This study aimed to examine the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Intuitive Eating Scale–3 (IES–3) in an adult sample from Ankara, Türkiye. A total of 466 participants (Mean age = 28.24 ± 10.66 years; 68.5% female) were recruited for the study. Data were collected via a web-based questionnaire including socio-demographic information, the IES–3, and the Intuitive Eating Scale–2 (IES–2). The linguistic adaptation process followed a standardized forward-backward translation protocol and expert panel evaluation. To account for the ordinal nature of the data and the violation of multivariate normality, polychoric correlation matrices were employed for both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) via Minimum Rank Factor Analysis (MRFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) via Robust Maximum Likelihood (MLR) estimation with the Yuan–Bentler (Y-B) correction. EFA supported a four-factor structure consistent with the original scale, explaining 92.05% of the common variance. CFA results confirmed a satisfactory model fit (χ2/df = 2.310, CFI = 0.959, TLI = 0.944, RMSEA = 0.053, SRMR = 0.053). The scale demonstrated acceptable to high internal consistency (α = 0.63–0.85, ω = 0.69–0.85) and excellent test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.85–0.94). Concurrent validity was established through significant positive correlations with the IES–2 (ρ = 0.716, p < 0.001), and construct-related evidence was supported by multiple regression analysis, where IES-2 subscales explained 62.1% of the variance in IES-3 scores. The Turkish version of the IES-3 demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability within the studied sample. Although these findings are limited to the adult sample recruited online from Ankara and require further validation in more diverse national populations, this brief 12-item scale provides a practical tool for researchers and clinicians assessing intuitive eating behaviors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Çelik et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: