MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407876218 · doi:10.1007/s40519-025-01727-2

The arabic version of the fat phobia scale—short form: reliability and structural validity

2025· article· en· W4407876218 on OpenAlexaff
Hadeel Ghazzawi, Ahmad F. Alenezi, Sally Souraya, Omar A. Alhaj, Khaled Trabelsi, Adam Tawfiq Amawi, Mai Helmy, Zahra Saif, Beatrice “Bean” E. Robinson, Haitham Jahrami

Bibliographic record

VenueEating and Weight Disorders - Studies on Anorexia Bulimia and Obesity · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArabicReliability (semiconductor)Scale (ratio)PsychologyValidityReliability engineeringClinical psychologyPsychometricsLinguisticsPhilosophyEngineeringGeographyCartographyPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Weight bias, often known as fat phobia or weight stigma, refers to unfavorable attitudes and stereotypes that are associated with, and applied to, larger bodies. Fat phobia can include an unreasonable and abnormal dread of being overweight or being associated with obese people. Currently, there is no validated tool available to measure fat phobia in Arabic. Measuring fat phobia in Arabic-speaking populations is crucial, because cultural attitudes toward body weight can be quite negative and discriminatory; these negative attitudes can negatively impact mental health. The current study aimed to adapt, translate, and assess the structural validity of the Fat Phobia Scale-Short Form (F-Scale 14) in Arabic. METHODS: The gold standard approach to translation was used. Forward translation involved translation from the English language to the Arabic language by independent translators. Subsequently, a back-translation review was performed on the translated Arabic version for comparison with the original language. A cross-sectional study was conducted online that included 1246 participants from 22 Arabic countries, of whom 74% were female, 66% single, 83% university graduates, with a mean age of 35 ± 6 years. RESULTS: The F-Scale 14 demonstrated good reliability in the Arabic language, with a Cronbach's α of 0.82 (95% CI 0.80-0.83), comparable to the original scale. The test-retest reliability of the scale was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.94). According to the fit indices, the F-Scale 14 demonstrated a satisfactory level of structural validity in Arab cultures. Fit indices are statistical measures used in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess how well a proposed model fits the observed data. The scale showed a small improvement in factorial structure after the removal of some items. The two items removed were self-indulgent versus self-sacrificing and disliking food versus likes food. The correlation between F-Scale 14 and the figure rating scale was r = 0.76 (p < 0.001), suggesting adequate convergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: The F-Scale 14 is a crucial indicator of attitudes and opinions concerning obese or overweight individuals. Based on increased internal consistency reliability and the problematic cultural relevance of two items, we recommend adopting a 12-item version of the scale for better cultural relevance in Arabic populations. It is anticipated that the Arabic F-Scale-12 will be highly useful for research and clinical purposes. Future research should test and adapt the Fat Phobia Scale for diverse Arabic populations to ensure its cultural relevance. Exploring its application in clinical settings will enhance our understanding of weight stigma and inform targeted interventions that promote body positivity. By addressing these areas, we can develop effective strategies to foster healthier attitudes toward body image in Arabic communities. LEVEL V: Evidence obtained from a cross-sectional descriptive study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEating and Weight Disorders - Studies on Anorexia Bulimia and ObesitySame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207