ArticleHeliyon2024
The psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the dieting beliefs scale (DBS).
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are relatively few data about the association between locus of control and weight loss in Arabic populations. A tool does exist, the Dieting Belief Scale (DBS), that was designed to measure individuals' beliefs regarding their ability to control their body weight. The aim of this study was to translate this tool into Arabic and to evaluate its psychometric properties. Methods: The forward translation of the DBS from English to Arabic was completed by two professional bilingual translators, while the back translation from Arabic to English was independently performed by another two different professional bilingual translators. An online survey using the tool was then completed by 245 participants, fully aware of the study's purpose. Psychometric analyses were subsequently conducted to assess the reliability and validity of the Arabic DBS.Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω coefficients. Test-retest reliability was also assessed. Confirmatory factor analysis was employed to evaluate the fit of a three-factor model, with indices including Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). Convergent validity was assessed by examining the correlation between the Arabic DBS and the Eating Attitude Test (EAT-26) previously translated into Arabic, the latter identifying attitudes, feelings and behaviors related to eating. Results: The Arabic translated DBS scale demonstrated high translation accuracy and content validity estimates. Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω reliability coefficients for the translated scale were approximately 0.91. Test-retest reliability was 0.96. The three-factor model showed an acceptable fit (CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, RMSE = 0.08, SRMR = 0.06). The Arabic version of the DBS was found to have good convergent validity, as evidenced by the significant correlation between the EAT-26 and DBS questionnaires ( Conclusion: The Arabic version of the DBS is highly reliable and has sufficient content validity to measure belief about personal ability to control one's weight.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.