4.7 Article

Validation of the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire in a Romanian Adult Population

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 13, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13113890

关键词

DEBQ; emotional eating; external eating; dietary restraint; assessment of eating behavior; obesity causes; matched treatment obesity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study validated the Romanian version of the DEBQ on an adult population and found that all scales of the questionnaire positively correlated with body mass index in both men and women, indicating its potential for developing better strategies to reduce nutrition-related diseases in Romania.
(1) Background: Obesity, part of the triple global burden of disease, is increasingly attracting research on its preventive and curative management. Knowledge of eating behavior can be useful both at the individual level (to individualize treatment for obesity) and the population level (to implement more suitable food policies). The Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ) is a widely used international tool to assess eating behavior, i.e., emotional, external and restricted eating styles. The aim of this study was to validate the Romanian version of DEBQ, as obesity is a major concern in Romania. (2) Methods: Our study tested the psychometric properties of the Romanian version of DEBQ on an adult population and explored the associations of eating behavior with weight status (3) Results: The study showed a factor load similar to the original version of the questionnaire and a very good internal validity (Cronbach's alpha fidelity coefficient greater than 0.8 for all scales of the questionnaire) for the Romanian version of DEBQ and showed that all of the scales positively correlated with body mass index in both men and women. (4) Conclusions: This study will enable the use of the DEBQ Romanian version on the adult population of Romania where the findings could be incorporated into developing better strategies to reduce the burden of nutrition-related diseases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据