Drive for Muscularity Scale (DMS)

Abstract

The Drive for Muscularity Scale (DMS) is a self-report instrument designed to measure an individual’s perception, known as the Drive for Muscularity (DM), that their current physique lacks sufficient muscle mass and requires significant bulk. This scale consists of 15 items intended to assess the extent to which a respondent exhibits attitudes and behaviors focused on achieving a more muscular physique. While the construct of DM has historically been more prevalent in men—where a muscular mesomorphic shape is considered ideal—the DMS is validated for use across genders, acknowledging the growing relevance of this body image concern for women as well. The scale is typically administered in a pencil-and-paper format.

Keywords

Muscularity, Drive for Muscularity, Body image, Body dissatisfaction, Men’s health, Eating disorders, Psychometrics, Anabolic-androgenic steroids, Weight training, Body ideal.

Authors

McCreary, D. R.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Drive for Muscularity Scale (DMS) is to quantitatively assess the intensity of an individual’s psychological drive or desire to increase their muscularity. It is a fundamental research tool used in the study of body image disturbances, specialized eating disorder pathology, and muscle-enhancing behaviors.

The scale provides a clear metric for understanding the psychological pressures related to achieving the muscular ideal, allowing researchers and clinicians to track severity and identify populations at risk for maladaptive behaviors, such as excessive weight training, supplement misuse, or the potential use of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS).

Construct

The DMS measures the psychological construct of the Drive for Muscularity (DM). DM is defined as a persistent cognitive and emotional preoccupation characterized by the belief that one is insufficiently muscular and the intense desire to add bulk and muscle mass to the body frame. This perception is often independent of the person’s actual physical measurements or body fat percentage.

The construct encompasses both the cognitive/attitudinal component (e.g., wishing for more muscle, linking self-confidence to muscle size) and the behavioral component (e.g., rigid weight training schedules, use of protein or energy supplements). Although the DM construct is strongly linked to traditional masculine gender role socialization, the scale’s applicability to women suggests that the pressure to achieve muscularity is a relevant body image concern across genders.

Validity

The validity of the DMS has been evaluated extensively across four psychometric domains: construct, concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validity.

Construct Validity

Construct validity is supported by analyses of the scale’s underlying factor structure (discussed below) and its resistance to response biases. Research by Duggan and McCreary (2004) found no significant correlations between DMS scores and measures of socially desirable responding (Paulus’ Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding), suggesting that the scale accurately measures the DM construct without significant contamination from social reporting biases.

Concurrent Validity

Concurrent validity is established through known-groups procedures, where the DMS successfully distinguishes between groups theoretically expected to differ in their DM levels. Consistent findings show significant gender differences, with male respondents scoring higher on the overall DMS score and many individual items. Furthermore, individuals who regularly engage in weight training activities score significantly higher than those who do not. Most notably, Choi, Pitts, and Grixti (2005) found that individuals who abuse anabolic-androgenic steroids scored substantially higher on the DMS compared to non-users, confirming its efficacy in identifying high-risk populations.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is supported by positive associations with theoretically related psychological measures. DMS scores correlate positively with modified versions of other muscularity attitude questionnaires. The scale is also positively associated with specific personality traits, including neuroticism, self-oriented perfectionism, and appearance orientation (Davis et al., 2005). Crucially, the DMS consistently demonstrates a negative correlation with measures of self-esteem in samples of men, confirming that higher drive for muscularity is associated with lower self-worth, though this relationship is less consistent in female samples.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity confirms that the DMS measures a construct distinct from the Drive for Thinness. While DM is not the opposite of the drive for thinness, it is theoretically expected to have a low, positive correlation with measures like the Eating Attitudes Test (EAT) or Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI). This small correlation (typically ranging from .30 to .40, accounting for 9% to 16% of variance) is attributed to the practical need to minimize body fat to effectively display muscle mass. This level of overlap confirms that the DMS is measuring a unique facet of body dissatisfaction.

Reliability

The DMS exhibits strong and consistent reliability across multiple studies and sample populations.

Internal consistency is high, assessed using coefficient alpha. Among male respondents, alpha reliability estimates typically range from .85 to .91, indicating excellent internal cohesion. For female respondents, reliability estimates consistently exceed .80. Additionally, the corrected item-total correlations for individual DMS items fall within the acceptable range of .37 to .65, which meets the standards recommended by Nunnally & Bernstein (1994).

Temporal stability is also robust. Cafri and Thompson (2004) reported high test-retest correlations over a 7-10 day period in a male sample, yielding a correlation of .93 for the total scale score, .84 for the muscularity attitudes subscale, and an exceptionally high .96 for the muscularity behaviors subscale.

Factor Analysis

Research into the factor structure of the DMS (McCreary et al., 2004) indicates a structure that varies significantly by gender.

For male respondents, Factor analysis consistently supports a two-factor model: the first factor represents muscularity-related attitudes (e.g., wishing to be more muscular, feeling more confident with more muscle), and the second represents muscle-enhancing behaviors (e.g., using supplements, intense weight training). These two lower-order factors subsequently load onto a single, higher-order factor representing the overall Drive for Muscularity construct. This allows researchers to utilize separate subscale scores or the overall total score for men.

In contrast, when the DMS is administered to women, the two distinct subscales do not reliably emerge from factor analyses. Therefore, for female respondents, researchers are generally advised to compute and interpret only the overall, single DMS score.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological scale

Format: 15-item pencil and paper survey (a 14-item version omitting the question regarding anabolic steroids is also used)

Language Available: Primarily English (other translations may exist but are not specified in the primary source documents)

Population Group: Clinical and non-clinical populations concerned with body image and muscularity standards.

Age Group: Adolescent boys/men and girls/women.

Population Details: Suitable for use across genders and various age groups (adolescents and adults) where the internalization of the muscular ideal is relevant.

Test Methodology: Respondents use a 6-point Likert-type scale to indicate the extent to which a series of attitudes and behaviors are descriptive of themselves, ranging from “Always” to “Never.”

Keywords

Body dissatisfaction, Mesomorphy, Weight training, Masculinity, Gender roles, Self-report measure, Body image ideal, Anabolic steroids, Attitudes, Behaviors.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided (Contact information for correspondence is requested in the scale notes)

Correspondence Address: Not provided (Users are requested to forward scientific papers to Dr. Don McCreary)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The initial publication detailing the DMS and its psychometrics was McCreary & Sasse (2000). The definitive reference providing a full description and psychometric review is McCreary (2007).

Users of the scale are explicitly requested to forward any resulting scientific papers to the author, Dr. Don McCreary, suggesting that researchers intending to use the scale should establish contact regarding current permissions and usage guidelines. Specific fee information is not provided in the source material.

Reference’s

• Cafri, G., & Thompson, J. K. (2004). Measuring drive for muscularity: Factorial validity and consistency of the Drive for Muscularity Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(3), 329-335.
• Choi, P. Y. L., Pitts, M. K., & Grixti, N. (2005). Drive for muscularity in male weight-trainers: The contribution of anabolic-androgenic steroids. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6(1), 32-39.
• Duggan, C., & McCreary, D. R. (2004). Body image and masculinity in gay and heterosexual men: The role of sexual orientation and gender role traits. Journal of Men’s Studies, 12(2), 113-124.
• McCreary, D.R. (2007). The Drive for Muscularity Scale: Description, psychometrics, and research findings. In J.K. Thompson & G. Cafri (Eds.), The muscular ideal: Psychological, social, and medical perspectives (pp. 87-106). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• McCreary, D.R., & Sasse, D.K. (2000). An exploration of the drive for muscularity in adolescent boys and girls. Journal of American College Health, 48, 297-304.
• McCreary, D. R., Sasse, D. K., Saucier, D. M., & Dorsch, K. D. (2004). Measuring the drive for muscularity: Factorial validity of the Drive for Muscularity Scale in men and women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5(1), 49-56.
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Items of the Drive for Muscularity Scale (DMS)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Please read each item carefully then, for each one, circle the number that best applies to you.

• Always
• Very Often
• Often
• Sometimes
• Rarely
• Never

1. I wish that I were more muscular.
2. I lift weights to build up muscle.
3. I use protein or energy supplements.
4. I drink weight gain or protein shakes.
5. I try to consume as many calories as I can in a day.
6. I feel guilty if I miss a weight training session.
7. I think I would feel more confident if I had more muscle mass.
8. Other people think I work out with weights too often.
9. I think that I would look better if I gained 10 pounds in bulk.
10. I think about taking anabolic steroids.
11. I think that I would feel stronger if I gained a little more muscle mass.
12. I think that my weight training schedule interferes with other aspects of my life.
13. I think that my arms are not muscular enough.
14. I think that my chest is not muscular enough.
15. I think that my legs are not muscular enough.