| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Kling, Johanna, 1986, et al.
(författare)
-
Systematic review of body image measures
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Presented at the National Eating Disorders Symposium, Stockholm, January 28, 2019.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This systematic review synthesized and critically appraised measurement properties of influential body image measures. Nine measures that met the definition of an assessment of body image (i.e., an individual’s cognitive or affective evaluation of their body or appearance with a positive or negative valence’), and scored high on systematic expert priority ranking, were included. These measures were: the Body Appreciation Scales (BAS/BAS-2; Avalos, Tylka, & Wood-Barcalow, 2005; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b); the Body Esteem Scale for Adolescents and Adults (BESAA; Mendelson, Mendelson & White, 2001); the Body Image States Scale (BISS; Cash, Fleming, Alindogan, Steadman, & Whitehead, 2002); the Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ; Cooper, Taylor, Cooper, & Fairburn, 1987); the Centre for Appearance Research Valence Scale (CARVAL; Moss & Rosser, 2012); the Drive for Muscularity Scale (DMS; McCreary & Sasse, 2000); the Weight and Shape Concerns subscales of the Eating Disorders Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q; Fairburn & Beglin, 1994); the Body Dissatisfaction subscale of the Eating Disorder Inventory 3 (EDI-3; Garner, 2004), and the Appearance Evaluation subscale and Body Areas Satisfaction Scale of the Multidimensional Body Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ; Brown, Cash, & Mikulka, 1990).. Articles assessing these scales’ psychometric properties (N = 139) were evaluated for their methodological quality using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist, and a best evidence synthesis was performed. The results supported the majority of measures in terms of reliability and validity, however, suitability varied across populations, and some measurement properties were insufficiently evaluated. The measures are discussed in detail, including recommendations for their future use in research and clinical practice.
|
|
| 5. |
- Kling, Johanna, 1986, et al.
(författare)
-
Systematic review of body image measures
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Body image. - : Elsevier BV. - 1740-1445. ; 30, s. 170-211
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- This systematic review synthesizes and critically appraises measurement properties of influential body image measures. Eight measures that met the definition of an assessment of body image (i.e., an individual’s cognitive or affective evaluation of their body or appearance with a positive or negative valence), and scored high on systematic expert priority ranking, were included. These measures were: the Body Appreciation Scale (original BAS and BAS-2), the Body Esteem Scale for Adolescents and Adults, the Body Shape Questionnaire, the Centre for Appearance Research Valence Scale, the Drive for Muscularity Scale, two subscales of the Eating Disorders Examination Questionnaire, one subscale of the Eating Disorder Inventory 3, and two subscales of the Multidimensional Body Relations Questionnaire. Articles assessing these scales’ psychometric properties (N = 136) were evaluated for their methodological quality using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist, and a best evidence synthesis was performed. The results supported the majority of measures in terms of reliability and validity; however, suitability varied across populations, and some measurement properties were insufficiently evaluated. The measures are discussed in detail, including recommendations for their future use in research and clinical practice.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Mollenhauer, Jan, et al.
(författare)
-
Carcinogen inducibility in vivo and down-regulation of DMBT1 during breast carcinogenesis.
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Genes, chromosomes & cancer. - : Wiley. - 1045-2257. ; 39:3, s. 185-94
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Deleted in malignant brain tumors 1 (DMBT1) has been proposed as a candidate tumor suppressor for brain and epithelial cancer. Initial studies suggested loss of expression rather than mutation as the predominant mode of DMBT1 inactivation. However, in situ studies in lung cancer demonstrated highly sophisticated changes of DMBT1 expression and localization, pointing to a chronological order of events. Here we report on the investigation of DMBT1 in breast cancer in order to test whether these principles might also be attributable to other tumor types. Comprehensive mutational analyses did not uncover unambiguous inactivating DMBT1 mutations in breast cancer. Expression analyses in the human and mouse mammary glands pointed to the necessity of DMBT1 induction. While age-dependent and hormonal effects could be ruled out, 9 of 10 mice showed induction of Dmbt1 expression after administration of the carcinogen 7,12-dimethybenz(alpha)anthracene prior to the onset of tumorigenesis or other histopathological changes. DMBT1 displayed significant up-regulation in human tumor-flanking tissues compared to in normal breast tissues (P < 0.05). However, the breast tumor cells displayed a switch from lumenal secretion to secretion to the extracellular matrix and a significant down-regulation compared to that in matched normal flanking tissues (P < 0.01). We concluded that loss of expression also is the predominant mode of DMBT1 inactivation in breast cancer. The dynamic behavior of DMBT1 in lung carcinoma is fully reflected in breast cancer, which suggests that this behavior might be common to tumor types arising from monolayered epithelia.
|
|
