4.7 Article

Psychometric Analysis of the Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants-Short Form to Evaluate Dietary Quality in a Pre-Surgical Bariatric Population

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 15, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu15153372

关键词

dietary quality; surgical weight loss; bariatric surgery; eating behaviors; confirmatory factor analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the REAP-S in a pre-surgical bariatric population. A total of 587 adult patients were included in this analysis, and the results showed that the REAP-S had good internal consistency, but overall the dietary quality was moderate.
Dietary quality and eating behaviors are essential to evaluating bariatric surgery candidates. The Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants-Short Form (REAP-S) is a previously validated measure of dietary quality suited for use in primary care. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the REAP-S in a pre-surgical bariatric population. This study included data from one academic medical center from August 2020 to August 2022. Variables included socio-demographics, the REAP-S, mental health, and assessments of appetitive traits. Statistical methods included Cronbach's alpha, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and multivariable analyses. A total of 587 adult patients were included in this analysis. The mean score for the REAP-S was 28.32 (SD: 4.02), indicative of relatively moderate dietary quality. The internal consistency of the REAP-S was moderate, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.65. The three-factor CFA model resulted in a comparative fit index of 0.91. Race (p = 0.01), body mass index (p = 0.01), food fussiness (p < 0.0001), food responsiveness (p = 0.005), and socially desirable responses (p = 0.003) were significantly associated with the total REAP-S score. Although the REAP-S's original purpose was to assess dietary quality within a primary care population, it shows promise for application within a bariatric surgery-seeking population.

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