M Dalton1, G Finlayson1, A Hill2, J Blundell1. 1. Appetite Control and Energy Balance Research, School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 2. Academic Unit of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: The Control of Eating Questionnaire (CoEQ) comprises 21-items that are designed to assess the severity and type of food cravings an individual experiences over the previous 7 days. The CoEQ has been used in clinical trials as a multi-dimensional measure of appetite, craving and mood regulation however its underlying component structure has yet to be determined. The current paper has two aims; (1) to examine the psychometric properties, and internal consistency of the CoEQ; and (2) to provide a preliminary examination of the underlying components by exploring their construct and predictive validity. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Data were pooled from four studies in which a total 215 adults (80% women; Age=29.7 ± 10.3; BMI=26.5 ± 5.2) had completed the CoEQ alongside measures of psychometric eating behaviour traits, ad libitum food intake, and body composition. A principal components analysis (PCA) and parallel analysis was conducted to examine the underlying structure of the questionnaire. The resulting subscales were tested for internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.66-0.88). RESULTS: PCA revealed four components that explained 54.5% of the variance. The components were identified as: Craving Control, Positive Mood, Craving for Sweet, and Craving for Savoury. Associations between the underlying CoEQ subscales and measures of body composition and eating behaviour traits confirmed construct validity of the subscales. The associations between the subscales and snack food selection and intake of palatable snack foods supported the CoEQ's predictive validity. CONCLUSIONS: The CoEQ has good psychometric properties with a clear component structure and acceptable internal consistency. This preliminary validation supports the CoEQ as a measure of the experience of food cravings.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: The Control of Eating Questionnaire (CoEQ) comprises 21-items that are designed to assess the severity and type of food cravings an individual experiences over the previous 7 days. The CoEQ has been used in clinical trials as a multi-dimensional measure of appetite, craving and mood regulation however its underlying component structure has yet to be determined. The current paper has two aims; (1) to examine the psychometric properties, and internal consistency of the CoEQ; and (2) to provide a preliminary examination of the underlying components by exploring their construct and predictive validity. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Data were pooled from four studies in which a total 215 adults (80% women; Age=29.7 ± 10.3; BMI=26.5 ± 5.2) had completed the CoEQ alongside measures of psychometric eating behaviour traits, ad libitum food intake, and body composition. A principal components analysis (PCA) and parallel analysis was conducted to examine the underlying structure of the questionnaire. The resulting subscales were tested for internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.66-0.88). RESULTS: PCA revealed four components that explained 54.5% of the variance. The components were identified as: Craving Control, Positive Mood, Craving for Sweet, and Craving for Savoury. Associations between the underlying CoEQ subscales and measures of body composition and eating behaviour traits confirmed construct validity of the subscales. The associations between the subscales and snack food selection and intake of palatable snack foods supported the CoEQ's predictive validity. CONCLUSIONS: The CoEQ has good psychometric properties with a clear component structure and acceptable internal consistency. This preliminary validation supports the CoEQ as a measure of the experience of food cravings.
Authors: Frank L Greenway; Ken Fujioka; Raymond A Plodkowski; Sunder Mudaliar; Maria Guttadauria; Janelle Erickson; Dennis D Kim; Eduardo Dunayevich Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-07-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: John E Blundell; Phillipa Caudwell; Catherine Gibbons; Mark Hopkins; Erik Näslund; Neil A King; Graham Finlayson Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: V Abilés; S Rodríguez-Ruiz; J Abilés; C Mellado; A García; A Pérez de la Cruz; M C Fernández-Santaella Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2008-10-29 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Charles S Wilcox; Nader Oskooilar; Janelle S Erickson; Sonja K Billes; Barbara B Katz; Gary Tollefson; Eduardo Dunayevich Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2009-10-31 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: John E Blundell; Phillipa Caudwell; Catherine Gibbons; Mark Hopkins; Erik Naslund; Neil King; Graham Finlayson Journal: Dis Model Mech Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 5.758
Authors: J Philip Karl; Renee E Cole; Claire E Berryman; Graham Finlayson; Patrick N Radcliffe; Matthew T Kominsky; Nancy E Murphy; John W Carbone; Jennifer C Rood; Andrew J Young; Stefan M Pasiakos Journal: High Alt Med Biol Date: 2018-02-12 Impact factor: 1.981
Authors: Candida J Rebello; Elena V Nikonova; Sharon Zhou; Louis J Aronne; Ken Fujioka; W Timothy Garvey; Steven R Smith; Ann A Coulter; Frank L Greenway Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Ashley E Mason; Uku Vainik; Michael Acree; A Janet Tomiyama; Alain Dagher; Elissa S Epel; Frederick M Hecht Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2017-05-30