Nutrients, Vol. 17, Pages 3824: Validity and Reliability of the Danish Version of the Adult Eating Behavior Questionnaire—Results from the South Danish Obesity Initiative
Nutrients doi: 10.3390/nu17243824
Authors:
Mikkel Emil Iwanoff Kolind
Tobias Midtvedt Windedal
Barbara Vad Andersen
Nina Drøjdahl Ryg
Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff
Claus Bogh Juhl
Objective: Appetitive traits influence obesity risk, yet no validated Danish tool exists to assess these traits in adults. We translated the Adult Eating Behavior Questionnaire (AEBQ) into Danish and evaluated reliability and validity. Methods: Adults (n = 1257) from the South Danish Obesity Initiative completed the Danish AEBQ; a subsample took part in test–retest analysis (n = 256). Content validity was assessed via Three-Step Test Interviews (n = 5). Test–retest reliability was examined by intraclass correlation (ICC). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tested structural validity (with an ancillary eight- vs. seven-factor comparison). Internal consistency was evaluated by Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω. Pearson correlations and regression models (adjusted for age, sex, and education) related subscales to BMI, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and body fat percentage (fat%). Results: Three-Step Test Interviews supported content validity. Test–retest reliability was good for most subscales (ICCs ≈ 0.80–0.88) and moderate for Emotional Undereating (ICC = 0.640). Both CFA models showed acceptable fit; information criteria favored the seven-factor solution, with small differences on other indices. Internal consistency was acceptable for most subscales (α and ω ≥ 0.70), borderline for Hunger (α = 0.70; ω = 0.71), and below threshold for Satiety Responsiveness (α = 0.69; ω = 0.69). Food Responsiveness and Emotional Overeating were positively associated with BMI/WHR/fat%, while Emotional Undereating showed inverse associations; other subscales showed no associations. Conclusions: The Danish AEBQ shows adequate psychometric performance, and both seven- and eight-factor structures appear applicable in a Danish setting, with the caveat that internal consistency for Hunger and Satiety Responsiveness fell just below conventional cut-offs.
Objective: Appetitive traits influence obesity risk, yet no validated Danish tool exists to assess these traits in adults. We translated the Adult Eating Behavior Questionnaire (AEBQ) into Danish and evaluated reliability and validity. Methods: Adults (n = 1257) from the South Danish Obesity Initiative completed the Danish AEBQ; a subsample took part in test–retest analysis (n = 256). Content validity was assessed via Three-Step Test Interviews (n = 5). Test–retest reliability was examined by intraclass correlation (ICC). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tested structural validity (with an ancillary eight- vs. seven-factor comparison). Internal consistency was evaluated by Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω. Pearson correlations and regression models (adjusted for age, sex, and education) related subscales to BMI, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and body fat percentage (fat%). Results: Three-Step Test Interviews supported content validity. Test–retest reliability was good for most subscales (ICCs ≈ 0.80–0.88) and moderate for Emotional Undereating (ICC = 0.640). Both CFA models showed acceptable fit; information criteria favored the seven-factor solution, with small differences on other indices. Internal consistency was acceptable for most subscales (α and ω ≥ 0.70), borderline for Hunger (α = 0.70; ω = 0.71), and below threshold for Satiety Responsiveness (α = 0.69; ω = 0.69). Food Responsiveness and Emotional Overeating were positively associated with BMI/WHR/fat%, while Emotional Undereating showed inverse associations; other subscales showed no associations. Conclusions: The Danish AEBQ shows adequate psychometric performance, and both seven- and eight-factor structures appear applicable in a Danish setting, with the caveat that internal consistency for Hunger and Satiety Responsiveness fell just below conventional cut-offs. Read More