4.5 Article

Validation of the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ) in a sample of Spanish women

Journal

APPETITE
Volume 73, Issue -, Pages 58-64

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.10.014

Keywords

DEBQ; Obesity; Psychometrics; Eating disorders; Eating behavior

Funding

  1. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [PsI2011-25767]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ) was developed to measure eating styles that may contribute to or attenuate the development of overweight. It comprises three scales that measure emotional, external and restrained eating. The main goal of this study is to evaluate the internal structure of the Spanish version of the DEBQ using updated psychometric techniques in a sample of women. A sample of 647 Spanish females answered the questionnaire. Both exploratory structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis were used to evaluate the factor structure of the DEBQ. Reliabilities were estimated with Cronbach's alpha. The relations between the subscales of the DEBQ and age, BMI, and scores on the Eating Attitude Test-26 (EAT) and the Restrained Scale-Revised (RS) were computed with Pearson correlations. Results showed that the internal structure was similar to the theoretical proposal, although items associated with boredom and idleness presented cross-loading problems. The reliability estimates were satisfactory. The Emotional and External Eating factors correlated with the BMI, and External Eating was negatively correlated with age. The Restraint factor of the DEBQ showed significant relationships with scales of the EAT-26 and RS. The dimensional validity of the DEBQ is reproduced in a Spanish sample, and the DEBQ seems to be an effective instrument for research in Spanish females. Minor modifications to the DEBQ are recommended. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available