The qualitative evaluation of the Yale Food addiction scale 2.0

• Published in: Appetite Vol. 175; p. 106077
• Main Authors: Schiestl, Emma T., Wolfson, Julia A., Gearhardt, Ashley N.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.08.2022
• Subjects: appetite; Construct validation; eating disorders; Food addiction; qualitative analysis; Qualitative research; Semi-structured interviews; Qualitative research; Food addiction; Construct validation; Semi-structured interviews
• ISSN: 0195-6663; 1095-8304; 1095-8304
• DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2022.106077

The 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. Using 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. We 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. Most 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. 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.