Background: The transition to university is a critical period during which young adults gain greater independence in eating and lifestyle behaviors. Appetitive traits may help characterize individual differences in eating behavior. Objective: This study aimed to examine associations between Adult Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (AEBQ) subscale scores and dietary-frequency, physical-activity, household-income, smoking, and BMI measures among Jordanian university students. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 485 students aged 18–24 years from three Jordanian universities (HU, UJ, and JUST). Face-to-face interviews collected sociodemographic, lifestyle, dietary, and AEBQ data, and anthropometric measurements were obtained to calculate BMI. Analyses included independent-samples t-tests, one-way ANOVA with post hoc comparisons, Kendall’s tau-b correlations, Benjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) correction for dietary comparisons, and multivariable linear regression models. Results: Participants had a mean age of 21.34 ± 2.17 years; 37.9% reported smoking and 45.2% reported moderate physical activity. Mean AEBQ subscale scores were 2.85 ± 1.09 for Emotional Over-Eating, 3.84 ± 0.64 for Enjoyment of Food, 3.12 ± 0.83 for Hunger, 2.80 ± 0.74 for Food Fussiness, 2.94 ± 0.95 for Slowness in Eating, and 3.38 ± 0.83 for Satiety Responsiveness. In adjusted analyses, higher BMI was associated with higher Emotional Over-Eating and lower Satiety Responsiveness. Household income below 500 JOD (versus 500–1000 JOD) was associated with higher Hunger and Satiety Responsiveness, while income above 1000 JOD was associated with lower Slowness in Eating. Several dietary-frequency associations remained significant after FDR correction. Conclusion: AEBQ subscale scores were associated with selected characteristics in this sample. These cross-sectional associations do not establish causal relationships. The modified Arabic AEBQ and shortened food-frequency questionnaire require further evaluation in Jordanian populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alomari et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: