ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Validation of the Chinese version of muscularity attitudes questionnaire in college students.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The Drive for Muscularity Attitudes Questionnaire (DMAQ) is a brief tool for assessing muscularity-related attitudes. This study translated the DMAQ into Chinese and evaluated its reliability and validity separately in males and females. A total of 360 Chinese college students completed the questionnaire, and 69 completed a retest one week later. Item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, convergent validity analysis, internal consistency analysis, and test-retest reliability analysis were conducted. Items 1 and 6, both reverse-worded items, showed weak factor loadings and were removed. The revised 6-item DMAQ showed acceptable factor loadings in both sexes, although one item was slightly below 0.50 in males. Most model fit indices supported the one-factor structure, but RMSEA values were above the conventional threshold. The revised scale showed good internal consistency in males and females, with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.874 and 0.917, respectively. Test-retest reliability was moderate overall (ICC = 0.625, 95% CI: 0.304 to 0.792). Convergent validity was partially supported, with stronger correlations observed with the Drive for Muscularity Scale than with other related variables. The revised 6-item Chinese DMAQ showed acceptable reliability and generally supportive structural validity among Chinese college students. However, further validation is needed because of the removal of reverse-worded items, elevated RMSEA values, and partial convergent validity evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.