Alyami Mohsen M, Al-Dossary Saeed A
Department of Psychology, College of Education, University of Ha'il, Ha'il, Saudi Arabia.
J Eat Disord. 2024 Nov 19;12(1):185. doi: 10.1186/s40337-024-01137-2.
The factorial structure of the Eating Attitudes Test (EAT-26) has been found to be inconsistent across studies and samples. This study aimed to resolve inconsistencies in the factorial structure of the Arabic version of the EAT-26 by identifying the best-fitting model and test its measurement invariance across sexes and BMI categories in a large non-clinical Saudi sample.
1,734 Saudi adults (M 26.88 and SD 9.13), predominantly female, completed an online survey. Several existing models were tested (e.g., original 26-item three-factor model, second order 26-item three-factor model, 20-item four-factor model, and 16-item four-factor model) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Fit indices including the CFI, SRMR, and RMSEA were used to identify the best-fitting model for Arabic version of the EAT-26. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) was used to test measurement invariance.
The original three-factor model and two other common models demonstrated poor fit (e.g., CFI = 0.727; SRMR = 0.0911; RMSEA = 0.085 [90% CI 0.082-0.087] for the original three-factor model). Instead, a 16-item, four-factor structure [(Self-Perceptions of Body Weight), (Dieting), (Awareness of Food Contents), and (Food Preoccupation)] showed acceptable fit ([CFI = 0.904; SRMR = 0.0554; RMSEA = 0.073 [90% CI 0.068- 0.077]). Internal consistency was good (α and ω = 0.88), and measurement invariance was supported across sex (male and female) and BMI categories (underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese).
These findings underscore the need for culturally relevant validation of the EAT-26 among Arabic-speaking populations, as the revised factorial structure diverged from previously established models. Future research should further examine this revised 16-item, four-factor structure in clinical settings.
饮食态度测试(EAT - 26)的因子结构在不同研究和样本中存在不一致的情况。本研究旨在通过确定最适配模型来解决阿拉伯语版EAT - 26因子结构中的不一致问题,并在一个大型非临床沙特样本中检验其在性别和BMI类别上的测量不变性。
1734名沙特成年人(平均年龄26.88岁,标准差9.13岁),以女性为主,完成了一项在线调查。使用验证性因子分析(CFA)对几个现有模型(如原始的26项三因子模型、二阶26项三因子模型、20项四因子模型和16项四因子模型)进行了测试。拟合指数包括CFI、SRMR和RMSEA,用于确定阿拉伯语版EAT - 26的最佳适配模型。多组验证性因子分析(MGCFA)用于检验测量不变性。
原始三因子模型和其他两个常见模型显示拟合度较差(例如,原始三因子模型的CFI = 0.727;SRMR = 0.0911;RMSEA = 0.085 [90% CI 0.082 - 0.087])。相反,一个16项四因子结构[(对体重的自我认知)、(节食)、(对食物成分的认知)和(对食物的过度关注)]显示出可接受的拟合度([CFI = 0.904;SRMR = 0.0554;RMSEA = 0.073 [90% CI 0.068 - 0.077])。内部一致性良好(α和ω = 0.88),并且在性别(男性和女性)和BMI类别(体重过轻、正常体重、超重和肥胖)上支持测量不变性。
这些发现强调了在讲阿拉伯语的人群中对EAT - 26进行文化相关验证的必要性,因为修订后的因子结构与先前建立的模型不同。未来的研究应在临床环境中进一步检验这个修订后的16项四因子结构。