Abstract
Objective: The Children's Eating Attitudes Test (ChEAT) is a self-report questionnaire that is conventionally summarised with a single score to identify ‘problematic’ eating attitudes, masking informative variability in different eating attitude domains. This study evaluated the empirical support for single- versus multifactor models of the ChEAT. For validation, we compared how well the single- versus multifactor-based scores predicted BMI.
Method: Using data from 13,674 participants of the 11.5 year-follow-up of the Promotion of Breastfeeding Intervention Trial (PROBIT) in the Republic of Belarus, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the performance of 3- and 5-factor models, which were based on past studies, to a single-factor model representing the conventional summary of the ChEAT. We used cross-validated linear regression models and the reduction in mean squared error (MSE) to compare the prediction of BMI at 11.5y and 16y by the conventional and confirmed factor-based ChEAT scores.
Results: The 5-factor model, based on 14 of the original 26 ChEAT items, had good fit to the data whereas the 3- and single-factor models did not. The MSE for concurrent (11.5y) BMI regressed on the 5-factor ChEAT summary was 35% lower than that of the single-score models, which reduced the MSE from the null model by only 1–5%. The MSE for BMI at 16y was 20%
lower.
Discussion: We found that a parsimonious 5-factor model of the ChEAT explained the data collected from healthy Belarusian children better than the conventional summary score and thus provides a more discriminating measure of eating attitudes.
Method: Using data from 13,674 participants of the 11.5 year-follow-up of the Promotion of Breastfeeding Intervention Trial (PROBIT) in the Republic of Belarus, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the performance of 3- and 5-factor models, which were based on past studies, to a single-factor model representing the conventional summary of the ChEAT. We used cross-validated linear regression models and the reduction in mean squared error (MSE) to compare the prediction of BMI at 11.5y and 16y by the conventional and confirmed factor-based ChEAT scores.
Results: The 5-factor model, based on 14 of the original 26 ChEAT items, had good fit to the data whereas the 3- and single-factor models did not. The MSE for concurrent (11.5y) BMI regressed on the 5-factor ChEAT summary was 35% lower than that of the single-score models, which reduced the MSE from the null model by only 1–5%. The MSE for BMI at 16y was 20%
lower.
Discussion: We found that a parsimonious 5-factor model of the ChEAT explained the data collected from healthy Belarusian children better than the conventional summary score and thus provides a more discriminating measure of eating attitudes.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 669-680 |
Number of pages | 12 |
Journal | International Journal of Eating Disorders |
Volume | 52 |
Issue number | 6 |
Early online date | 2 Mar 2019 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 Jun 2019 |
Keywords
- Factor Analysis
- Adiposity
- Attitude
- Psychology
- Eating
- Child
- Republic of Belarus
- Statistical