Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33033480›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2020

The Modified Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0: Validation Among Non-Clinical and Clinical French-Speaking Samples and Comparison With the Full Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0.

Paul Brunault, Sylvie Berthoz, Ashley N Gearhardt, Fabien Gierski, Arthur Kaladjian, Eric Bertin, André Tchernof, Laurent Biertho, Arnaud de Luca, Régis Hankard and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A meta-analysis assessing reliability of the Yale Food Addiction Scale: Implications for compulsive eating and obesity.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Paul BrunaultUMR 1253, iBrain, Université de Tours, Inserm, Tours, France.
Sylvie BerthozUniv. Bordeaux, CNRS, EPHE, INCIA, UMR 5287, Bordeaux, Paris, France.
Ashley N GearhardtDepartment of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Fabien GierskiCHU de Reims, Pôle de Psychiatrie adulte, Hôpital Robert Debré, Reims, France.
Arthur KaladjianCHU de Reims, Pôle de Psychiatrie adulte, Hôpital Robert Debré, Reims, France.
Eric BertinCHU de Reims, Service d'Endocrinologie-Diabète-Nutrition, Hôpital Robert-Debré, Reims, France.
André TchernofInstitut de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.
Laurent BierthoInstitut de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.
Arnaud de LucaCHRU de Tours, Service de Médecine Interne-Nutrition, Tours, France.
Régis HankardCHRU de Tours, Service de Médecine Interne-Nutrition, Tours, France.
Robert CourtoisQualipsy EE 1901, Université de Tours, Tours, France.
Nicolas BallonUMR 1253, iBrain, Université de Tours, Inserm, Tours, France.
Farid BenzeroukCHU de Reims, Pôle de Psychiatrie adulte, Hôpital Robert Debré, Reims, France.
Catherine BéginÉcole de Psychologie, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.
Université de Tours · FRUniversité Laval · CACentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Tours · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRCognition, Santé, SociétéHôpital Robert-Debré · FRUniversité de Reims Champagne-Ardenne · FRUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe modified Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 (mYFAS 2.0) was designed to assess food addiction using a shorter version than the YFAS 2.0. We lack data about the psychometric properties of the mYFAS 2.0 in patients with obesity, as well as studies comparing the psychometric properties of the mYFAS 2.0 versus the full YFAS 2.0. This study aimed to validate the French-language mYFAS 2.0 in a non-clinical population (study 1, n = 250), to determine the yet unknown psychometric properties of this scale in patients with obesity (study 2, n = 345), and to compare the full YFAS 2.0 and the mYFAS 2.0 in terms of food addiction (FA) prevalence and symptoms detection in both populations.

methodStudy 1 included 250 non-clinical individuals (non-underweight and non-obese persons screened negative for eating disorders). Study 2 included 345 bariatric surgery candidates recruited in three centers (Québec, Canada; Reims and Tours, France). The mYFAS 2.0 structure was investigated using confirmatory factorial analyses with tetrachoric correlations. Convergent validity was tested using the full YFAS 2.0, the Binge Eating Scale (both studies), the revised 18-item Three Factor Eating Questionnaire (study 1), the Beck Depression Inventory (study 2), and the body mass index (BMI; both studies).

resultsThe mYFAS 2.0 was unidimensional, and had adequate (study 1: KR-20 = .78) and acceptable (study 2: KR-20 = .73) internal consistency. In study 1, the mYFAS 2.0 had good convergent validity with the YFAS 2.0, BMI, binge eating, cognitive restraint, uncontrolled eating and emotional eating; in study 2, the mYFAS 2.0 had good convergent validity with the YFAS 2.0, binge eating, depression, but not BMI. Participants endorsed fewer symptoms with the mYFAS 2.0 than with the YFAS 2.0; FA prevalences were similar between questionnaires in the non-clinical, but not in the clinical sample. A FA 'diagnosis' and risk of binge eating disorder were associated but did not completely overlap.

conclusionsThe mYFAS 2.0 has close psychometric properties to the YFAS 2.0 in non-clinical and clinical samples. However, the use of the mYFAS 2.0 in bariatric surgery candidates might lead to a significant underestimation of FA prevalence and number of FA symptoms.

Indexed as

eating addictioneating disordersfactor analysisfood addictionobesity surgerypsychometricspsychopathologysubstance-related and addictive disorders

Identifiers

PMID33033480
PMCPMC7509420
OpenAlexW3083856885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.