Development of the Hedonic Overeating-Questionnaire (HEDO-Q).

Addictive-like eating is prevalent, but a clear conceptualization and operationalization outside of an addiction framework is lacking. By adopting a biopsychological framework of food reward, this study sought to develop and evaluate a brief self-report questionnaire for the trait assessment of hedonic overeating and dyscontrol. Items in the Hedonic Overeating-Questionnaire (HEDO-Q) were constructed following a rational approach and psychometrically evaluated in a large random sample from the German population (N = 2531). A confirmatory factor analysis supported the unidimensional nature of the six-item HEDO-Q with the three postulated components of wanting, liking, and dyscontrol. Psychometric properties were favorable with good corrected item-total correlations, acceptable item difficulty and homogeneity, and high internal consistency. Population norms were provided. The HEDO-Q revealed strict measurement invariance for sex and partial invariance for age and weight status. Discriminant validity was demonstrated in distinguishing participants with versus without eating disturbances or obesity. Associations with the established measures of eating disorder and general psychopathology supported the convergent and divergent validity of the HEDO-Q. This first evaluation indicates good psychometric properties of the HEDO-Q in the general population. Future validation work is warranted on the HEDO-Q's stability, sensitivity to change, and predictive and construct validity.

Is the General Self-Efficacy Scale a Reliable Measure to be used in Cross-Cultural Studies? Results from Brazil, Germany and Colombia.

This study evaluated cross-cultural measurement invariance for the General Self-efficacy Scale (GSES) in a large Brazilian (N = 2.394) and representative German (N = 2.046) and Colombian (N = 1.500) samples. Initially, multiple-indicators multiple-causes (MIMIC) analyses showed that sex and age were biasing items responses on the total sample (2 and 10 items, respectively). After controlling for these two covariates, a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) was employed. Configural invariance was attested. However, metric invariance was not supported for five items, in a total of 10, and scalar invariance was not supported for all items. We also evaluated the differences between the latent scores estimated by two models: MIMIC and MGCFA unconstraining the non-equivalent parameters across countries. The average difference was equal to |.07| on the estimation of the latent scores, and 22.8% of the scores were biased in at least .10 standardized points. Bias effects were above the mean for the German group, which the average difference was equal to |.09|, and 33.7% of the scores were biased in at least .10. In synthesis, the GSES did not provide evidence of measurement invariance to be employed in this cross-cultural study. More than that, our results showed that even when controlling for sex and age effects, the absence of control on items parameters in the MGCFA analyses across countries would implicate in bias of the latent scores estimation, with a higher effect for the German population.

Is the general self-efficacy scale a reliable measure to be used in cross-cultural studies? Results from Brazil, Germany and Colombia

This study evaluated cross-cultural measurement invariance for the General Self-efficacy Scale (GSES) in a large Brazilian (N = 2.394) and representative German (N = 2.046) and Colombian (N = 1.500) samples. Initially, multipleindicators multiple-causes (MIMIC) analyses showed that sex and age were biasing items responses on the total sample (2 and 10 items, respectively). After controlling for these two covariates, a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) was employed. Configural invariance was attested. However, metric invariance was not supported for five items, in a total of 10, and scalar invariance was not supported for all items. We also evaluated the differences between the latent scores estimated by two models: MIMIC and MGCFA unconstraining the non-equivalent parameters across countries. The average difference was equal to (.07) on the estimation of the latent scores, and 22.8% of the scores were biased in at least .10 standardized points. Bias effects were above the mean for the German group, which the average difference was equal to (.09), and 33.7% of the scores were biased in at least .10. In synthesis, the GSES did not provide evidence of measurement invariance to be employed in this cross-cultural study. More than that, our results showed that even when controlling for sex and age effects, the absence of control on items parameters in the MGCFA analyses across countries would implicate in bias of the latent scores estimation, with a higher effect for the German population (AU)

No disponible