MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399200865 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2023-0609

Construct validity and reliability of a French–Canadian translation of the eating in the absence of hunger questionnaire for children and adolescents

2024· article· en· W4399200865 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
C. Savard, Stéphanie Bégin, Julie Robitaille, Marie‐France Hivert, Sophie Parent, Véronique Gingras

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaConstruct validityPsychologyAffect (linguistics)BoredomOverweightExploratory factor analysisClinical psychologyPsychometricsMedicineObesitySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eating in the absence of hunger (EAH) has been associated with overweight and obesity during childhood. The gold standard to assess this behavior is a laboratory-based protocol, but a questionnaire to assess EAH more efficiently in children and adolescents has been developed and validated in English. We assessed construct validity (structural and convergent validity) and reliability (internal consistency and temporal stability) of a French translation of the EAH Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents among French–Canadian youths. We recruited participants in Montreal (Canada) aged 7–15 years old, who completed the questionnaire and provided anthropometric data. We asked participants to complete the questionnaire a second time ∼4 weeks later. The questionnaire consists of 14 questions and 3 subscales that assess EAH due to negative affect, fatigue/boredom, and external cues. We performed an exploratory factor analysis to test the factor structure and we calculated Cronbach alpha coefficients and intra-class correlations to assess internal consistency and temporal stability, respectively. We assessed associations between EAH and BMI z-score using Pearson correlations. We included 196 participants (50% girls; mean (SD) 11.9 (2.3) years old) for the first completion and 153 for the second completion. The exploratory factor analysis generated the same three subscales as the original questionnaire: negative affect (α = 0.86; ICC = 0.78), fatigue/boredom (α = 0.75; ICC = 0.70), and external cues (α = 0.68; ICC = 0.54). Participant’s BMI z-scores were positively associated with the average scores from the negative affect subscale ( r = 0.19; ρ = 0.009). Our results suggest that this questionnaire has an adequate construct validity, internal consistency, and temporal stability.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism→Same topicEating Disorders and Behaviors→French-language works237,207→