Outils, conduites alimentaires dysfonctionnelles et sport : une revue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À ce jour, les attitudes et comportements alimentaires dysfonctionnels (ACAD) demeurent plus préoccupants chez la population sportive que dans la population générale. Ainsi, des outils d’évaluation spécifiquement adaptés à ce contexte sont indispensables afin d’orienter avec précision le dépistage, la prise en charge et les stratégies d’intervention ciblées et efficace pour cette clientèle. Sous-représentés pour des raisons conceptuelles, méthodologiques et sociales, les ACAD en contexte sportif gagnent à être évalués dans une perspective hybride, c’est-à-dire englobant les approches catégorielles et dimensionnelles. Cette revue de portée vise à recenser et caractériser les outils validés évaluant les ACAD chez la population sportive de tous niveaux. À la lumière du modèle hybride des ACAD, elle examine leurs preuves de validité et de fidélité, leur modèle théorique, leurs dimensions sous-jacentes ainsi que leur format d’administration. Elle vise aussi à identifier les lacunes théoriques, populationnelles et méthodologiques afin de guider l’élaboration d’instruments holistiques, sensibles et adaptés aux réalités sportives contemporaines. Cette revue a été réalisée conformément aux lignes directrices PRISMA pour le flux de sélection des études et aux recommandations COSMIN pour l’évaluation des propriétés psychométriques des outils recensés. Sept bases de données ont été sélectionnées. Les données pertinentes ont été extraites et synthétisées selon des critères de sélection préétablis. . Au total, 23 outils ont été validés dans 26 études de validation. Ces études révèlent une hétérogénéité marquée des outils concernant leur modèle théorique, leur dimensionnalité, leurs propriétés psychométriques et leurs caractéristiques d’échantillonnage. L’absence d’outil hétéro-rapporté, validé en contexte socioculturel franco-québécois et capable de couvrir l’ensemble des dimensions du modèle des ACAD confirme la nécessité d’élaborer et de valider des outils basés sur des modèles holistiques et adaptés au territoire québécois. D’éventuelles pistes d’évaluation et recommandations psychométriques sont également proposées afin d’orienter les futures validations d’outils. As a population at heightened risk for developing dysfunctional eating attitudes and behaviors (DEAB), athletes require assessment tools specifically adapted to their context to improve screening accuracy and better capture the eating manifestations unique to this subpopulation. Underrepresented for conceptual, methodological, and social reasons, DEAB in sports should be evaluated through a hybrid approach – both dimensional, positioned along a continuum of severity encompassing all domains potentially exacerbated in athletes, and categorical, assessing eating disorders specific to athletic populations such as muscle dysmorphia, exercise-related anorexia, and Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S). From this standpoint, the present scoping review aims to identify and characterize validated tools assessing DEAB among athletes across all levels of competition. It examines their validity and reliability evidence, theoretical foundations, underlying dimensions, and administration formats in light of the hybrid DEAB model. It also seeks to identify theoretical, population-based, and methodological gaps to guide the development of holistic, sensitive, and contextually adapted instruments for contemporary sports settings. This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for study selection flow and the COSMIN recommendations for evaluating the psychometric properties of measurement instruments. Searches were performed in seven databases using five sets of French and English keywords, yielding 184 initial studies. Data were extracted according to predefined inclusion criteria and synthesized in an Excel table summarizing, for each tool, its name and brief description, administration format, sampling characteristics, conceptual framework, dimensions covered, and psychometric properties. In total, 26 validation studies were identified, encompassing 23 tools assessing DEAB in athletic populations. Findings reveal a marked heterogeneity in the theoretical models underlying these tools, which are based on distinct constructs such as muscle dysmorphia, RED-S, locus of control for eating, and classical ED or DE frameworks. Dimensionally, only three tools encompass all six dimensions of the DEAB model presented in the introduction. Several tools also present psychometric limitations, particularly regarding validity based on internal structure and content validity. Finally, the limited availability of validated tools in the French-speaking Quebec sociocultural context, the lack of validation studies on muscle dysmorphia tools among elite athletes, the underrepresentation of high-risk disciplines (e.g., combat sports), and the absence of semi-structured interviews highlight key methodological and sampling gaps. These limitations underscore the need to develop and validate hetero-reported instruments that cover all dimensions of the DEAB model and are culturally adapted to the French-speaking Quebec athletic population. In continuity with previous reviews, this paper also proposes several assessment avenues and methodological recommendations – including a stronger focus on content validity, the systematic use of McDonald's Omega or Ordinal Alpha, and the inclusion of objective methods – to enhance the psychometric robustness, clinical utility, and cultural relevance of future DEAB assessments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".