Reflection on the validity of the instruments used to assess Muscle Dysmorphia with no deep knowledge of its etiology

Comments on an article by M. Rubio-Aparicio et al. (see record 2019-69080-001). Muscle dysmorphia (MD) was discovered by Pope, Katz, and Hudson in 1993 in a study aimed at analyzing the use of anabolic steroids in a sample of 108 bodybuilders in the United States. At the beginning of the study of this "new" mental disorder, different theoretical models were proposed in order to approach its etiology. The approach to the etiology of this disorder is still a handicap for its research. So far, the instruments designed and validated in different backgrounds and cultures appearing in the meta-analysis by Rubio-Aparicio et al. have been of utmost importance in order to discover the elements and factors that intervene in the development of this condition. Consequently, are the available instruments used to assess muscle dysmorphia (MD) reliable despite the lack of an in-depth knowledge of its etiology? It is disappointing that 34% of the studies included in the meta-analysis do not report information about the reliability of the instruments used in the sample, being this a requirement established by the APA Manual, as Rubio-Aparicio et al. (2019) mention in their article. More research on MD is needed. There are a great number of unanswered questions about its etiology. Therefore, our suggestion is to include more qualitative information enabling a thorough knowledge of the factors that trigger this disease in order to prevent it instead of treating it. The professionals of physical activity, the trainers, and the family are the people who can ring the warning bell if there is a potential case of MD. But the prevention by the correct assimilation of body image and a positive self-concept is even more important. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)