Domoff S E, Meers M R, Koball A M, Musher-Eizenman D R
Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, USA,
Eat Weight Disord. 2014 Jun;19(2):137-44. doi: 10.1007/s40519-013-0087-y. Epub 2013 Dec 12.
Recent debate has considered the validity of self-reports and laboratory-based behavioral measures of emotional eating. This paper reviews the literature on self-reported emotional eating and actual eating behavior (i.e., examines the concurrent validity). As detailed in the review, the literature suggests mixed findings on the correspondence between these self-reports and actual eating behavior. Based on this, we cite characteristics of studies that support the concurrent validity of the DEBQ and address possible reasons for the lack of concurrent validity in other studies, as well as concerns about the measurement of emotional eating in the laboratory. Two reasons for the lack of concurrent validity of self-report emotional eating scales identified in this review include (1) methodological/experimental design flaws and (2) the variability of emotional eating based on participant characteristics. We argue that further research on emotional eating needs to address factors related to self-reports of emotional eating and objective emotional eating behavior (e.g., negative affect, inaccurate recall of eating behaviors, sample differences, and laboratory design). We conclude with recommendations for future research on emotional eating.
最近的辩论探讨了情绪性进食的自我报告和基于实验室的行为测量方法的有效性。本文回顾了关于自我报告的情绪性进食和实际进食行为的文献(即检验同时效度)。如综述中所详述,文献表明这些自我报告与实际进食行为之间的对应关系存在不同的研究结果。基于此,我们列举支持《荷兰进食行为问卷》(DEBQ)同时效度的研究特征,并分析其他研究中缺乏同时效度的可能原因,以及对实验室中情绪性进食测量的担忧。本综述中确定的自我报告情绪性进食量表缺乏同时效度的两个原因包括:(1)方法学/实验设计缺陷;(2)基于参与者特征的情绪性进食的变异性。我们认为,对情绪性进食的进一步研究需要解决与情绪性进食的自我报告和客观情绪性进食行为相关的因素(例如负面影响、对进食行为的不准确回忆、样本差异和实验室设计)。我们最后给出了关于情绪性进食未来研究的建议。