4.7 Article

Concurrent Validity of the Adult Eating Behavior Questionnaire in a Canadian Sample

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.779041

关键词

eating behaviours; appetitive traits; validation; questionnaire; psychometrics; adult; overweight; obesity

资金

  1. Webster Foundation
  2. Yorkshire Cancer Research Fellowship [L389RB]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study tested the factor structure of the AEBQ in Canadian adults and found that a seven-factor model had better fit statistics than the original eight-factor structure. The study also showed that the AEBQ had construct validity against the TFEQ-R18 and provided further evidence for the association of eating behaviors traits with BMI.
The current study aimed to test the factor structure of the Adult Eating Behavior Questionnaire (AEBQ), its construct validity against the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ-R18) and its associations with body mass index (BMI) in Canadian adults (n = 534, 76% female). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed that a seven-factor AEBQ model, with the Hunger subscale removed, had better fit statistics than the original eight-factor structure. Cronbach's alpha was used to assess the internal reliability of each subscale and resulted with alpha > 0.70 for all subscales except for Hunger (alpha = 0.68). Pearson's correlations were used to inform the convergent and discriminant validation of AEBQ against the TFEQ-R18 and to examine the relationship between AEBQ and BMI. All AEBQ Food Approach subscales positively correlated with that of the TFEQ-R18 Emotional Eating and Uncontrolled Eating subscales. Similarly, BMI correlated positively with Food Approach subscales (except Hunger) and negatively with Food Avoidance subscales (except Food Fussiness). These results support the use of a seven-factor AEBQ for adults self-reporting eating behaviors, construct validity of the AEBQ against TFEB-R18, and provide further evidence for the association of these traits with BMI.

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