Cargando…

Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 (YFAS 2.0) and modified YFAS 2.0 (mYFAS 2.0): Rasch analysis and differential item functioning

BACKGROUND: Food addiction (FA) is a prevalent concern that may manifest as poorly controlled food consumption and promote overweight/obesity. Thus, having a well-established instrument for assessment may facilitate better prevention and treatment. The current study investigated the psychometric pro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Saffari, Mohsen, Fan, Chia-Wei, Chang, Yen-Ling, Huang, Po-Ching, Tung, Serene En Hui, Poon, Wai Chuen, Lin, Chien-Ching, Yang, Wen-Chi, Lin, Chung-Ying, Potenza, Marc N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9703721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36443860
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40337-022-00708-5
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Food addiction (FA) is a prevalent concern that may manifest as poorly controlled food consumption and promote overweight/obesity. Thus, having a well-established instrument for assessment may facilitate better prevention and treatment. The current study investigated the psychometric properties of two common measures of FA (i.e., the Yale Food Addiction Scale [YFAS] 2.0 and its modified version, mYFAS 2.0) using a robust statistical analysis (Rasch model). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the scales were sent to 974 students studying in higher education (60% females) in Taiwan through online media including email and social networks. Rasch modeling was used to assess dimensionality, difficulty level, and item misfit and hierarchy. Differential item functioning (DIF) was performed to examine consistency of the items across gender and weight status. RESULTS: Rasch analysis indicated 3 items of the 35 items belonging to the YFAS 2.0 (8.6%) and none belonging to the mYFAS 2.0 were misfit. Unidimensionality and construct validity of both scales were supported by appropriate goodness-of-fit for diagnostic criteria. The person separation was 3.14 (reliability = 0.91) for the YFAS 2.0 and 2.17 (reliability = 0.82) for mYFAS 2.0, indicating the scales could distinguish participants into more than 3 strata. Only one substantial DIF was found for diagnostic criteria of “Failure to fulfill major role obligation” in the YFAS 2.0 across gender. CONCLUSION: According to Rasch modeling, both the YFAS 2.0 and mYFAS 2.0 have acceptable construct validity in Chinese-speaking youth. Scoring methods using either diagnostic criteria or symptom counts for both the YFAS 2.0 and mYFAS 2.0 are supported by the present Rasch findings.