ArticleObesity facts2019
Validation of the German Version of the Power of Food Scale in a General Population Sample.
Article in Obesity facts, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychosocial factors and dietary patterns in metabolic and bariatric surgery: analyzing anxiety, depression, and hedonic hunger.Eating and weight disorders : EWD · 2025Observational
- Association of Salty and Sweet Taste Recognition with Food Reward and Subjective Control of Eating Behavior.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Characterising concurrent pain experience and dietary patterns in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a feasibility study protocol.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2024Article
- Suboptimal Weight Loss 13 Years After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Is Hedonic Hunger, Eating Behaviour and Food Reward to Blame?Obesity surgery · 2022Article
- Development of the Hedonic Overeating-Questionnaire (HEDO-Q).Nutrients · 2022Article
- Children's Power of Food Scale: Turkish validity and reliability study.Public health nutrition · 2021Article
- Validation of the Turkish version of the power of food scale in adult population.Eating and weight disorders : EWD · 2021Article
- Examining the ecological validity of the Power of Food Scale.Eating and weight disorders : EWD · 2021Article
- Associations between hedonic hunger and BMI during a two-year behavioural weight loss trial.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Power of Food Scale (PFS) is a self-report instrument for assessing appetitive motivation in the absence of caloric needs. The study aim was to validate the German PFS version in a large population sample.
methodsComplete information on all PFS items was available from 2,421 respondents (age ≥14) of a nationally representative sample of the German population. We examined the psychometric properties of the German PFS version and provided population-based normative data.
resultsThe 3-factor structure of the original scale was replicated in confirmatory factor analysis. The German PFS version demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.92 for the total scale). It was well accepted by the respondents, as indicated by a low proportion of missing item values (≤0.56%). While no significant differences were observed in the PFS mean scores between men and women, the scores increased across BMI categories. PFS was positively correlated with a measure of global eating disorder psychopathology (Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire 8) and the ultra-brief Patient Health Questionnaire for depression and anxiety.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that the German PFS version has adequate psychometric properties and good reliability for measuring hedonic hunger in the general population. The provided population-based norms can be used for individual assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.