Cited by 674Regulation of Appetite and ObesityNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorEating Disorders and Behaviors

The use of visual analogue scales to assess motivation to eat in human subjects: a review of their reliability and validity with an evaluation of new hand-held computerized systems for temporal tracking of appetite ratings

Open access
Stubbs, R. J., Hughes, D. A., Johnstone, A. M., Rowley, E., Reid, C., Elia, M., Stratton, R., Delargy, H. +2 more·2000·British Journal Of Nutrition

Abstract

This present paper reviews the reliability and validity of visual analogue scales (VAS) in terms of (1) their ability to predict feeding behaviour, (2) their sensitivity to experimental manipulations, and (3) their reproducibility. VAS correlate with, but do not reliably predict, energy intake to the extent that they could be used as a proxy of energy intake. They do predict meal initiation in subjects eating their normal diets in their normal environment. Under laboratory conditions, subjectively rated motivation to eat using VAS is sensitive to experimental manipulations and has been found to be reproducible in relation to those experimental regimens. Other work has found them not to be reproducible in relation to repeated protocols. On balance, it would appear, in as much as it is possible to quantify, that VAS exhibit a good degree of within-subject reliability and validity in that they predict with reasonable certainty, meal initiation and amount eaten, and are sensitive to experimental manipulations. This reliability and validity appears more pronounced under the controlled (but more artificial) conditions of the laboratory where the signal:noise ratio in experiments appears to be elevated relative to real life. It appears that VAS are best used in within-subject, repeated-measures designs where the effect of different treatments can be compared under similar circumstances. They are best used in conjunction with other measures (e.g. feeding behaviour, changes in plasma metabolites) rather than as proxies for these variables. New hand-held electronic appetite rating systems (EARS) have been developed to increase reliability of data capture and decrease investigator workload. Recent studies have compared these with traditional pen and paper (P&P) VAS. The EARS have been found to be sensitive to experimental manipulations and reproducible relative to P&P. However, subjects appear to exhibit a significantly more constrained use of the scale when using the EARS relative to the P&P. For this reason it is recommended that the two techniques are not used interchangeably.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0007114500001719

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Camp®eld LA, Smith FJ, Rosenbaum M & Geary N (1992) Human hunger monitoring of motivation to eat. International Journal of Obesity 20, Suppl. 4, 104 Abstr.
  2. Delargy HJ, Lawton CL, Smith FC, King NA & Blundell JE (1996) Electronic appetite rating system (EARS): validation of continuous automated monitoring of motivation to eat. International Journal of Obesity 20, Suppl. 4, 104 Abstr.
  3. Mayer J (1955) The regulation of energy intake and body weight. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 63, 15±43.
  4. Raben A (1995) Appetite and carbohydrate metabolism. PhD Thesis, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen.
  5. Reid CA, Harbron CG, Blundell JE & Stubbs RJ (1998) What are psychometric assessments of appetite asking: a preliminary multivariate analysis. International Journal of Obesity 22, Suppl. 3, 151A.
  6. Stratton RJ, Stubbs RJ & Elia M (1998a) Appetite and food intake during arti®cial nutrition. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 57, 96A.
  7. Stubbs RJ, O'Reilly LM, Johnstone AM, Franklin MF & Reid C (1998c) Description and evaluation of an experimental model to examine changes in qualitative and quantitative feeding behaviour in humans. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 53, 13±21.
  8. Stubbs RJ, Rowley E, Hughes DA, Johnstone AM, Reid CA, King N, Blundell J, Elia M & Stratton RJ (1997) Evaluating a new electronic appetite rating system (EARS). International Journal of Obesity 21, Suppl. 2, 391.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stubbs, R. J., Hughes, D. A., Johnstone, A. M., Rowley, E., Reid, C., Elia, M., Stratton, R., Delargy, H., King, N., & Blundell, J. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Stubbs, R. J.
Venue
British Journal Of Nutrition
Published
2000-10
Volume
84
Issue
4
Pages
405-415
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
OpenAlex
W2143952061
Cited by
674
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 29
FWCI
0.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal Of Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Regulation of Appetite and Obesity
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
Keywords
visual analogue scale, eating motivation, reliability statistics, validity, meal initiation, reproducibility, within-subjects design
MeSH terms
Appetite, Computer Graphics, Data Collection, Eating, Female, Humans, Male, Microcomputers, Motivation, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review