Transcultural Adaptation and Validation of the Eating Self-Efficacy Brief Scale (ESEBS): The Brazilian version

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4682441/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Transcultural Adaptation and Validation of the Eating Self-Efficacy Brief Scale (ESEBS): The Brazilian version

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4682441/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose

This study aimed to develop and validate the Brief Eating Self-Efficacy Scale (ESEBS-BR) in Brazilian Portuguese, addressing the lack of tools to assess eating self-efficacy beliefs in Portuguese-speaking populations.

Method

The study sought to cross-culturally adapt the scale, evaluate its internal structure, validate its reliability and validity, and explore potential associations between eating self-efficacy and eating behaviors. The cross-cultural adaptation process followed guidelines proposed by Beaton et al. (2007), involving translation and back-translation, expert committees, and pre-testing. Scale validation was conducted with 228 participants, including reliability analyses, confirmatory factor analysis, and correlations with established measures of eating behavior.

Results

The ESEBS-BR, maintaining all 8 original items, demonstrated high reliability, with a two-factor structure model confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis. Significant correlations were found between ESEBS-BR scores and measures of binge eating and eating behaviors, validating its criterion validity.

Conclusions

The development and validation of the ESEBS-BR represent a significant contribution to the assessment of eating self-efficacy in the Brazilian population. The scale proved to be sensitive, reliable, and valid, offering an important tool for research and clinical interventions related to eating behavior.

Level of evidence

V, descriptive cross sectional study

eating self-efficacy

eating behavior

scale

validation

The ESEBS-BR maintains all 8 original items in order and demonstrates high reliability and psychometric validity.
The ESEBS focuses on examining eating self-efficacy beliefs across various scenarios rather than solely focusing on dieting, adopting a healthy eating regimen, or managing weight.
The connections found with other well-known measures like BES and TFEQ confirmed that the ESEBS-BR accurately assesses eating self-efficacy.
The brevity of ESEBS-BR enables its utilization in both clinical and research environments.

The present study aimed to validate the Brazilian Portuguese version of the ESEBS scale.
The correlation analysis between the ESEBS-BR and established measures such as BES and TFEQ provided further evidence of the scale's validity. Notably, the ESEBS-BR's two latent scales showed negative correlations with indicators of binge eating and domains of the TFEQ, disinhibition, emotional eating, and cognitive restraint.

Eating self-efficacy has been referred to as the belief in one’s ability to self-regulate eating behavior [1–3]. The concept of self-efficacy was initially introduced by Bandura within his social-cognitive theory of human behavior (e.g. 1997) and refers to personal beliefs related to specific behavioral domains [4]. Self-efficacy was found to have a role in promoting behavioral change in primary care [5] and health behaviors [6].

Having a short but valid and reliable instrument for assessing eating self-efficacy is relevant for many reasons. First of all, it has been often reported that personal belief in one’s ability to adopt a certain behavior is a good predictor of the frequency of adoption of that behavior [7]. Self-regulating eating behavior is essential for both promoting healthy eating and counteracting overeating. Studies have shown that adherence to the Mediterranean diet, one of the most acknowledged healthy eating patterns so far, is predicted by self-efficacy [8, 9]. Self-efficacy also predicted higher scores on the Healthy Eating Index [e.g.10] and acted as a mediator in explaining healthy eating (i.e. eating more fruits and vegetables) after 2 weeks [11]. Moreover, several studies reported reduced eating self-efficacy in individuals with Binge Eating Disorder (BED) when facing situations characterized by negative emotions or physical discomfort, as compared to people without this diagnosis [e.g.12–14].

Most scales used for evaluating eating self-efficacy refer to the beliefs in one's ability to regulate dieting or include questions related to dieting, weight management, overeating, and restriction of caloric consumption and are mostly used in contexts evaluating weight loss interventions [e.g. 15,16]. In 2020, a scale to assess self-efficacy in regulating eating in emotional and social contexts was validated (the Eating Self-Efficacy Scale, ESEBS, [17]). This scale has the advantage of assessing personal belief in regulating eating behavior without referring to dieting or weight loss and using a reduced number of items (only 8), showing good psychometric properties. So far, no similar available instruments in the Portuguese language have been validated.

In light of the potential usefulness in different healthcare contexts, due to its brevity, content and properties, we decided to adapt the scale to Portuguese. The aim of the present study is to report on the psychometric properties of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Eating Self Efficacy Brief Scale (ESEBS-BR).

The sample was recruited, for convenience, through social media between June and July 2023. Sample size calculation was conducted according to Pasquali’s recommendations [18]. It was considered to include 15 respondents per each of the 8 items that constitute ESEBS-BR, increasing by 20% for possible missing data. This resulted in a minimum size of 144 participants in order to get reliable results from the parametric tests. Data were collected from a total of 241 participants. However, 13 individuals who completed the questionnaires incorrectly or incompletely were excluded from the study, bringing to 228 participants finally included in the study and analysis.

Ethical procedures

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Pontifical Catholic University (CAAE: 64659222.0.0000.5336). Participants were invited to voluntarily take part in the study without any form of compensation. They completed the forms and questionnaires only after confirming their understanding and agreeing to the Informed Consent Form

Stage 1 - Transcultural adaptation

The transcultural adaptation process followed the model proposed by Beaton et al. (2007) [19] consisting of six stages. It began with translation, where two translators fluent in Italian and with Portuguese as their native language, one specialized in the field and the other without knowledge of the theme, independently translated the original version into Portuguese, generating versions T1 and T2. The T1 and T2 versions were compared and synthesized by an impartial researcher, mediating discussions on translation differences resulting in a common translation (T-12). The T-12 version was back-translated into Italian by two translators, unaware of the tool's purpose, ensuring correspondence with the original version and generating versions RT1 and RT2.

Two committees were formed; the first unified all versions into a pre-final version in Portuguese, and the second, composed of specialists from different regions of Brazil, analyzed equivalences in four levels: semantic, idiomatic, experiential/cultural, and conceptual. The scale was pre-tested on a sample of 30 participants, following Beaton et al.'s (2007) [19] recommendations. Participants responded to sociodemographic questionnaires and the pre-final version of the ESEBS-BR, providing feedback on clarity and understanding of the items.

All produced documents were reviewed by the responsible researchers, and the adapted version was sent to the original authors for approval. The analysis of content validity was based on experts' responses regarding semantic, idiomatic, experiential, and conceptual equivalences. The content validity index (CVI) was calculated based on a minimum agreement of 0.80 among judges, verifying the scale's validity [20,21].

Stage 2 - ESEBS-BR Validation and Psychometric Analyses Questionnaires

Participants completed the questionnaires online on the QualtricsXM platform. The survey included the transcultural version of ESEBS adapted for Brazilian Portuguese (ESEBS-BR), other validated measures of eating behavior, and sociodemographic and anthropometric information. The following instruments were used for this stage:

(a) Sociodemographic and anthropometric data: A brief survey was created specifically for this research and contained questions on age, gender, weight, height, education level, marital status, living situation and monthly family income. BMI was calculated as follows: weight in kilograms (kg) divided by height in meters (m) squared (kg/m²).

(b) ESEBS-BR, 8 items, Brazilian version: This tool is a self-report scale consisting of 8 items that aim to measure how easy it would be to resist the urge to eat in two different situations on a 6-point Likert response scale ranging from 0 “not easy at all” to 5 “completely easy” [17]. The original version of the scale consists of two subscales, namely social and emotional: the former measures the ability to regulate eating in social contexts (e.g., "How easy would it be for you to resist the urge to eat when eating out with friends"), and the latter, the ability to resist in situations of emotional activation (e.g., "How easy would it be for you to resist the urge to eat when you are worried about work/study reasons”). Cronbach’s alphas from the original study revealed good reliabilities, namely being 0.820 for the Emotional scale and 0.786 for the Social scale.

(c) Binge Eating Scale (BES): In this tool participants are required to choose, for each item, the statement that most accurately reflects their response. Each statement is associated with a score ranging from 0 to 3, covering the spectrum from absence ('0') to maximum severity ('3') of the BED. The cumulative score is determined by summing the points assigned to each item [22,23]. Following the instructions given by Marcus et al. (1985) [24], individuals are categorized based on the following scores: those with a score equal to or less than 17 are considered without BED; those with scores between 18 and 26 are classified as having moderate BED; and those with a score equal to or greater than 27 are identified as having severe BED. In the present study, Cronbach's alpha was 0.89.

(d) The Three Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ-21): To determine the degrees of cognitive restriction, emotional eating and lack of eating control, the classification instructions provided by the team that developed the questionnaire [25] were used. A 4-point response format was used for items 1 to 20, and an 8-point numerical rating scale was used for question 21 [25]. The Cronbach's statistics in our sample were for the Emotional scale 0.93, Cognitive Restriction 0.75, and Lack of Control 0.84.

Data analyses

Data were analysed with JASP version 0.14.1.0.

To assess the normality of the distribution, skewness and kurtosis values were considered, accepting a distribution with skewness and kurtosis lower than the absolute value of 1 as normal [26].

A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed to test the internal structure of the ESEBS-BR. In accordance with the original study [17], a model with two correlated factors was tested. The model fit was evaluated using the ML Chi-square test statistic, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). By convention, a CFI and TLI > 0.900 indicate an adequate model fit, and a CFI and TLI>0.950 indicate a good fit. An SRMR < 0.08 is considered a good fit. RMSEA values < 0.050 represent a close fit, while values between 0.050 and 0.080 represent a reasonably close fit, and values > 0.080 represent an unacceptable fit [27]. Reliability was measured by applying Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega tests with 95% confidence intervals. Values are considered adequate when ≥0.70 [28] Pearson’s correlation test was used to assess the convergent validity between ESEBS-BR, TFEQ and BES..

Six subgroups were formed based on participants’ BMI using WHO norms: underweight participants, BMI<18.5; normal weight participants, BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m²; participants with overweight, BMI between 25.0 and 29.9 kg/m²; participants with first class obesity, BMI between 30.0 and 34.9 kg/m²; second class obesity, BMI between 35.0 and 39.9 kg/m²; and third class obesity BMI >40.0 kg/m². Emotional and social ESEBS scale scores were used to compare groups through a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results were interpreted with a 95% confidence interval.

Stage 1 - Transcultural adaptation

To assess content validity, the Content Validity Index (CVI) was utilized. This index measures the proportion or percentage of judges’ agreementon specific aspects of the questionnaire or its items. Judges were provided with the questions of the ESEBS-BR and had to indicate the fitness of each item regarding semantic, idiomatic, cultural, and conceptual appropriateness on a scale from one to four, going from “not equivalent” to “absolutely equivalent.” The CVI was then calculated for each item by summing experts’ responses rated "3" and "4" and dividing the sum by the total number of responses. The maximum expected score for the CVI is 1, corresponding to a rate of 4 from each judge. In our analysis, all eight items achieved the maximum content validity score, indicating that all evaluated items have satisfactory equivalence in the analyzed dimensions and content validity, according to the experts' responses.

Stage 2 - Validation and Psychometric Analyses

Sample Characteristics

The sample included in the final version of the study consisted of 228 individuals, 179 of which were women (78.51%), with a mean age of 38.54 years (SD = 13.45) and a mean BMI of 26.65 kg/m² (SD = 5.62). Table 1 presents the characteristics of the sample.

Table 1

*Characteristics of the validation study sample.*
	N
Total sample	228
Mean age (SD)	38.54 (13.45)
Body Mass Index (kg/m²) (SD)	26.65 (5.62)
No information	0
BMI classification N (%)
Underweight (< 18.5kg/m²)	6 (2.63%)
Normal (18,5–24,9 kg/m²)	102 (44.73%)
Overweight (25,0–29,9 kg/m²)	68 (29.82%)
Obesity class I (30,0–34,9 kg/m²)	40 (17.54%)
Obesity class II (35.0–39.9 kg/m²)	9 (3.94%)
Obesity class III (≥ 40 kg/m²)	3 (1.31%)
No information	0
Civil status N (%)
Single	96 (42.11%)
Married	79 (34.65%)
Widower	4 (1.75%)
Living with partner	35 (15.35%)
No information	14 (6.14%)
Family income N (%)
No income	4 (1.77%)
Up to 1 minimum wage	5 (2.21%)
1 to 3 minimum wages	30 (13.27%)
3 to 6 minimum wages	52 (23.01%)
6 to 9 minimum wages	49 (21.68%)
9 to 12 minimum wages	34 (15.04%)
12 to 15 minimum wages	21 (9.29%)
More 15 minimum wages	31 (13.72%)
No information	2
Education N (%)
Elementary unfinished	1 (0.44%)
Elementary finished	0
High school unfinished	1 (0.44%)
High school finished	14 (6.14%)
University unfinished	43 (18.86%)
University finished	55 (24.12%)
Postgraduate	114 (50.0%)
No information	0

Due to missing data, some participants were excluded from some of the analyses as follows: Correlations were calculated on 190 participants who completed all the questionnaires included in the analyses; ANOVAs were performed on 185 participants. Individuals with underweight were excluded due to the very small subsample size (n = 4). For the same reason, I, II and III class obesity were combined into a single “Obesity” group.

Normality of the distribution

The skewness and kurtosis analyses indicated that the data were normally distributed according to the Empiric Criteria of +/- 1(quote).

Internal structure: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

The results of the CFA for ESEBS-BR confirm a good fit with the two-factor model (χ²(19) = 35.354; p = .013; RMSEA = < 0.068 [95% CI 0.031–0.103]; SRMR = 0.036; TLI = 0.962; CFI = 0.974). The standardized loadings ranged from 0.638 to 0.894. The factors’ covariance was .50 (p < .001). Figure 1 shows the standardized loadings of CFA for the items in the ESEBS-BR. The original two-factor model confirmed a good fit in the Brazilian version of the instrument as supported by the observed data.

Reliability

The internal consistency for the Social scale was high (Cronbach's α = 0.822, 95% CI 0.776–0.861; McDonald's ω = 0.824, 95% CI 0.783–0.866), as was for the Emotional scale (Cronbach's α = 0.858, 95% CI 0.821–0.889; McDonald's ω = 0.861, 95% CI 0.829–0.894).

Concurrent and criterion validity

Correlations

For the correlation analyses, 190 participants yielded valid scores and thus were included. The raw scores for the Emotional and Social subscales of ESEBS-BR were calculated by summing the scores of the four items for each scale in accordance with the results of the factorial analyses (see Table 3). Correlations of eating self-efficacy in emotional context and social contexts with the Binge Eating Scale (BES) and the Three-factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) were calculated.

Pearson's correlation test identified a moderate negative correlation between scores on the ESEBS-BR in the emotional scale and BES scores (r=-0.526, p < 0.001). In contrast, high scores on the ESEBS-BR in the social scale corresponded to low scores on the BES with a weak intensity (r=-0.281, p < 0.001).

Regarding the dimensions of the TFEQ, scores on the ESEBS-BR in internal contexts exhibited a moderate to strong negative correlation with the emotional eating dimension of the TFEQ (-0.687, p < 0.001). Concerning the uncontrolled eating scale, the ESEBS-BR score in both emotional and social scales showed a moderate negative correlation (-0.464 and 0.335, respectively, p < 0.001) with the TFEQ score in Table 2.

Table 2

*Correlation between Self-efficacy, BES, TFEQ dimensions and BMI.*
	BES	TFEQ Emotional Eating	TFEQ Cognitive Restraint	TFEQ Disinhibition	BMI
Emotional ESEBS-BR	-0.526*	-0.687*	-0.182	-0.464*	-0.275*
Social ESEBS-BR	-0.281*	-0.285*	-0.079	-0.335	-0.102
Note:*p ≤ 0.001; n = 185 individuals.

Differences among groups

The ANOVAs were performed on 185 participants due to missing data.

Results showed significant differences between the three groups for eating self-efficacy in emotional contexts (F_(2,182) = 5.598; p = .004; ω = .047), but not in social contexts (F_(2,182) = 1.664; p = .192; ω = .007). More specifically, post-hoc showed that there was a significant difference in emotional ESEBS-BR between obesity and overweight (t= -2.442; p = .041; d = − .639) and between obesity and normal weight (t= -3.302; p = .003; d = − .487) with a medium effect size. People with obesity reported significantly less eating self-efficacy than people with overweight and people with normal weight (see Table 4). No significant difference in ESEBS-BR was found between overweight and normal weight (t = 0.745; p = .737; d = .124). Post-hoc for ESEBS-BR in social contexts confirmed that there were no significant differences between obesity and overweight (t = − 1.824; p = .165; d = − .361), between obesity and normal weight (t= -1.153; p = .483; d = − .213) nor between overweight and normal weight (t = − .874; p = .657; d = − .152). The mean scores for each subgroup are described in Table 3.

Table 3

*Descriptive analyses of emotional and social ESEBS-BR mean across the BMI subgroups.*
	Emotional ESEBS-BR			Social ESEBS-BR
Subgroups BMI	Mean	SD	N	Mean	SD	N
Normal weight	10.940	5.073	83	9.265	5.073	83
Overweight	10.241	5.054	58	10.034	5.054	58
Obesity	7.568	5.391	44	8.159	5.391	44

This study successfully developed, adapted and psychometrically validated the Brazilian Portuguese version of the ESEBS, which we named the “Escala Breve de Autoeficácia Alimentar (ESEBS-BR)”. This adapted tool retains all 8 original items in the same order. The translated version demonstrated semantic, idiomatic, cultural, and conceptual appropriateness for the Brazilian population and Portuguese language while also exhibiting high reliability and strong psychometric properties.

The original version of the ESEBS [17] differs from earlier tools designed to evaluate eating self-efficacy through several distinctive features and no similar instrument is available in the Portuguese language so far. Its principal strength is to direct attention towards the examination of eating self-efficacy beliefs in diverse scenarios, as opposed to the main focus of most of the already available scales, such as dieting, adopting a healthy eating regimen, or managing weight loss.

After translating and adapting the original instrument in Portuguese for the Brazilian population, the second stage of the study utilized Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to empirically validate the hypothesized two-factor model for the scale, consistent with the original. The results not only affirmed the internal consistency of the ESEBS-BR but also underscored its reliability.

Latent correlations with previously established measures like BES and TFEQ supported the criterion validity of the ESEBS-BR. Specifically, the two sets of scale scores of the ESEBS-BR exhibited a negative correlation with indicators of binge eating and disinhibition, emotional eating, and cognitive restraint. The well-established connection between eating self-efficacy and eating behaviours, as well as psychological traits associated with eating disorders, has been extensively documented in prior research [3; 29,30]. Additionally, previous studies reported an association between the utilization of dysfunctional strategies to regulate emotions and an increase in food intake [31, 32]. The moderate correlation observed between ESEBS-BR emotional domain and emotional eating domain from TFEQ suggests that while perceived efficacy in regulating eating behavior in emotional situations may predict emotional eating, it likely represents a distinct construct from what was initially conceptualized when the scale was developed. This finding underscores the complexity of eating behavior regulation and highlights the need for further exploration into the complex relationship between these constructs.

Moreover, the absence of significant correlations between both scales of the ESEBS-BR and Cognitive Restraint domain of TFEQ is encouraging. This suggests that perceived efficacy in regulating eating behavior differs from perceived control over eating behavior. Such differentiation enhances our understanding of the multifaceted nature of eating behavior and reinforces the validity of the ESEBS-BR as a tool for assessing specific aspects of eating self-regulation.

Furthermore, consistent negative correlations were observed between the emotional subscale of the ESEBS-BR and binge eating symptoms, as measured by the BES. The study conducted by Chao et al. (2022) [33]found that among patients seeking bariatric surgery, those diagnosed with Binge Eating Disorder (BED) had significantly lower scores on the eating self-efficacy subscales, including control over negative emotions and social pressure, compared to those without BED.

Based on the results obtained, the study examined the differences in mean scores of two variables, emotional and social eating self-efficacy, among three subgroups categorized by BMI: normal weight, overweight, and obesity. The subdivision based on BMI criteria allowed for a more nuanced understanding of how weight status might influence these variables. Interestingly, when comparing the mean scores of the emotional subscale of the ESEBS-BR among the subgroups, a statistically significant difference was observed, indicating that individuals with different BMI statuses exhibit variations in emotional eating self-efficacy may vary with BMI. Specifically, in our sample, people with obesity exhibited lower eating self-efficacy in emotional contexts than people with overweight and than people with normal weight, while there were no significant differences between people with normal weight and people with overweight. This finding suggests a potential relationship between weight status and emotional eating self-efficacy, warranting further investigation into the underlying mechanisms. Conversely, when assessing the mean scores of the social subscale among the BMI groups, no statistically significant difference was found, implying that weight status may not have a significant impact on social eating self-efficacy or that this difference is so small that it does not emerge with our relatively small sample. However, it is essential to interpret these results with caution and consider potential confounding variables that may influence the relationship between BMI and psychological variables.

The present study has some limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, all data was collected through self-administered surveys, which may introduce biases such as social desirability. To improve the generalizability of our findings it is recommended that future research endeavors recruit participants from a wider range of socioeconomic backgrounds and from different settings beyond social media platforms, including community centers and healthcare institutions. Adopting this more inclusive approach will provide deeper insights into the scale’s applicability and relevance across diverse segments of the Brazilian population, thereby enhancing the robustness of the research outcomes. Second, the cross-sectional design of this study restricts our ability to infer causality between eating self-efficacy and eating behaviors. Third, this study was conducted at a single point in time. To assess the stability of the ESEBS-BR over time, a longitudinal design is recommended. Tracking participants over several months would allow us to monitor changes in self-efficacy related to eating behaviors, confirm test re-test reliability and determine the scale’s sensitivity to behavioral interventions aimed at improving eating habits.

The ESEBS-BR fills an important gap by providing a reliable and psychometric valid brieftool to assess ESE beliefs in the Brazilian population. Analysis of subgroups categorized by Body Mass Index (BMI) revealed significant differences in ESE levels, while correlations between scale dimensions and established measures supported its validity.

The relationships found in the present study not only validate the criterion validity of the ESEBS-BR but also suggest potential clinical applications. For instance, the scale could be used to identify individuals at higher risk for binge eating behaviors, enabling early intervention. Further research could explore the utility of ESEBS-BR in therapeutic settings, examining whether improvements in self-efficacy scores can predict better outcomes in eating disorder treatments.

These findings contribute to a better understanding of ESE and its implications for interventions aimed at promoting healthy eating behaviors. However, further studies are needed to explore the applicability and utility of the ESEBS-BR in different contexts and populations, as well as to investigate its relationship with long-term dietary health outcomes.

Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no confict of interest.

Ethical approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Pontifical Catholic University (CAAE: 64659222.0.0000.5336).

Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Funding

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.

Author Contribution

A.F. and J.U. contributed to the conception and design of the study, as well as the translation and adaptation of the original questionnaire. A.F. and T.L. contributed to the acquisition of the data. A.F., T.L., C.L., and M.D. contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. S.C. offered significant input on the data analysis and interpretation and provided critical revisions to the first draft of the manuscript. A.F., T.L., C.L., M.D., and S.C. contributed to the final editing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Data Availability

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Pontifical Catholic University (CAAE: 64659222.0.0000.5336). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study

Clark MM, Abrams DB, Niaura RS, et al (1991) Self-Efficacy in Weight Management. J Consult Clin Psychol 59:739–744. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.5.739
Glynn SM, Ruderman AJ (1986) The development and validation of an Eating Self-Efficacy Scale. Cognit Ther Res 10:403–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173294
Bandura A (1997) The exercise of control. WH Freeman, New York
Burke, L.E., Ewing, L.J., Ye, L., et al (2015), The SELF trial: A self-efficacy-based behavioral intervention trial for weight loss maintenance. Obesity, 23: 2175-2182. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.21238
Islam, K. F., Awal, A., Mazumder, H., et al (2023). Social cognitive theory-based health promotion in primary care practice: A scoping review. Heliyon, 9(4), e14889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14889
Sheeran, P., Maki, A., Montanaro, E., et al (2016). The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 35(11), 1178–1188. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000387
Schwarzer R. Models of health behaviour change: intention as mediator or stage as moderator? Psychol Health. 2008;23(3):259-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440801889476. PMID: 25160477
Mattavelli, E., Olmastroni, E., Casula, M., Grigore, L., Pellegatta, F., Baragetti, A., Magni, P., & Catapano, A. L. (2023). Adherence to Mediterranean Diet: A Population-Based Longitudinal Cohort Study. Nutrients, 15(8), 1844. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15081844
Poklar Vatovec, T., Jenko Pražnikar, Z., & Petelin, A. (2023). Adherence and Sociodemographic Determinants of Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet among Slovenian Adults and the Elderly. Nutrients, 15(14), 3219. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15143219
Razaz, J. M., Balam, F. H., Karimi, T., et al (2022). Sex differences in healthy eating: investigating the moderating effect of self-efficacy. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 54(2), 151-158.
Strachan SM, Brawley LR. Healthy-eater identity and self-efficacy predict healthy eating behavior: a prospective view. J Health Psychol. 2009;14(5):684-695. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105309104915
Miller, P. M., Watkins, J. A., Sargent, R. G., & Rickert, E. J. (1999). Self‐efficacy in overweight individuals with binge eating disorder. Obesity Research, 7(6), 552-555. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1550-8528.1999.tb00713.x.
Watkins, J., Sargent, R. G., Miller, P., Ureda, J. R., Drane, W., Richter, D. (2001). A study of the attribution style, self-efficacy, and dietary restraint in female binge and non-binge eaters. Eating Weight Disorders, 6(4), 188-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03339742.
Chao, A. M., Abene, J., Allison, K. C., et al (2022). Binge eating disorder and eating self‐efficacy in adults seeking bariatric surgery. Clinical Obesity, 12(4), e12531. https://doi.org/10.1111/cob.12531
Costanzo PR, Reichmann SK, Friedman KE, Musante GJ (2001) The mediating effect of eating self-efficacy on the relationship between emotional arousal and overeating in the treatment-seeking obese. Eat Behav 2:363–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1471-0153(01)00042-3
Shannon B, Bagby R, Wang MQ, Trenkner L (1990) Self-efficacy: a contributor to the explanation of eating behavior. Health Educ Res 5:395–407. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/5.4.395
Lombardo, C., Cerolini, S., Alivernini, F., Ballesio, A., Violani, C., Fernandes, M., & Lucidi, F. (2021). Eating self-efficacy: validation of a new brief scale. Eating and Weight Disorders-Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity, 26, 295-303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-020-00854-2
Pasquali, L. (2009) Psychometrics. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, 43:992-999. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0080-62342009000500002
Beaton, D., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2007). Recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of the DASH & QuickDASH outcome measures. Institute for Work & Health, 1(1), 1-45.
Grant, J. S., & Davis, L. L. (1997). Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in Nursing & Health, 20(3), 269-274. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-240x(199706)20:3<269::aid-nur9>3.0.co;2-g
Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194-197.
Timmerman, G. M. (1999). Binge Eating Scale: Further assessment of validity and reliability. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 4(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9861.1999.tb00051.x
Freitas, S., Lopes, C. S., Coutinho, W., & Appolinario, J. C. (2001). Tradução e adaptação para o português da Escala de Compulsão Alimentar Periódica. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 23, 215-220. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-44462001000400008
Marcus, M. D., Wing, R. R., & Lamparski, D. M. (1985). Binge eating and dietary restraint in obese patients. Addictive Behaviors, 10(2), 163-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(85)90022-x.
Natacci, L. C., & Ferreira Júnior, M. (2011). The three factor eating questionnaire-R21: translation into Portuguese and application in Brazilian women. Revista de Nutrição, 24, 383-394. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-52732011000300002
Barbaranelli, C., D'Olimpio, F. (2007). Analisi dei dati con SPSS vol. 1 Le analisi di base. LED Edizioni Universitarie, Milan.
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., et al (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34-42.
O'Leary, A. (1985). Self-efficacy and health. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 23(4), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(85)90172-X
Berman, E. S. (2006). The relationship between eating self-efficacy and eating disorder symptoms in a non-clinical sample. Eating Behaviors, 7:79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2005.07.004
Evers, C., Marijn Stok, F., & de Ridder, D. T. (2010). Feeding your feelings: Emotion regulation strategies and emotional eating. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(6), 792-804.
Wallis, D. J., & Hetherington, M. M. (2004). Stress and eating: the effects of ego-threat and cognitive demand on food intake in restrained and emotional eaters. Appetite, 43(1), 39-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.02.001.
Chao, A. M., Abene, J., Allison, K. C., Pearl, R. L., Wadden, T. A., Williams, N. N., & Tronieri, J. S. (2022). Binge eating disorder and eating self-efficacy in adults seeking bariatric surgery. Clinical Obesity, 12(4), e12531. https://doi.org/110.1111/cob.12531.

No competing interests reported.

Supplementarymaterial.docx

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
14 Aug, 2024
Reviews received at journal
13 Aug, 2024
Reviews received at journal
05 Aug, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
05 Aug, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
15 Jul, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
09 Jul, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
09 Jul, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
07 Jul, 2024
First submitted to journal
03 Jul, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Transcultural Adaptation and Validation of the Eating Self-Efficacy Brief Scale (ESEBS): The Brazilian version

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

What is already known on this subject?

What does this study add?

Introduction

Methods

Results

Stage 1 - Transcultural adaptation

Stage 2 - Validation and Psychometric Analyses

Sample Characteristics

Normality of the distribution

Internal structure: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Reliability

Concurrent and criterion validity

Correlations

Differences among groups

Discussion

Declarations

Funding

Author Contribution

Data Availability

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1