Publication: Assessment of factor structure of the Eating Attitude Test-26 (EAT-26) scale using data of young adults in the sociocultural context of Thailand
0
0
Issued Date
2026-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
24058440
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105023481452
Journal Title
Heliyon
Volume
12
Issue
1
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Heliyon Vol.12 No.1 (2026)
Suggested Citation
Wongprachum K., Namyota C., Khiewkhern S., Bourneow C., Longjumnong T., Onpui S., Prombol S., Jomoui W., Nghiep L.K. Assessment of factor structure of the Eating Attitude Test-26 (EAT-26) scale using data of young adults in the sociocultural context of Thailand. Heliyon Vol.12 No.1 (2026). doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e44171 Retrieved from: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14740/55269
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
The Eating Attitude Test-26 (EAT-26) is a widely used screening tool to measure symptoms and behaviors related to eating disorders (EDs). Previous studies in various countries have empirically assessed the original factor structure of EAT-26 based on their respective sample data. Their sample data did not support the original factor structure of EAT-26. Sociocultural factors may cause ED behaviors to differ among diverse sociocultural groups. However, assessing the EAT-26 factor structure using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has not been done in Thailand. Thus, this cross-sectional study aimed to examine the factor structure of EAT-26 among 210 young adults in Northeast Thailand using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and CFA. The results of our study revealed similar findings to those of previous studies. The first finding indicated that the factor structure of the EAT-26 was inconsistent with the sample data obtained using EFA. Similarly, the second CFA finding indicated that the (EAT-26) model did not fit the sample data. However, the sample data from those previous studies and our sample data differed from those included in the original EAT-26 study. In other words, the sample data come from those participants who did not share the same sociocultural backgrounds different than those included in the original EAT-26 study. It can be concluded that sociocultural factors appear to play a crucial role in the ED screening stage. Therefore, adapting the ED screening tools to suit groups with different sociocultural backgrounds (e.g., young Thai adults) may be essential. Finally, future research should focus on developing an ED scale bank that accommodates the growing screening tools sensitive to sociocultural factors.