ArticlePsicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS2024
Motives for Caffeine Consumption Questionnaire (MCCQ): validity and reliability of Turkish version.
Article in Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing a beverage-context explanation for caffeinated beverage consumption motives in Japan using beverage-specific questionnaire framing.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Relationship among motives for alcohol and caffeine consumption, personality traits, and cognitive emotion regulation strategies in nonproblem alcohol drinkers.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
objectivesThe aims of this study are to make the Turkish validity and reliability of the scale that explain why caffeine intake. Additionally, it is crucial to highlight that the adaptation of the scale involved a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate its structure and the need for this adaptation in the Turkish context. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was carried out with a total of 200 university students, comprised of 93.5% female and 6.5% male participants, with a mean age of 21.74 ± 6.15 years who were actively studying in the faculties of the universities who accepted to participate voluntarily in the study were included. The Turkish version of the Motives for Caffeine Consumption Questionnaire (MCCQ) scale and the MCCQ was used as the data collection tools. To evaluate the statistical analysis findings, the margin of error was taken as 5%. The entire application was carried out with the R-project software. CFA was used to test the adaptation of the MCCQ scale from English to Turkish.
resultsThe alpha internal consistency coefficient for the whole scale was calculated as 0.959. Just like the original scale, the Turkish version shows a six-factor structure: habit, alertness, mood, social, taste, and symptom management. In MCCQ-TR, it showed a low level of positive correlation with Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS). For the final scale with 23 items and 6 sub-dimensions, it was determined that the fit indices were at an acceptable level, and the internal consistency was highly reliable for all sub-dimensions and the total scale.
conclusionsIt has been determined that the Turkish version of the MCCQ is a valid and reliable measurement tool to operationalize the motives of caffeine consumption and to reveal possible differences in the motives regarding gender, age, and the type of caffeinated products consumed. The use of CFA in adapting the scale ensures the robustness of the structural validity in the Turkish context, making this adaptation a valuable contribution to the field.
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.