Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University, 256 Psychology Bldg, 4235 TAMU, College Station, TX, 77843, USA.
Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, Texas A&M Health, College Station, USA.
Eat Weight Disord. 2022 Feb;27(1):263-271. doi: 10.1007/s40519-021-01166-9. Epub 2021 Mar 29.
To 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).
This cross-sectional study of 322 18-25-year-olds with body mass index (BMI) ranging from 18.5 to 57.2 (M = 26.01, SD = 6.46) enrolled participants as part of a larger university subject pool cohort in the U.S. MidSouth. Height and weight measurements were obtained. Participants (55% Black, 45% white; 74% female) selected images that best represented their current body size using four FRS and described their weight perception using five labels from "very underweight" to "very overweight/obese". Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were used to compare variability in classification of weight status by FRS and weight perception category across gender and race.
Area 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.
Weight 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 III. Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies.
使用 CDC 定义的体重状况标签和四个单独的体型评分量表（FRS），在一个多样化的年轻成年人样本中探索体重感知准确性的交叉差异。
这项横断面研究纳入了美国中南部大学受试者库队列中的 322 名 18-25 岁的参与者，他们的身体质量指数（BMI）范围为 18.5 至 57.2（M=26.01，SD=6.46）。身高和体重测量值。参与者（55%为黑人，45%为白人；74%为女性）使用四个 FRS 选择最能代表他们当前体型的图像，并使用“非常消瘦”到“非常超重/肥胖”五个标签描述他们的体重感知。使用接收者操作特征（ROC）曲线分析比较 FRS 和体重感知类别在性别和种族之间对体重状况分类的变异性。
曲线下面积（AUC）统计数据表明，所有量表在分类体重状况方面均明显优于随机水平。在黑人女性和黑人男性中，经过文化适应的量表具有最强的区分能力[（AUC=0.93，SE=0.02，p<0.001，95%CI=0.89-0.97）和（AUC=0.93，SE=0.04，p<0.001，95%CI=0.86-1.00）]。在白人女性中，剪影量表具有最强的区分能力（AUC=0.93，SE=0.03，p<0.001，95%CI=0.88-0.99）。在白人男性中，基于照片的量表具有最强的区分能力（AUC=0.84，SE=0.06，p=0.001，95%CI=0.71-0.96）。在所有组中，体重感知标签是评估体重状况的最无效方法。
体重感知标签是评估体重状况的无效方法，FRS 的准确性因种族和性别而异，这表明性别和文化适应量表具有价值。
III 级。来自精心设计的队列或病例对照分析研究的证据。
