Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35537659›Full record

ArticleAppetite2022

The qualitative evaluation of the Yale Food addiction scale 2.0.

Emma T Schiestl, Julia A Wolfson, Ashley N Gearhardt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Appetite, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Withdrawal: A key consideration in evaluating whether highly processed foods are addictive.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2022
    Review
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

3 authors.

Emma T SchiestlDepartment of Psychology, University of Michigan, USA. Electronic address: emmaschi@umich.edu.
Julia A WolfsonDepartment of International Health, Ann Arbor, USA; Department of Health Policy and Management, USA.
Ashley N GearhardtDepartment of Psychology, University of Michigan, USA.

Funding

Development and Pilot Evaluation of a Novel Cooking Skills Intervention to Prevent DiabetesK01DK119166 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI WOLFSON, JULIA A · 2020 to 2023
$607k
NIDDK NIH HHS K01 DK119166
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 (YFAS 2.0) operationalizes food addiction (FA) by applying the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM 5) criteria for substance use disorder (SUD) to the overconsumption of highly processed foods. The YFAS 2.0 has been quantitatively validated across numerous populations, but has never undergone qualitative analysis.

aimsUsing qualitative methods we aimed to determine if the interpretation YFAS 2.0 is aligned with the DSM 5 conceptualization of SUD, to determine if any items are perceived as irrelevant to the lived-experience of FA, and to determine if there are constructs central to the lived-experience of FA that are not captured by the scale.

methodsWe interviewed 16 participants who met criteria for FA on the modified YFAS 2.0 using semi-structured interviews to understand each participants' interpretation of items on the scale and their perceptions of how the scale matched their lived-experience of FA. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to code responses and identify themes.

resultsMost interpretations aligned with the DSM 5 conceptualization of SUDs. Withdrawal and tolerance-related items were subject to some misinterpretations. Participants viewed problem-focused symptoms (e.g., interpersonal problems) as the least relevant to their lived-experience. Novel themes not included on the YFAS 2.0 (e.g., emotional eating) emerged. SUMMARY: Our study supports the validity of the YFAS 2.0 by showing consistency with the DSM 5 conceptualization of SUDs and consistency with the lived-experience of individuals who endorse FA. Future research should explore the novel themes that emerged in this study.

Indexed as

Behavior, AddictiveFood AddictionEmotionsFeeding BehaviorHumansPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesConstruct validationFood addictionQualitative researchSemi-structured interviews

Identifiers

PMID35537659
PMCPMC9663207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.