A comparison of the validity of three scales for the assessment of dietary restraint.

Abstract

The construct validity of Herman and Polivy's Restraint Scale (RS), the restraint factor of the Three Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ-R), and the restraint scale of the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ-R) were investigated by relating these scales to self-reported mean caloric intake per day and to other measures associated with disordered eating and figure consciousness. A factor analysis showed that the three restraint scales measure different components of the restraint construct. A high score on the RS was closely related to consequences of mostly unsuccessful dieting, such as disinhibited eating and weight fluctuations, but not to successful overall caloric restriction in everyday life. High scores on the TFEQ-R and the DEBQ-R represented the more successful dieting behavior component of restraint. The three scales have in common a motivational component of restrained eating, including concerns about shape and weight, and desire for thinness.

Defined weight expectations in overweight women: anthropometrical, psychological and eating behavioral correlates

“…27 Eating behaviors. The Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire is a 51-item validated questionnaire, [28][29][30] which assesses three factors that refer to cognitions and behaviors associated with eating: cognitive dietary restraint (conscious control of food intake with concerns about shape and weight), disinhibition (overconsumption of food in response to a variety of stimuli associated with a loss of control on food intake), susceptibility to hunger (food intake in response to feelings and perceptions of hunger). More specific subscales can also be derived from these three general eating behaviors: 31,32 rigid restraint (dichotomous, all-or-nothing approach to eating, dieting and weight), flexible restraint (gradual approach to eating, dieting and weight), habitual susceptibility to disinhibition (behaviors that may occur when circumstances predispose to recurrent disinhibition), emotional susceptibility to disinhibition (disinhibition associated with negative affective states), situational susceptibility to disinhibition (disinhibition initiated by specific environmental cues), internal hunger (hunger interpreted and regulated internally) and external hunger (triggered by external cues).…”

Disinhibition, as assessed by the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire, is inversely related to psychological well-being in postmenopausal women

“…26 This questionnaire has been validated and all scales had good test-retest reliability. [26][27][28] More specific subscales can also be derived from these three general TFEQ-factors, as suggested by Westenhoefer et al 11 and Bond et al 29 Cognitive dietary restraint has been divided into rigid and flexible restraint (seven items for each subscale; score ranging from 0 to 7), as proposed by Westenhoefer et al 11 Rigid restraint is defined as a dichotomous, all-or-nothing approach to eating, dieting and weight, whereas flexible restraint is a more gradual approach to eating, dieting and weight in which, for example, 'fattening' foods are eaten in limited quantities without feelings of guilt. 11 Disinhibition has also been divided into three subscales (habitual, emotional and situational susceptibility to disinhibition), as suggested by Bond et al 29 Habitual susceptibility to disinhibition describes behaviors that may occur when circumstances predispose to recurrent disinhibition (five items; score ranging from 0 to 5).…”

Using restrictive messages to limit high-fat foods or nonrestrictive messages to increase fruit and vegetable intake: what works better for postmenopausal women?

“…More precisely, dietary restraint is a conscious control of food intake with concerns about shape and weight (21 items; score ranging from 0 to 21). This questionnaire has been validated and all scales have good test-retest reliability (Stunkard and Messick, 1985;Laessle et al, 1989).…”