阿拉伯语版减肥手术后饮食失调问卷(EDABS - Q - Arabic18)的翻译和心理测量评估

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Mohamed Hany, Kareem El-Ansari, Walid El Ansari
{"title":"阿拉伯语版减肥手术后饮食失调问卷(EDABS - Q - Arabic18)的翻译和心理测量评估","authors":"Mohamed Hany, Kareem El-Ansari, Walid El Ansari","doi":"10.1007/s11695-025-07910-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is no validated Arabic questionnaire to assess eating disorders (ED) after metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) without the need for an interview. We undertook this task.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The English-published Eating Disorder Examination-Self-report Questionnaire Bariatric Surgery Version (EDABS-Q) was translated and adapted following international guidelines (forward/backward translation, expert panel review, and pretesting). Randomly selected adult patients (n = 1145) who had MBS since ≥ 1 year completed the Arabic questionnaire (EDABS-Q-Arabic). Psychometric properties of EDABS-Q-Arabic were assessed, including face validity (expert panel), construct validity (exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, structural model), internal consistency (Cronbach's α), and discriminant validity [heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio criterion]. Multiple logistic regression analyses tested associations between patient/surgical characteristics and various factors of the Arabic questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Exploratory factor analysis generated a three-factor solution (18 items): 'concerns' about shape/weight/eating (9 items), 'restraint' behaviors (4 items), and 'purging' behaviors (5 items), explaining 22% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed this factor structure displayed good model-data fit, with comparative fit index (0.96) and Tucker-Lewis index (0.95) both > 0.95 threshold; χ<sup>2</sup>/df ratio = 1.52 (recommended value ≤ 2); root mean square error of approximation = 0.031 (90%CI:0.022-0.040, p = 1.000) and standardized root mean square residual = 0.047 (recommended values ≤ 0.05). Cronbach's alpha (internal consistency) was 0.80 for 'concerns' (95%CI:0.78-0.82), 0.62 for 'restraint' (95%CI:0.55-0.68), and 0.61 for 'purging' behavior (95%CI:0.51-0.69). EDABS-Q-Arabic18's discriminant validity was excellent, confirming the distinctiveness of each factor, with 0.208 HTMT ratio between 'concerns' and 'restraint' factors, 0.198 between 'concerns' and 'purging', and 0.257 between 'restraint' and 'purging' factors (recommended thresholds < 0.85-0.90). The prevalence of 'concerns' was 98.4%, with patients experiencing mild (31.1%), moderate (48.9%), severe (18.4%), or no (1.6%) concerns. The prevalence of 'restraint' behaviors was high (79.7%) but mostly mild (53.1%) or moderate (22.5%). 'Purging' behaviors had a lower prevalence (44.2%), with 40.1% mild, 3.8% moderate, and 0.3% severe purging. Logistic regression showed that for severe 'concerns', increasing age and pre-operative BMI displayed lower odds OR = 0.98, 95%CI 0.96-1.00, p = 0.013; OR = 0.96, 95%CI 0.93-0.98, p = 0.001 respectively), while current BMI and time since surgery exhibited significant positive associations (OR = 1.19, 95%CI 1.14-1.24, p < 0.001; OR = 1.10, 95%CI 1.02-1.18, p = 0.011, respectively). For severe 'restraint' behaviors, only pre-operative BMI displayed significant association (OR = 1.05-95%CI 1.00-1.09, p = 0.023). Moderate to severe 'purging' behaviors had no significant associations with any patient/surgical characteristics. The type of MBS procedure was not associated with any of the three factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The 18-item Arabic version of the Eating Disorder Examination-Self-report Questionnaire Bariatric Surgery Version (EDABS-Q-Arabic18) is a culturally appropriate, valid, and reliable tool for assessing post-MBS ED. Further validation across Arabic-speaking populations is encouraged to strengthen its broader applicability.</p>","PeriodicalId":19460,"journal":{"name":"Obesity Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Translation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Arabic Version of the Eating Disorders After Bariatric Surgery Questionnaire (EDABS‑Q‑Arabic18).\",\"authors\":\"Mohamed Hany, Kareem El-Ansari, Walid El Ansari\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11695-025-07910-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is no validated Arabic questionnaire to assess eating disorders (ED) after metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) without the need for an interview. We undertook this task.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The English-published Eating Disorder Examination-Self-report Questionnaire Bariatric Surgery Version (EDABS-Q) was translated and adapted following international guidelines (forward/backward translation, expert panel review, and pretesting). Randomly selected adult patients (n = 1145) who had MBS since ≥ 1 year completed the Arabic questionnaire (EDABS-Q-Arabic). Psychometric properties of EDABS-Q-Arabic were assessed, including face validity (expert panel), construct validity (exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, structural model), internal consistency (Cronbach's α), and discriminant validity [heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio criterion]. Multiple logistic regression analyses tested associations between patient/surgical characteristics and various factors of the Arabic questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Exploratory factor analysis generated a three-factor solution (18 items): 'concerns' about shape/weight/eating (9 items), 'restraint' behaviors (4 items), and 'purging' behaviors (5 items), explaining 22% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed this factor structure displayed good model-data fit, with comparative fit index (0.96) and Tucker-Lewis index (0.95) both > 0.95 threshold; χ<sup>2</sup>/df ratio = 1.52 (recommended value ≤ 2); root mean square error of approximation = 0.031 (90%CI:0.022-0.040, p = 1.000) and standardized root mean square residual = 0.047 (recommended values ≤ 0.05). Cronbach's alpha (internal consistency) was 0.80 for 'concerns' (95%CI:0.78-0.82), 0.62 for 'restraint' (95%CI:0.55-0.68), and 0.61 for 'purging' behavior (95%CI:0.51-0.69). EDABS-Q-Arabic18's discriminant validity was excellent, confirming the distinctiveness of each factor, with 0.208 HTMT ratio between 'concerns' and 'restraint' factors, 0.198 between 'concerns' and 'purging', and 0.257 between 'restraint' and 'purging' factors (recommended thresholds < 0.85-0.90). The prevalence of 'concerns' was 98.4%, with patients experiencing mild (31.1%), moderate (48.9%), severe (18.4%), or no (1.6%) concerns. The prevalence of 'restraint' behaviors was high (79.7%) but mostly mild (53.1%) or moderate (22.5%). 'Purging' behaviors had a lower prevalence (44.2%), with 40.1% mild, 3.8% moderate, and 0.3% severe purging. Logistic regression showed that for severe 'concerns', increasing age and pre-operative BMI displayed lower odds OR = 0.98, 95%CI 0.96-1.00, p = 0.013; OR = 0.96, 95%CI 0.93-0.98, p = 0.001 respectively), while current BMI and time since surgery exhibited significant positive associations (OR = 1.19, 95%CI 1.14-1.24, p < 0.001; OR = 1.10, 95%CI 1.02-1.18, p = 0.011, respectively). For severe 'restraint' behaviors, only pre-operative BMI displayed significant association (OR = 1.05-95%CI 1.00-1.09, p = 0.023). Moderate to severe 'purging' behaviors had no significant associations with any patient/surgical characteristics. The type of MBS procedure was not associated with any of the three factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The 18-item Arabic version of the Eating Disorder Examination-Self-report Questionnaire Bariatric Surgery Version (EDABS-Q-Arabic18) is a culturally appropriate, valid, and reliable tool for assessing post-MBS ED. Further validation across Arabic-speaking populations is encouraged to strengthen its broader applicability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19460,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Obesity Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Obesity Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-025-07910-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obesity Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-025-07910-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目前还没有有效的阿拉伯语问卷来评估代谢和减肥手术(MBS)后的饮食失调(ED),而不需要采访。我们承担了这项任务。方法:英文出版的饮食失调检查-自我报告问卷减肥手术版(EDABS-Q)按照国际指南进行翻译和改编(前向/后向翻译、专家小组评审和预测)。随机选择罹患MBS≥1年的成年患者(n = 1145)完成阿拉伯语问卷(edabs - q - arab)。对edabs - q - arab的心理测量特性进行评估,包括面孔效度(专家小组)、结构效度(探索性因子分析、验证性因子分析、结构模型)、内部一致性(Cronbach’s α)和区别效度(异性状-单性状(HTMT)比率标准)。多重逻辑回归分析检验了患者/手术特征与阿拉伯语问卷的各种因素之间的关联。结果:探索性因子分析产生了一个三因素解决方案(18个项目):“关注”形状/体重/饮食(9个项目),“约束”行为(4个项目)和“净化”行为(5个项目),解释22%的总方差。验证性因子分析证实该因子结构具有良好的模型-数据拟合性,比较拟合指数为0.96,Tucker-Lewis指数为0.95,阈值均为0.95;χ2/df比值= 1.52(推荐值≤2);近似均方根误差= 0.031 (90%CI:0.022-0.040, p = 1.000),标准化均方根残差= 0.047(推荐值≤0.05)。“关心”的Cronbach's alpha(内部一致性)为0.80 (95%CI:0.78-0.82),“克制”的Cronbach's alpha (95%CI:0.55-0.68)为0.62,“净化”行为的Cronbach's alpha(内部一致性)为0.61 (95%CI:0.51-0.69)。EDABS-Q-Arabic18的判别效度非常好,证实了各因子的显著性,“担忧”与“约束”因子的HTMT比值为0.208,“担忧”与“净化”因子的HTMT比值为0.198,“约束”与“净化”因子的HTMT比值为0.257(推荐阈值)。阿拉伯语版的饮食失调检查-自我报告问卷减肥手术版(EDABS-Q-Arabic18)有18个项目,是一种文化上合适、有效和可靠的评估mbs后ED的工具。鼓励在阿拉伯语人群中进一步验证,以加强其更广泛的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Translation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Arabic Version of the Eating Disorders After Bariatric Surgery Questionnaire (EDABS‑Q‑Arabic18).

Background: There is no validated Arabic questionnaire to assess eating disorders (ED) after metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) without the need for an interview. We undertook this task.

Methods: The English-published Eating Disorder Examination-Self-report Questionnaire Bariatric Surgery Version (EDABS-Q) was translated and adapted following international guidelines (forward/backward translation, expert panel review, and pretesting). Randomly selected adult patients (n = 1145) who had MBS since ≥ 1 year completed the Arabic questionnaire (EDABS-Q-Arabic). Psychometric properties of EDABS-Q-Arabic were assessed, including face validity (expert panel), construct validity (exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, structural model), internal consistency (Cronbach's α), and discriminant validity [heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio criterion]. Multiple logistic regression analyses tested associations between patient/surgical characteristics and various factors of the Arabic questionnaire.

Results: Exploratory factor analysis generated a three-factor solution (18 items): 'concerns' about shape/weight/eating (9 items), 'restraint' behaviors (4 items), and 'purging' behaviors (5 items), explaining 22% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed this factor structure displayed good model-data fit, with comparative fit index (0.96) and Tucker-Lewis index (0.95) both > 0.95 threshold; χ2/df ratio = 1.52 (recommended value ≤ 2); root mean square error of approximation = 0.031 (90%CI:0.022-0.040, p = 1.000) and standardized root mean square residual = 0.047 (recommended values ≤ 0.05). Cronbach's alpha (internal consistency) was 0.80 for 'concerns' (95%CI:0.78-0.82), 0.62 for 'restraint' (95%CI:0.55-0.68), and 0.61 for 'purging' behavior (95%CI:0.51-0.69). EDABS-Q-Arabic18's discriminant validity was excellent, confirming the distinctiveness of each factor, with 0.208 HTMT ratio between 'concerns' and 'restraint' factors, 0.198 between 'concerns' and 'purging', and 0.257 between 'restraint' and 'purging' factors (recommended thresholds < 0.85-0.90). The prevalence of 'concerns' was 98.4%, with patients experiencing mild (31.1%), moderate (48.9%), severe (18.4%), or no (1.6%) concerns. The prevalence of 'restraint' behaviors was high (79.7%) but mostly mild (53.1%) or moderate (22.5%). 'Purging' behaviors had a lower prevalence (44.2%), with 40.1% mild, 3.8% moderate, and 0.3% severe purging. Logistic regression showed that for severe 'concerns', increasing age and pre-operative BMI displayed lower odds OR = 0.98, 95%CI 0.96-1.00, p = 0.013; OR = 0.96, 95%CI 0.93-0.98, p = 0.001 respectively), while current BMI and time since surgery exhibited significant positive associations (OR = 1.19, 95%CI 1.14-1.24, p < 0.001; OR = 1.10, 95%CI 1.02-1.18, p = 0.011, respectively). For severe 'restraint' behaviors, only pre-operative BMI displayed significant association (OR = 1.05-95%CI 1.00-1.09, p = 0.023). Moderate to severe 'purging' behaviors had no significant associations with any patient/surgical characteristics. The type of MBS procedure was not associated with any of the three factors.

Conclusions: The 18-item Arabic version of the Eating Disorder Examination-Self-report Questionnaire Bariatric Surgery Version (EDABS-Q-Arabic18) is a culturally appropriate, valid, and reliable tool for assessing post-MBS ED. Further validation across Arabic-speaking populations is encouraged to strengthen its broader applicability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Obesity Surgery
Obesity Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
24.10%
发文量
567
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Obesity Surgery is the official journal of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and metabolic disorders (IFSO). A journal for bariatric/metabolic surgeons, Obesity Surgery provides an international, interdisciplinary forum for communicating the latest research, surgical and laparoscopic techniques, for treatment of massive obesity and metabolic disorders. Topics covered include original research, clinical reports, current status, guidelines, historical notes, invited commentaries, letters to the editor, medicolegal issues, meeting abstracts, modern surgery/technical innovations, new concepts, reviews, scholarly presentations and opinions. Obesity Surgery benefits surgeons performing obesity/metabolic surgery, general surgeons and surgical residents, endoscopists, anesthetists, support staff, nurses, dietitians, psychiatrists, psychologists, plastic surgeons, internists including endocrinologists and diabetologists, nutritional scientists, and those dealing with eating disorders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信