Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Psychometric properties of an Arabic translation of the Inflexible Eating Questionnaire (IEQ) in a non-clinical sample of adults

Journal of Eating Disorders volume 11, Article number: 115 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The Inflexible Eating Questionnaire (IEQ) is an 11-item instrument designed to evaluate the behavioural and psychological components of inflexible eating. However, the psychometric properties of the instrument have been infrequently examined, and no previous work has examined its utility in the context of the Middle East.

Methods

A total of 826 Lebanese citizens and residents completed a novel Arabic translation of the IEQ, as well as previously validated measures of body appreciation, functionality appreciation, and disordered eating.

Results

The unidimensional factor structure of the IEQ was upheld through both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, with all 11 items retained. We obtained evidence of scalar invariance across gender and found that there were no significant differences in observed IEQ scores between men and women. IEQ scores were also found to have adequate composite reliability and adequate patterns of concurrent validity.

Conclusion

The present findings provide support for the psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the IEQ in examining inflexible eating in Arabic-speaking adults in Lebanon.

Plain English Summary

Inflexible or rigid dietary restraint reflects an all-or-none approach that encompasses feeling compelled to obey a set of self-imposed dieting rules (e.g., avoiding high-calorie food, calorie counting, fasting to lose weight and/or skipping meals), having a sense of self-control and feeling empowered when adhering to these rules, and not respecting or following internal/external cues of hunger, satiety, and appetite. Therefore, the inflexible eating construct is composed of two dimensions, the first one is behavioural (i.e., obeying restrictive dietary rules) and the second one is psychological (i.e., the belief that following these rules is a consistent must). Until recently, the measures designed to assess inflexible eating focused on the behavioral dimension, while omitting to account for the psychological processes underlying the construct. To bridge this gap, the Inflexible Eating Questionnaire (IEQ), an 11-item self-report measure, was developed to assess both the behavioural and psychological components of dietary restraint. To date, the IEQ is not yet validated in Arabic. Through the present study, we aimed to examine the psychometric properties of an Arabic translation of the IEQ, which would in turn facilitate improved research and clinical practices related to dietary restraint in Arabic-speaking nations. Overall, findings provided support for the good psychometric qualities of the Arabic version of the IEQ, which suggests its utility for detecting inflexible eating in Arabic-speaking adults.

Introduction

Dietary restraint (DR) is defined as the intention to control and reduce caloric intake deliberately in order to lose or maintain weight [1]. It is a complex and multifaceted concept that can have different outcomes [2] depending on whether it is flexible or rigid [3]. In contrast to flexible dietary approach (i.e., behaviours such as moderate taking of “healthy” or smaller servings of food to regulate weight), rigid dietary control refers to all-or-nothing approach to eating behaviours and attitudes toward dieting (e.g., inflexible dietary rules dictating how much, when, and what one should eat) [4, 5]. Rigid or inflexible DR encompasses two dimensions, namely behavioural (i.e., obeying restrictive rules that include calorie counting, avoiding high-calorie food, skipping meals, and even fasting to lose weight) [3], and psychological (i.e., the belief that one must constantly adhere to inflexible, arbitrary rules that provide a feeling of empowerment and foster a sense of self-control) [6]. Inflexible DR has been associated with detrimental health effects, including affective and emotional disturbances [7, 8], and body image concerns [4, 5, 9,10,11]. Moreover, there is evidence that inflexible eating is a significant predictor of disordered eating [7], and represents a critical aspect of understanding eating patterns and psychopathology [7, 12,13,14]. Therefore, investigating these dimensions separately would allow scholars to more effectively determine how the different facets of DR differently impact mental and physical health.

Several measurement instruments have been developed and are commonly used to assess DR, such as the Restraint Scale [1, 15], the Restraint subscale of the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q; [16], the Cognitive Restraint subscale of the Three Factor Eating Questionnaire [17], and the Dutch Restraint Eating Scale [18]. Some of these instruments have been validated across various countries and languages (e.g. [19],), but all are focused solely on the behavioural dimension (i.e., effort or attempts to restraint caloric consumption), and do not fully account for the psychological processes underlying inflexible dietary control [7]. To address this gap, Duarte et al. [7] developed the Inflexible Eating Questionnaire (IEQ), an 11-item instrument designed to evaluate the behavioural and psychological components of DR. Beginning with a pool of 25 items, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a sample of Portuguese women allowed for the extraction of a unidimensional, 11-item model of IEQ scores. This unidimensional model was further supported in a second sample of Portuguese adults using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) once the covariance of errors between two pairs of items was freed. This unidimensional model of IEQ scores was also shown to be fully invariant across women and men, to have adequate composite reliability, and good patterns of nomological validity (e.g., significant positive associations with scores on measures of eating psychopathology, body image inflexibility, general psychopathology, and intuitive eating).

To date, the psychometric properties of the IEQ have been examined in a small number of studies and linguistic versions, including Portuguese [20], English [21], Chinese [22], and German [23]. The instrument’s unidimensional factor structure has been supported using CFA in adolescents from Portugal [20] and China [22], as well as in women from Australia [21], and community adults from Germany and Austria [23]. These studies have also broadly supported additional psychometric indices, including invariance across boys and girls (Duarte et al. 2020; Tie et al. 2022), adequacy of composite reliability, and adequacy of the scale’s nomological network (see also [24]). Nevertheless, much more can be done to better understand the psychometric properties of the IEQ in diverse cultural and linguistic contexts, particularly as studies suggest that patterns of eating behaviours are likely to vary across such contexts (e.g., [19, 25, 26]. Arab cultures, in particular, may be a useful cultural context in which to further investigate the psychometric properties of the IEQ, given a historical preference for body shapes and size that diverge from appearance ideals common in the developed West [27, 28]. Additionally, Arab populations have historically been more likely to report greater physical inactivity [29], higher rates of obesity [30,31,32], lower body dissatisfaction [33], and less motivation to adopt thin appearance ideals [34] than non-Arab populations.

Nevertheless, there is also some evidence that contemporary Arab generations have become increasingly preoccupied with body shape and size, as Arab societies modernize and Westernize [35]. This has contributed to an increase in disordered eating psychopathology and its associated negative consequences in many Arab countries [35]. However, despite these data, literature on eating-related behaviours that has emerged from the Arab world still suffers from several major limitations due to the lack of validated and adapted screening instruments [35]. In particular, a recent literature review could only find seven studies focusing on restrained eating behaviour [35], with the Dutch Restrained Eating Scale being the only DR measure validated in Arabic in Lebanese adolescent [36] and adult [37] samples. Thus, it is imperative to perform further research on inflexible eating in different cultural backgrounds, including Arab cultures, to help validate the current hypothesized models of DR [21].

To that end, we aimed to translate and validate a novel Arabic version of the IEQ in the present study, which would in turn facilitate improved research and clinical practices related to DR in Arabic-speaking nations. To do so, we first examined the factorial validity of the IEQ. Given our expectation of a unidimensional model, we utilised an EFA-to-CFA strategy, as recommended in the literature [38]. This would allow us to first examine the factor structure of the IEQ without modelling limitations in our sample of Arabic-speaking Lebanese adults (i.e., through EFA), as well as to cross-validate the EFA-derived model of IEQ scores (i.e., through CFA). Additionally, we also expected to find evidence of scalar invariance of the IEQ across women and men, which would in turn allow us to examine gender differences in IEQ mean scores [39]. Finally, to assess broader psychometric properties of the IEQ in Lebanese adults, we examined associations with scores on theoretically plausible nomological constructs that have been validated for use in Arabic-speaking populations. Specifically, we expected that IEQ scores would be positively associated with disordered eating attitudes, and negatively associated with indices of positive body image (i.e., body appreciation and functionality appreciation).

Methods

Procedures

Data for the present data were collected as part of a larger project, portions of which have been reported on previously [40]. All data were collected via a Google Form link, between December 2021 and April 2022. The project was advertised on social media and included an estimated duration. Inclusion criteria for participation included being of a resident and citizen of Lebanon of adult age. Internet protocol (IP) addresses were examined to ensure that no participant took the survey more than once. After providing digital informed consent, participants were asked to complete the instruments described above, which were presented in a pre-randomised order to control for order effects. The survey was anonymous and participants completed the survey voluntarily and without remuneration.

Participants

A total of 826 Lebanese citizens and residents enrolled in this study with a mean age of 25.42 years (SD = 8.44) and 57.9% women. Other sample characteristics are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1 Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants
Full size table

Measures

Inflexible Eating Questionnaire

The IEQ (Duarte et al. 2017) is composed of 11 items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (fully disagree) to 5 (fully agree), with higher scores reflecting greater inflexibility. To translate the IEQ into Arabic, we used a combination of methods, as per test adaptation recommendations [38]. First, the IEQ was translated from English into Arabic by a bilingual translator, whose native language is Arabic and who is fluent in English. Next, an expert committee formed by healthcare professionals and a linguistics expert verified the translated Arabic version of the scale. Subsequently, the Arabic version of the scale was back-translated into English by an independent translator who is fluent in Arabic and English. The back-translated measure was returned to the expert committee, who compared both translations and aimed to resolve any inconsistencies between versions. This process was repeated until all minor ambiguities had been resolved. The IEQ items in English are reported in Table 1 and the items in Arabic are reported in Appendix 1.

Functionality appreciation

We used the Functionality Appreciation Scale (FAS; [41]; Arabic translation: [40]), a 7-item measure of participants’ appreciation of what the body does and can do. All items were rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An overall score was computed as the mean of all items, with higher scores reflecting greater functionality appreciation. Scores on the Arabic version of the FAS have been reported to have a unidimensional factor structure, adequate composite reliability, and adequate construct validity Swami et al. [40]. In the present study, McDonald’s ω for FAS scores was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.95, 0.97) in the total sample.

Body appreciation

Participants were asked to complete the Body Appreciation Scale-2 (BAS-2; [42]; Arabic translation: Vally et al. [43]). This 10-item instrument assesses acceptance of one’s body, respect and care for one’s body, and protection of one’s body from unrealistic beauty standards. All items were rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always), and an overall score was computed as the mean of all items. Higher scores on this scale reflect greater body appreciation. Scores on the Arabic version of the BAS-2 have been shown to have a unidimensional factor structure, adequate composite reliability, and adequate convergent validity [43]. In the present study, McDonald’s ω for BAS-2 scores was 0.97 (95% CI 0.96, 0.97) in the total sample.

Disordered eating

Participants were asked to complete the short form of the Eating Attitudes Test-7 (EAT-7; [44]). This 7-item measures symptoms and concerns characteristic of eating disorders. All items were rated on a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always). Higher total scores reflect greater disordered eating attitudes. In the present study, McDonald’s ω for overall EAT-7 scores was 0.90 (95% CI 0.89, 0.91) in the total sample.

Demographics

Participants were asked to provide their demographic details consisting of age, gender, highest educational attainment, height, and weight. Height and weight data were used to compute self-reported body mass index (BMI) as kg/m2.

Analytic strategy

Data treatment

There were no missing responses in the dataset. To examine the factor structure of the IEQ, we used an EFA-to-CFA strategy [38]. To ensure adequate sample sizes for both EFA and CFA, we split the main sample using an SPSS computer-generated random technique; sample characteristics of the two split-halves are reported in Table 1. There were no significant differences between the two subsamples in terms of mean age, t(824) = 1.52, p = 0.129, d = 0.11, BMI, t(824) = 0.07, p = 0.944, d = 0.004, and the distribution of women and men, χ2(1) = 1.55, p = 0.213.

Exploratory factor analysis

To explore the factor structure of IEQ, we computed a principal-axis EFA with the first split-half subsample using the FACTOR software [45, 46]. We verified all requirements related to item-communality (≥ 0.3) ([47], average item correlations (0.15–0.50), and item-total correlations (≥ 0.15) [48]. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (which should ideally be ≥ 0.80) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (which should be significant) ensured the adequacy of our sample [49]. The procedure for determining the number of factors to extract was parallel analysis (PA; [50] using the Pearson correlation matrix. Weighted Root Mean Square Residual (WRMR) was also calculated to assess the model fit (values < 1 have been recommended to represent good fit; [51].

Item retention was based on the recommendation that items with “fair” loadings and above (i.e., ≥ 0.33) and with low inter-item correlations (suggestive of low item redundancy) as indicated by the anti-image correlation matrix should be retained (≥ 0.50) [52]. Two EFAs were done separately on males and females respectively.

Confirmatory factor analysis

We used data from the second split-half to conduct a CFA using the SPSS AMOS v.26 software. Proactive Monte Carlo simulations [53] indicated that a sample size of 202 would be sufficient for this analysis, which was surpassed in our study. Our intention was to test the parent model of IEQ scores (i.e., a unidimensional model; [7] and, if divergent, any models extracted from our EFA. The analysis was done using the maximum likelihood estimation method. We considered adding a correlation between residuals of items in case the modification indices were high. Additionally, evidence of convergent validity was assessed in this subsample using the average variance extracted (AVE), with values of ≥ 0.50 considered adequate [54].

Gender invariance

To examine gender invariance of IEQ scores, we conducted multi-group CFA [39] using the second split-half subsample. Measurement invariance was assessed at the configural, metric, and scalar levels [55]. Configural invariance implies that the latent IEQ variable(s) and the pattern of loadings of the latent variable(s) on indicators are similar across gender (i.e., the unconstrained latent model should fit the data well in both groups). Metric invariance implies that the magnitude of the loadings is similar across gender; this is tested by comparing two nested models consisting of a baseline model and an invariance model. Lastly, scalar invariance implies that both the item loadings and item intercepts are similar across gender and is examined using the same nested-model comparison strategy as with metric invariance [39]. Following previous recommendations [39, 56], we accepted ΔCFI ≤ 0.010 and ΔRMSEA ≤ 0.015 or ΔSRMR ≤ 0.010 (0.030 for factorial invariance) as evidence of invariance. We aimed to test for gender differences on latent IEQ scores using an independent-samples t-test only if scalar or partial scalar invariance were established.

Further analyses

Composite reliability in both subsamples was assessed using McDonald’s ω and its associated 95% CI, with values greater than 0.70 reflecting adequate composite reliability [57]. McDonald’s ω was selected as a measure of composite reliability because of known problems with the use of Cronbach’s α [58]. To assess convergent and criterion-related validity, we examined bivariate correlations between IEQ scores and those on the additional measures included in the survey (functionality appreciation, body appreciation, and disordered eating attitudes) using the total sample. All scores had normal distribution, as identified by skewness and kurtosis values varying between − 1 and + 1 [59]; therefore, Pearson correlation test was used. Based on [60], values ≤ 0.10 were considered weak, ~ 0.30 were considered moderate, and ~ 0.50 were considered strong correlations.

Results

Exploratory factor analysis

Factor analysis with women

For women from the first split-half subsample, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, χ2(55) = 1325.2, p < 0.001, and KMO (0.92) indicated that the IEQ items had adequate common variance for factor analysis. The results of the EFA revealed one factor, which explained 54.40% of the common variance (item-factor loadings ≥ 0.65). The WRMR value was also adequate (0.071), indicating good fit of the model.

Factor analysis with men

For men from the first split-half subsample, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, χ2(55) = 1149.4, p < 0.001, and KMO (0.90) again indicated that the IEQ items had adequate common variance for factor analysis. The results of the EFA revealed one factor, which explained 55.98% of the common variance (item-factor loadings ≥ 0.64). The WRMR value was also adequate (= 0.065), indicating good fit of the model.

Factor structure congruence and composite reliability

The factor loadings reported in Table 2 for women and men separately suggest strong similarity across factor structures. Tucker’s congruence coefficient was 0.97, suggesting that the factor structures were equal in women and men. McDonald’s ω was adequate in women (ω = 0.91, 95% CI 0.89, 0.93), men (ω = 0.91, 95% CI 0.89, 0.93), and the total subsample (ω = 0.91, 95% CI 0.89, 0.93).

Table 2 Items of the Inflexible Eating Questionnaire in English and Factor Loadings Derived from the Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA) with Women and Men in the First Split-Half Subsample, and Standardised Estimates of Factor Loadings from the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in the Second Split-Half Subsample
Full size table

Confirmatory factor analysis

CFA with the second split-half subsample indicated that fit of the unidimensional model of IEQ scores was generally acceptable: χ2/df = 182.35/44 = 4.14, RMSEA = 0.087 (90% CI 0.074, 0.100), SRMR = 0.037, CFI = 0.942, TLI = 0.927. When adding a correlation between residuals for items #9 and 11, fit indices were improved and uniformly acceptable: χ2/df = 115.29/43 = 2.68, RMSEA = 0.064 (90% CI 0.050, 0.078), SRMR = 0.030, CFI = 0.970, TLI = 0.961. The standardised estimates of factor loadings were all adequate (see Table 1). The convergent validity for this model was adequate, as AVE = 0.51.

Composite reliability

Composite reliability of scores was adequate in women (ω = 0.91, 95% CI 0.88, 0.94), men (ω = 0.93, 95% CI 0.90, 0.96), and the total sample (ω = 0.92, 95% CI 0.89, 0.95).

Gender invariance

Next, we tested for gender invariance based on the unidimensional model of IEQ scores in the second split-half subsample. As reported in Table 3, all indices suggested that configural, metric, and scalar invariance was supported across gender. Given these results, we computed an independent-samples t-test to examine gender differences in IEQ scores. The results showed that no significant difference was found in terms of IEQ scores between women (M = 32.19, SD = 9.52) and men (M = 33.12, SD = 9.08) in the second subsample, t(413) = 1.01, p = 0.315, d = 0.10.

Table 3 Measurement invariance across gender in the second split-half subsample
Full size table

Convergent and criterion-related validity

To assess the validity of IEQ scores, we examined bivariate correlations with all other measures included in the present study separately for women and men using the total sample. Inflexible eating was negatively and significantly correlated with body appreciation, and functionality appreciation in both men (Table 4) and women (Table 5). Inflexible eating was significantly and moderately associated with higher EAT scores in men, but not women. For exploratory purposes, we also examined associations with age and BMI. Inflexible eating was not significantly associated with age in men (r = 0.03, p = 0.620) and women (r = − 0.01; p = 0.839), but was significantly associated with lower BMI in both men (r = − 0.24, p < 0.001) and women (r = − 0.13, p = 0.004).

Table 4 Bivariate correlations between Inflexible Eating Scores on other measures included in the study in men
Full size table
Table 5 Bivariate correlations between Inflexible Eating Scores on other measures included in the study in women
Full size table

Discussion

The goal of the current research was to investigate the psychometric properties of the IEQ, translated into Arabic, in a community sample of Lebanese adults. Our findings supported a unidimensional factor structure of IEQ scores across both split-half subsamples (i.e., using both EFA and CFA). This unidimensional model of IEQ scores was invariant across gender, consistently demonstrated adequate composite reliability, and showed expected concurrent validity. In broad outline, these results indicate that the Arabic IEQ is a valid and reliable instrument to capture the construct of inflexible eating in Arabic-speaking populations, at least in Lebanon.

As expected, the present study supported a unidimensional model of IEQ scores, which is consistent with analyses in adolescents [22, 61] and adults [7, 21] in other national contexts. More specifically, the results of both our EFA and CFA supported a unidimensional model of IEQ scores, with all 11 items retained. However, the CFA indicated that it was necessary to free the error covariance between one pair of items (i.e., Items #9 and 11) in order to achieve optimal fit. This is consistent with the CFA findings in the parent study (Duarte et al. 2017), although item pairs for which covariances were freed differed. In the present study, it is possible that Items #9 and 11 share some similarity of meaning, given that both refer to emotional states that result from following rigid eating rules (i.e., pride and a sense of control, respectively). Given that freeing error covariances may be construed as a form of exploratory modelling, it may be useful in future work to further assess this aspect of our results. More broadly, given the need to free error covariances across studies, there may be value in determining whether the IEQ could be truncated further without substantive loss of meaning.

Beyond factor structure, our findings also suggested that the IEQ in its Arabic version has adequate composite reliability, which is consistent with previous work [7, 21, 22]. Additionally, multigroup CFA was conducted to test the measurement invariance of the IEQ with respect to gender. Our results showed that the unidimensional model of IEQ scores achieved scalar invariance. This is particularly notable because scalar invariance has been demonstrated previously in adolescent samples [22, 61], but has not been demonstrated in adults beyond the parent study [7]. Establishing scalar invariance also allowed us to compare observed IEQ scores across gender groups. Our results indicated that there was no gender difference in inflexible eating. Previously, in an adult Portuguese sample, Duarte et al. [7] reported that women had significantly higher inflexible eating scores compared to men. However, the (unreported) effect size of the difference was small-to-medium (d = 0.29), which suggests that any gender difference may not have much real-world practical value. Nevertheless, it was also notable that other work in the Lebanese context has indicated that women tend to score more highly than men on measures of DR (e.g., [36, 37]. As such, it may be useful to investigate gender differences in inflexible eating further in more representative samples of Lebanese adults.

Additionally, the results of our study broadly supported the concurrent validity of IEQ scores. Specifically, we found that inflexible eating was significantly and negatively associated with indices of positive body image (i.e., body appreciation and functionality appreciation), although effect sizes of these relationships were substantially stronger in men (medium effects) than women (weak effects). On the other hand, associations between inflexible eating and disordered eating attitudes were more equivocal, with the relationship being significant and positive in men, but not reaching significance in women. Given that the EAT-7 should gender invariance in the original study [44], the results obtained in this current paper might be due to the floor effect seen in women as 149 women (31.2%) scored 0 on the EAT scale. More investigation is further needed in future research.

Study limitations

Although the present findings are important in terms of better understanding the cross-national utility of the IEQ, they should be interpreted in light of certain limitations. First, the present data only included adult participants from the community, making any assumptions regarding people of different age groups (e.g., adolescents) or settings (e.g., patients with eating disorders or with a body mass index ≥ 30) not presently possible. Further validations in clinical populations and of different age groups could usefully extend our findings. Second, while the Arabic IEQ has proven to be valid and reliable when used in a Lebanese Arabic-speaking population, it may not be sensitive in capturing cross-cultural differences found between various Arab communities [35] and thus still requires validation in other Arab countries and cultures to confirm its psychometric validity. Third, it was not within the scope of the current study to investigate the discriminant validity and test–retest reliability of the Arabic IEQ; therefore, exploring these psychometric properties remains subjects for future research.

Conclusion

Altogether, the present findings provide support for the validity and usefulness of the Arabic version of the 11-item IEQ in examining inflexible eating in Arabic-speaking adults in Lebanon. We hope that making this instrument available for clinicians and researchers from Arab countries would enable a deeper examination of the specific clinical features, risk factors, and evolution patterns of inflexible eating, that may be attributable to influence by the local cultural context. The Arabic IEQ would also allow for extended research and cross-cultural comparisons to be conducted in the still under-researched field of disordered eating in the Arab world.

Availability of data and materials

The authors do not have the right to share any data information as per their institutions policies (copyright issues). Data can be shared upon a reasonable request to the corresponding author (S.H.).

References

  1. Herman CP, Mack D. Restrained and unrestrained eating. J Personal. 1975.

  2. Schaumberg K, Anderson DA, Anderson LM, Reilly EE, Gorrell S. Dietary restraint: what’s the harm? A review of the relationship between dietary restraint, weight trajectory and the development of eating pathology. Clin Obes. 2016;6(2):89–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Westenhoefer J, Stunkard AJ, Pudel V. Validation of the flexible and rigid control dimensions of dietary restraint. Int J Eat Disord. 1999;26(1):53–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Linardon J, Mitchell S. Rigid dietary control, flexible dietary control, and intuitive eating: evidence for their differential relationship to disordered eating and body image concerns. Eat Behav. 2017;26:16–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Westenhoefer J, Engel D, Holst C, Lorenz J, Peacock M, Stubbs J, Whybrow S, Raats M. Cognitive and weight-related correlates of flexible and rigid restrained eating behaviour. Eat Behav. 2013;14(1):69–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fairburn CG. Cognitive behavior therapy and eating disorders. New York: Guilford Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Duarte C, Ferreira C, Pinto-Gouveia J, Trindade IA, Martinho A. What makes dietary restraint problematic? Development and validation of the Inflexible Eating Questionnaire. Appetite. 2017;114:146–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Timko CA, Perone J. Rigid and flexible control of eating behavior in a college population. Eat Behav. 2005;6(2):119–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown AJ, Parman KM, Rudat DA, Craighead LW. Disordered eating, perfectionism, and food rules. Eat Behav. 2012;13(4):347–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Linardon J. The relationship between dietary restraint and binge eating: Examining eating-related self-efficacy as a moderator. Appetite. 2018;127:126–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Linardon J, Messer M, Helms ER, McLean C, Incerti L, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M. Interactions between different eating patterns on recurrent binge-eating behavior: a machine learning approach. Int J Eat Disord. 2020;53(4):533–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ferreira C, Gouveia JP, Duarte C. The validation of the Body Image Acceptance and Action Questionnaire: exploring the Moderator Effect os Acceptance on Disordered Eating. Int J Psychol Psychol Ther. 2011;11(3):327–45.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sandoz EK, Wilson KG, Merwin RM, Kellum KK. Assessment of body image flexibility: the body image-acceptance and action questionnaire. J Contextual Behav Sci. 2013;2(1–2):39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cardoso A, Oliveira S, Ferreira C. Negative and positive affect and disordered eating: the adaptive role of intuitive eating and body image flexibility. Clin Psychol. 2020;24(2):176–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Herman CP, Polivy J. Anxiety, restraint, and eating behavior. J Abnorm Psychol. 1975;84(6):666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fairburn CG, Beglin SJ. Assessment of eating disorders: Interview or self-report questionnaire? Int J Eat Disord. 1994;16(4):363–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stunkard AJ, Messick S. The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger. J Psychosom Res. 1985;29(1):71–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Van Strien T, Frijters JE, Van Staveren WA, Defares PB, Deurenberg P. The predictive validity of the Dutch restrained eating scale. Int J Eat Disord. 1986;5(4):747–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Strodl E, Markey C, Aimé A, Rodgers RF, Dion J, Coco GL, Gullo S, McCabe M, Mellor D, Granero-Gallegos A, et al. A cross-country examination of emotional eating, restrained eating and intuitive eating: Measurement Invariance across eight countries. Body Image. 2020;35:245–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Duarte C, Ferreira C, Pinto-Gouveia J. A new measure of psychological inflexibility related to eating behavior in adolescence: Confirmatory factor analysis and validity assessment. Eur Psychiatry. 2017;41(S1):S549–S549.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Linardon J, Incerti L, McLean C. Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Inflexible Eating Questionnaire in a sample of adult women. Appetite. 2019;142:104380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tie B, Chen G, He J. Validation of the inflexible eating questionnaire in a large sample of Chinese adolescents: psychometric properties and gender-related differential item functioning. Eat Weight Disorders-Stud Anorexia Bulimia Obes. 2022;27(3):1029–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schultz A, Maurer L, Alexandrowicz RW. Strengths and weaknesses of the German translation of the Inflexible Eating Questionnaire and of eating disorder assessment in general. Front Psychol. 2022;13:1002463.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Ren Y, Lu C, Yang H, Ma Q, Barnhart WR, Zhou J, He J. Using machine learning to explore core risk factors associated with the risk of eating disorders among non-clinical young women in China: a decision-tree classification analysis. J Eat Disord. 2022;10(1):19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Meule A. Cultural reflections on restrained eating. Front Psychol. 2016;7:205.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Fekih-Romdhane F, Daher-Nashif S, Alhuwailah AH, Al Gahtani HMS, Hubail SA, Shuwiekh HAM, Khudhair MF, Alhaj OA, Bragazzi NL, Jahrami H. The prevalence of feeding and eating disorders symptomology in medical students: an updated systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Eat Weight Disord. 2022;27(6):1991–2010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Nasser M. Culture and weight consciousness. Milton Park: Routledge; 2003.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Khaled SM, Shockley B, Qutteina Y, Kimmel L, Le KT. Testing Western media icons influence on Arab Women’s body size and shape ideals: an experimental approach. Soc Sci. 2018;7(9):142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sharara E, Akik C, Ghattas H, Makhlouf Obermeyer C. Physical inactivity, gender and culture in Arab countries: a systematic assessment of the literature. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ali FMH, Nikoloski Z, Reka H, Gjebrea O, Mossialos E. The diabetes-obesity-hypertension nexus in Qatar: evidence from the World Health Survey. Popul Health Metrics. 2014;12(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ono T, Guthold R, Strong K. WHO Global Comparable Estimates: Global Infobase data for saving lives. 2005.

  32. ALNohair S,. Obesity in gulf countries. Int J Health Sci. 2014;8(1):79.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Baptista K. A cross-national examination of body image and media exposure comparisons between Jordanian and American Women. Undergrad Rev. 2011;7(1):14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mazur LB, Alterkawi M, Müller MJ, Kontny J, Papas M. Female and male body image ideals among Arab immigrants and Germans in Germany. Biodemography Soc Biol. 2020;66(3–4):261–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Melisse B, de Beurs E, van Furth EF. Eating disorders in the Arab world: a literature review. J Eat Disord. 2020;8(1):59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Nakhoul TB, Mina A, Soufia M, Obeid S, Hallit S. Correction to: Restrained eating in Lebanese adolescents: scale validation and correlates. BMC Pediatr. 2022;22(1):232. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-022-03211-7. (Erratum for: BMC Pediatr. 20211;21(1):257).

  37. Saade S, Hallit S, Haddad C, Hallit R, Akel M, Honein K, Akiki M, Kheir N, Obeid S. Factors associated with restrained eating and validation of the Arabic version of the restrained eating scale among an adult representative sample of the Lebanese population: a cross-sectional study. J Eat Disord. 2019;7(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Swami V, Barron D. Translation and validation of body image instruments: Challenges, good practice guidelines, and reporting recommendations for test adaptation. Body Image. 2019;31:204–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model. 2007;14(3):464–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Swami V, Todd J, Azzi V, Malaeb D, Sarray El Dine A, Obeid S, Hallit S. Psychometric Properties of an Arabic Translation of the Functionality Appreciation Scale (FAS) in Lebanese Adults. Body Image 2022. Under press.

  41. Alleva JM, Tylka TL, Kroon Van Diest AM. The Functionality Appreciation Scale (FAS): development and psychometric evaluation in U.S. community women and men. Body Image. 2017;23:28–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.07.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Tylka TL, Wood-Barcalow NL. The Body Appreciation Scale-2: item refinement and psychometric evaluation. Body Image. 2015;12:53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.09.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Vally Z, D’Souza CG, Habeeb H, Bensumaidea BM. The factor structure and psychometric properties of an Arabic-translated version of the Body Appreciation Scale-2. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2019;55(3):373–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Fekih-Romdhane F, Obeid S, Malaeb D, Hallit R, Hallit S. Validation of a shortened version of the Eating Attitude Test (EAT-7) in the Arabic language. J Eat Disord. 2022;10(1):127.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Lorenzo-Seva U, Ten Berge J. Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodol: Eur J Res Methods Behav Soc Sci. 2006;2(2):57.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando P. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2006;38(1):88–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Worthington RL, Whittaker TA. Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Couns Psychol. 2006;34(6):806–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Clark L, Watson D. Construct validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Measur. 1995;28:61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hair JF. Multivariate data analysis. 2009.

  50. Timmerman ME, Lorenzo-Seva U. Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychol Methods. 2011;16(2):209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Yu C, Muthen B. Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous outcomes. In: Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, April 4, 2002, New Orleans: 2002; 2002.

  52. Hauben M, Hung E, Hsieh WY. An exploratory factor analysis of the spontaneous reporting of severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2017;8(1):4–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Marcoulides GA, Chin WW. You write, but others read: common methodological misunderstandings in PLS and related methods. In: New perspectives in partial least squares and related methods. edn.: Springer; 2013: 31–64.

  54. Malhotra N, Dash S. Marketing research: an applied orientation. Delhi: Pearson; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Vadenberg R, Lance C. A review and synthesis of the measurement in variance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2000;3:4–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model. 2002;9(2):233–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol. 2014;105(3):399–412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. McNeish D. Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychol Methods. 2018;23(3):412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Hair JF Jr, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Gudergan SP. Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Cohen J. Quantitative methods in psychology: a power primer. In: Psychological bulletin: 1992: Citeseer; 1992.

  61. Duarte J, Mendes AL, Marta-Simoes J, Ferreira C. Striving as a paradoxical strategy to deal with fears of compassion: impact on disordered eating. Eat Weight Disord. 2020;25(4):983–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Pr. Viren Swami and Dr Jennifer Todd for their help in the preparation of this manuscript.

Funding

None.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Sahar Obeid and Souheil Hallit are last coauthors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Tunisian Center of Early Intervention in Psychosis, Department of Psychiatry “Ibn Omrane”, Razi Hospital, 2010, Manouba, Tunisia

    Feten Fekih-Romdhane

  2. Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, Tunis El Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia

    Feten Fekih-Romdhane

  3. School of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, P.O. Box 446, Jounieh, Lebanon

    Vanessa Azzi & Souheil Hallit

  4. School of Pharmacy, Lebanese International University, Beirut, Lebanon

    Diana Malaeb

  5. College of Pharmacy, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates

    Diana Malaeb

  6. Department of Biomedical Sciences, School of Arts and Sciences, Lebanese International University, Beirut, Lebanon

    Abir Sarray El Dine

  7. School of Arts and Sciences, Social and Education Sciences Department, Lebanese American University, Jbeil, Lebanon

    Sahar Obeid

  8. Psychology Department, College of Humanities, Effat University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

    Souheil Hallit

  9. Applied Science Research Center, Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan

    Souheil Hallit

  10. Research Department, Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross, Jal Eddib, Lebanon

    Souheil Hallit

Authors
  1. Feten Fekih-Romdhane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vanessa Azzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Diana Malaeb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abir Sarray El Dine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sahar Obeid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Souheil Hallit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SO and SH designed the study; FFR drafted the manuscript; SH carried out the analysis and interpreted the results; VA, DM and ASED collected the data; all authors reviewed the final manuscript and approved its content.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sahar Obeid or Souheil Hallit.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross ethics committee (approval code: HPC-038-2021). Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects and their legal guardians for study participation; the online submission of the soft copy was considered equivalent to receiving a written informed consent. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1. Arabic version of the Inflexible Eating Questionnaire.

Appendix 1. Arabic version of the Inflexible Eating Questionnaire.

Rights and permissions

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/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fekih-Romdhane, F., Azzi, V., Malaeb, D. et al. Psychometric properties of an Arabic translation of the Inflexible Eating Questionnaire (IEQ) in a non-clinical sample of adults. J Eat Disord 11, 115 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-023-00835-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-023-00835-7

Keywords

Journal of Eating Disorders

ISSN: 2050-2974