Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer

Objective Body dissatisfaction is intricately linked to the development of disordered eating. However, as male body dissatisfaction appears more oriented toward muscularity, versus thinness per se, existing measures of eating disorder psychopathology may lack sensitivity in capturing disordered eating that is muscularity‐focused. The aim of the present study was to develop a specific measure of muscularity‐oriented disordered eating—the muscularity‐oriented eating test (MOET). Method Candidate items were generated and refined in consultation with eating disorder‐focused researchers and focus groups of men with eating disorders. Examination of the MOET comprised two studies, consisting of 511 undergraduate men, divided into two component samples. In Study 1 (n = 307), candidate items were generated and refined via exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was then used to confirm the single factor structure in Study 2 (n = 204). Results EFA revealed a 15‐item single factor structure, which was later confirmed through CFA in a separate sample of undergraduate men. Furthermore, the MOET yielded evidence of internal consistency (Study 1: omega = 0.93, 95% CI [0.91, 0.94]; Study 2: omega = 0.92, 95% CI [0.90, 0.93]), 7‐day (Study 1) and 21‐days (Study 2) test‐retest correlation (rs = .75, for Study 1 and 2) and convergent and divergent validity. Discussion The MOET represents a psychometrically sound, novel measure of muscularity‐oriented disordered eating. Future research should examine its utility in clinical samples and research into muscularity‐oriented disordered eating.

Aims and objectives To develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of a self‐report instrument measuring 6‐ to 12‐year‐old children's own experiences of participation in health care. Background Validated measures to evaluate children's participation in health care can play a critical role in strategic work towards supporting children's participation at an individual level and in working towards quality improvements at an organisational level. There are, however, no available instruments to achieve this. Methods An instrument development design was used, together with the TRIPOD checklist. Item construction was based on research about children's perspectives on participation in health care and Shier's model for participation. The face and content validity was evaluated by 14 healthy children, 9 paediatric nurses and 8 children with different diseases. The construct validity, internal consistency and stability reliability were evaluated based on data from 138 children visiting a paediatric clinic. Results The testing of the face and content validity resulted in an instrument with child‐friendly language, additional instructions and visual attractive presentation. The principle component analysis resulted in the four‐factor solution: “To be included,” “To trust professionals,” “To take control,” and “To understand information.” Internal consistency and intraclass correlation coefficients were acceptable. Conclusion We conclude that the child participation in health care (ChiPaC) instrument has adequate reliability and validity when used to evaluate children's participation in health care. The involvement of children in the development of ChiPaC resulted in a brief, colourful and user‐friendly instrument for use in paediatric health care. Relevance to clinical practice This new questionnaire, ChiPaC, is adapted for children between 6–12 years measuring participation in health care from a child perspective. ChiPaC can be used in the practical work of supporting individual children's participation in health care as well as in the strategical work towards quality improvements on an organisational level.

The Need to Belong concept encompasses the need for inclusion and the discomfort with exclusion. The Need to Belong Scale of Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, and Schreindorfer (2013, p. 610), however, primarily probes into the discomfort aspect, and it does not distinguish between relational and collective self‐levels. Two studies (total N = 429) provided evidence of the reliability, distinctiveness, and validity of the newly developed Need for Inclusion scale. The results revealed that Relational Need for Inclusion positively contributes to psychological well‐being and negatively to ill‐being. Collective Need for Inclusion was distinctively related to collective and group‐level outcomes of self, such as social trust and collective self‐esteem. Need to Belong yielded a reversed pattern of results for the studied outcomes. It is concluded that inclusion needs and discomfort with exclusion are positively related but clearly distinct, and that future studies should investigate their joint effects in a single research design.