ArticleEating and weight disorders : EWD2022
The scale matters: assessing body size with figure rating scales in a diverse sample of young adults.
Article in Eating and weight disorders : EWD, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subjective Evaluation of Female Adult Body Fat Distribution: A Scoping Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026Article
- Association of Body Image, Body Weight and Social Media Use: A Narrative Review of Observational and Experimental Evidence of the Last Decade.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- A dual-focus validation of visual body image assessment tools and their link to eating disorders in Chinese young males.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Validation of two body scales for assessment of thin-ideal and muscularity-ideal body dissatisfaction among Chinese adult females.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Body Mass Index, Body Satisfaction, and Body Image Discrepancy among Latinx Men: Implications for Latinx-Centered Cancer and Diabetes Risk Reduction Interventions.Journal of latinx psychology · 2025Article
- Association of body image perception and (dis)satisfaction with adiposity in adults: The Pró-Saúde study.PloS one · 2024Article
- A pre-conception clinical trial to reduce intergenerational obesity and diabetes risks: The NDPP-NextGen trial protocol.Contemporary clinical trials · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo explore intersectional differences in weight perception accuracy in a diverse sample of young adults using CDC-defined weight status labels and four separate figure rating scales (FRS).
methodsThis cross-sectional study of 322 18-25-year-olds with body mass index (BMI) ranging from 18.5 to 57.2 (M
resultsArea under the curve (AUC) statistics indicated all scales were significantly better at classifying weight status than chance. Among Black females and Black males, the culturally adapted scale had the strongest discriminatory ability [(AUC = 0.93, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.89-0.97) and (AUC = 0.93, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.86-1.00), respectively]. Among white females, the silhouette scale had the strongest discriminatory ability (AUC = 0.93, SE = .03, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.88-0.99). Among white males, the photo-based scale had the strongest discriminatory ability (AUC = 0.84, SE = 0.06, p = 0.001, 95% CI = 0.71-0.96). Across all groups, weight perception labels were the weakest classifier of weight status.
conclusionWeight perception labels are an ineffective method of assessing weight status and FRS accuracy varies by race and gender, suggesting the value of gender- and culturally tailored scales. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33779966What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.