Psychometric evaluation of the Drive for Muscularity Scale in a community-based sample of Scottish men participating in an organized sporting event

Psychometric properties of the Drive for Muscularity Scale in Malay men

“…It is also broadly consistent with the derived factor structure in Brazilian men (Campana et al, 2013), although in that study three items were deleted to reach adequate fit. Unlike in the parent study (McCreary et al, 2004) and in Brazilian men (Campana et al, 2013), but consistent with other samples including Scottish men (McPherson et al, 2010), we found that item #10 loaded onto the Behaviours subscale of the DMS.…”

“…In this analysis, however, one item (#10, which asks about the extent to which respondents think about using anabolic steroids to increase muscle mass) was found to have very little variability and was omitted from the subscale computations. In some samples, however, this item has sufficient variability and loads onto the Behaviours subscale (McPherson, McCarthy, McCreary, & McMillan, 2010).…”

Psychometric properties of the Drive for Muscularity Scale in Mexican males

“…In contrast to other studies as for the existence of a twofactor structure of DMS: attitudes to muscularity and behaviors oriented to gain muscle mass [1,20] in the present study we identified a three-factor structure for the scale: attitudes (7 items), supplement consumption (4 items) and training adherence (4 items). Our first factor has exactly the same items as the attitudinal scale proposed by McCreary et al and later it was verified by McPherson et al Yet, it was not so in the case of the items contained in the Behavioral sub-scale of these authors, since in the case of the present study they were divided into two factors: supplement consumption and training adherence.…”

“…Conversely, out of the four items retained in Training Adherence Factor, item 12 virtually showed null specificity, so in future researches, special attention should be placed to this; it is probable that this pattern is a consequence that in real terms these three dimensions are associated with one another, however-as it was stated here-not to the extent of overlapping. It is more important to pinpoint that in similar to the study by McPherson et al [20], here, item 10, referring to the intension of taking anabolic steroids, was clearly grouped, contrary to that observed in the study by McCreary et al [1]. With regard to the internal consistence of DMS, it showed stability between the two stages of the study; moreover, both the scale consistence and that of two of its three factors ranged from acceptable to suitable, with alpha coefficients over the minimal value of 0.70 proposed by Cicchetti [21]; it was not so, however, in the case corresponding to Training Adherence Factor, which was 0.68 in both stages, and thereby non-acceptable.…”

“…With regard to the internal consistence of DMS, it showed stability between the two stages of the study; moreover, both the scale consistence and that of two of its three factors ranged from acceptable to suitable, with alpha coefficients over the minimal value of 0.70 proposed by Cicchetti [21]; it was not so, however, in the case corresponding to Training Adherence Factor, which was 0.68 in both stages, and thereby non-acceptable. Nevertheless, we have to consider that as this factor specifically evaluates the degree of commitment of a person to their training routine, one might suppose that the internal consistence will increase to the extent that it is evaluated in participants who develop a sport activity or physical training, as it has been observed in previous studies, such as the one by Mc Pherson et al [20] with males who had a sport activity, or the one by Wojtowicz and von Ranson [22] with bodybuilders, in which the internal consistence of the behavioral sub-scale (0.85 and 0.87, respectively) has turned out substantially larger than the one reported by McCreary et al [1], which was 0.81, or those by Wojtowicz and von Ranson for non-bodybuilders (0.73).…”