Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41070464›Full record

ArticleTurk psikiyatri dergisi = Turkish journal of psychiatry2025

Conceptualization of Grazing: The Psychometric Properties of The Repetitive Eating Questionnaire (Rep[eat]-Q) Turkish Form.

Meltem Anafarta Şendağ, Arcan Tiğrak, Derya Özbek Şimşek

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Turk psikiyatri dergisi = Turkish journal of psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Meltem Anafarta Şendağ
Arcan Tiğrak
Derya Özbek Şimşek

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveGrazing, defined as the unplanned and repetitive consumption of small or moderate amounts of food without feeling hungry, has been particulary investigated in relation to insufficient weight loss or early weight regain following bariatric surgery in recent years. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the Turkish form of the Repetitive Eating Scale (Rep[eat]-Q), which assesses grazing within a standardized framework.

methodThe sample of the study consisted of a total of 491 adults, including 334 females and 157 males, with ages ranging from 17 to 62 participated in the study. The data were collected using the Rep[eat]-Q Turkish Form, Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ-R21), CES-D Depression Scale (CES-D), and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7).

resultsResults of the confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the structure of the Rep[eat]-Q Turkish Form aligns with the original form, indicating that the scale consists of two factors named Compulsive Grazing (CG) and Repetitive Eating (RE). The internal consistency coefficients were found to be 0.93 for the total scale score, 0.91 for the RE subscale, and 0.88 for the CG subscale. The test-retest reliability ranged from 0.73 to 0.83 (p<0.001). It was found that the total score of the Rep(eat)-Q is strongly positively correlated with Emotional Eating and Uncontrolled Eating subscales of the TFEQ-R21, and moderately positively correlated with the CES-D (depression) and the GAD-7 (anxiety).

conclusionThe findings of the study demonstrated that the Turkish version of the Rep(eat)-Q is a reliable and valid measure to assess grazing.

Indexed as

Feeding and Eating DisordersFeeding BehaviorAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTurkeyYoung Adultcompulsive grazing repetitive eating.Grazing

Identifiers

PMID41070464
PMCPMC11987549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.