Fulltext

The Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 and the modified Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 in Taiwan: Factor structure and concurrent validity

Chen IH 1 , Huang PC 2 , Lin YC 3 , Gan WY 4 , Fan CW 5 , Yang WC 6 Show all authors , Tung SEH 7 , Poon WC 8 , Griffiths MD 9 , Lin CY 2

Affiliations 

  • 1 Chinese Academy of Education Big Data, Qufu Normal University, Qufu, China
  • 2 Institute of Allied Health Sciences, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
  • 3 Department of Early Childhood and Family Education, National Taipei University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan
  • 4 Department of Nutrition, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
  • 5 Department of Occupational Therapy, AdventHealth University, Orlando, FL, United States
  • 6 Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, E-DA Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
  • 7 Division of Nutrition and Dietetics, School of Health Sciences, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 8 Sunway University Business School, Sunway University, Selangor, Malaysia
  • 9 International Gaming Research Unit, Department of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, United Kingdom
Front Psychiatry, 2022;13:1014447.
PMID: 36506452 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1014447

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The most widely used instruments to assess food addiction - the Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 (YFAS 2.0) and its modified version (mYFAS 2.0) - have not been validated in a Taiwanese population. The present study compared the psychometric properties between the Taiwan versions of YFAS 2.0 and mYFAS 2.0 among university students.

METHODS: An online survey comprising the YFAS 2.0, mYFAS 2.0, Weight Self-Stigma Questionnaire (WSSQ) and International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF) were used to assess food addiction, self-stigma, and physical activity.

RESULTS: All participants (n = 687; mean age = 24.00 years [SD ± 4.48 years]; 407 females [59.2%]) completed the entire survey at baseline and then completed the YFAS 2.0 and mYFAS 2.0 again three months later. The results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated that the YFAS 2.0 and mYFAS 2.0 both shared a similar single-factor solution. In addition, both the YFAS 2.0 and mYFAS 2.0 reported good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.90 and 0.89), good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.71 and 0.69), and good concurrent validity with the total scores being strongly associated with the WSSQ (r = 0.54 and 0.57; p < 0.01), and less strongly associated with BMI (r = 0.17 and 0.13; p < 0.01) and IPAQ-SF (r = 0.23 and 0.25; p < 0.01).

DISCUSSION: Based on the findings, the Taiwan versions of the YFAS 2.0 and mYFAS 2.0 appear to be valid and reliable instruments assessing food addiction.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Similar publications