ArticleJournal of eating disorders2024
Assessing disordered eating behaviours and attitudes: Factor structure and measurement invariance of the Arabic version of the eating attitudes test (EAT-26) in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Journal of eating disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Eating attitudes across body mass index categories in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe factorial structure of the Eating Attitudes Test (EAT-26) has been found to be inconsistent across studies and samples. This study aimed to resolve inconsistencies in the factorial structure of the Arabic version of the EAT-26 by identifying the best-fitting model and test its measurement invariance across sexes and BMI categories in a large non-clinical Saudi sample.
methods1,734 Saudi adults (M
resultsThe original three-factor model and two other common models demonstrated poor fit (e.g., CFI = 0.727; SRMR = 0.0911; RMSEA = 0.085 [90% CI 0.082-0.087] for the original three-factor model). Instead, a 16-item, four-factor structure [(Self-Perceptions of Body Weight), (Dieting), (Awareness of Food Contents), and (Food Preoccupation)] showed acceptable fit ([CFI = 0.904; SRMR = 0.0554; RMSEA = 0.073 [90% CI 0.068- 0.077]). Internal consistency was good (α and ω = 0.88), and measurement invariance was supported across sex (male and female) and BMI categories (underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese).
conclusionsThese findings underscore the need for culturally relevant validation of the EAT-26 among Arabic-speaking populations, as the revised factorial structure diverged from previously established models. Future research should further examine this revised 16-item, four-factor structure in clinical settings.
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.