Mapping of Eating Self-Efficacy Scales: A Scoping Review

This study aimed to map and analyze eating self-efficacy scales, identifying their characteristics, application contexts, psychometric quality, and gaps in the literature. A scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. The search was conducted in the EMBASE, PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, LILACS, and Scopus databases, with no restriction on language or publication period. Studies that validated eating self-efficacy scales or performed cross-cultural adaptations of these instruments were included. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted the data. Data extraction and appraisal followed the characteristics of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and the content validity criteria established by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). Forty-six studies were included, comprising 27 original scales, 19 adapted scales, and 1 additional original scale indirectly identified in a selected study. Forty-six studies were included (encompassing 28 original and 19 adapted scales). Internal consistency was generally high (α or Ω = 0.73-0.97), and the instruments were found to be feasible for self-administration. The cross-cultural adaptations highlighted the need for methodological and linguistic adjustments in order to ensure the validity of the instruments in different populations. However, interpretability was limited, with few scales reporting normative data or thresholds. Content validity was the weakest domain-most instruments lacked concept elicitation, cognitive interviewing, or expert evaluation. Only 2 scales met the COSMIN criteria for positive content validity. This review demonstrated that eating self-efficacy scales are relevant tools for assessing dimensions of eating behavior and guiding interventions. Mapping 46 instruments provided a useful synthesis for researchers and professionals when selecting appropriate measures. However, important methodological gaps remain, particularly regarding content validity. Future advances should prioritize more robust methodological procedures, with clear conceptual grounding and systematic evaluation steps, to enhance the psychometric quality and clinical utility of the available scales.