.1037/a0014572 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Pistella J, Ioverno S, & Russell ST (2019). The role of peer victimization, sexual identity, and gender on unhealthy weight control behaviors in a representative sample of Texas youth. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 52(5), 597–601. 10.1002/eat.23055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Riggle EDB, Rostosky SS, & Reedu CS (2005). Online Surveys for BGLT. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(2), 1–21. 10.1300/J082v49n02 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Schaefer LM, Burke NL, Thompson JK, Dedrick RF, Heinberg LJ, Calogero RM, … Paxton SJ (2015). Development and validation of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire-4 (SATAQ-4). Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 54–67. 10.1037/a0037917 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Scott NW, Fayers PM, Aronson NK, Bottomley A, de Graeff A, Groenvold M, Gundy C, Koller M, Peterson MA, & Sprangers MAG (2009). A simulation study provided sample size guidance for differential item funcitoning (DIF) studies using short scales. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(3), 288–295. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Thielemann D, Richter F, Strass B, Braehler E, Altmann U, & Berger U (2018). Differential item functioning in brief instruments of disordered eating. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 1–11. 10.1027/1015-5759/a000472 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Walter SL, Siebert SE, Goering D, & O’Boyle EH Jr (2019). A tale of two sample sources : Do results from online panel data and conventional data converge ? Journal of Business and Psychology, 34, 425–452. 10.1007/s10869-018-9552-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Wiseman MC, & Moradi B (2010). Body Image and Eating Disorder Symptoms in sexual minority men : A test and extension of Objectification Theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(2), 154–166. 10.1037/a0018937 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Zumbo BD (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type item scores. Ottawa, Canada: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation: Department of National Defense. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental file1
NIHMS1641807-supplement-Supplemental_file1.docx (43.3KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

RESOURCES