Darren A. Hughes

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

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 effect of graded levels of exercise on energy intake and balance in free-living women †

Aim: We assessed the effect of graded increases in exercised-induced energy expenditure (EE) on appetite, daily energy intake (EI), total daily EE and body weight in six lean women using a within-subject, repeated measures design.Method: Subjects were each studied three times during 7 day treatments, corresponding to no-exercise (control; Nex; 0 MJ/day), medium exercise level (Mex; ∼1.9 MJ/day) and high exercise level (Hex; ∼3.4 MJ/day), with 2 day maintenance beforehand. Subjects self-weighed ad libitum food intake. EE was assessed by continual heart rate monitoring. During waking hours subjects recorded hourly sensations of hunger and appetite.Results: EE amounted to 9.2, 11.0 and 12.1 MJ/day (F (2, 10)=5.67; P=0.023 (s.e.d.=0.87)) on the Nex, Mex and Hex treatments, respectively. The corresponding values for EI were 8.9, 9.2 and 10.0 MJ/day (F (2, 10)=4.80; P=0.035 (s.e.d.=0.36)). There were very weak treatment effects on hunger. Weight loss was significantly different from zero on the Mex and Hex treatments.Conclusion: Markedly increasing EE through exercise produced significant but partial compensations in EI (∼33% of EE due to exercise). Accurate adjustments of El to acute increases in EE are likely to take weeks rather than days.

Comparison of the traditional paper visual analogue scale questionnaire with an Apple Newton electronic appetite rating system (EARS) in free living subjects feeding ad libitum

Objective: Assessing the value of a newly developed electronic visual analogue scale questionnaire (Apple Newton Message Pad) with the traditional paper method for appetite rating.Design: In a random, crossover design, subjects completed both electronic and paper questionnaires to compare results obtained by the two methods; individual methods were completed consecutively to assess test-retest reliability; preference was established using a questionnaire.Setting/Subjects: Healthy, free-living adults were studied for comparison of methods (n=12), test-retest reliability (n=8) and preference (n=13).Intervention: Visual analogue scales were completed each waking hour to assess appetite. Preference was assessed after both methods were completed.Results: There was no significant difference in the hourly results obtained by the paper and electronic methods for ‘desire to eat’, ‘how much can you eat now’, ‘urge to eat’ and ‘preoccupation with thoughts of food’. Small differences in ‘hunger’ and ‘fullness’ ratings were noted (∼5% mean difference between methods, P<0.05), but patterns of change and sensitivity for these and all other parameters remained similar for both methods across the visual analogue scale. Test-retest reliability demonstrated was similar for both methods. Seven (54%) subjects preferred to use the paper questionnaire, five (38%) the electronic method and one (8%) had no preference.Conclusions: The electronic Apple Newton questionnaire is as sensitive and reliable as the paper method, has the advantage that it automatically records the time of data acquisition and data collection and processing are more efficient for the researcher. The two methods should not be used interchangeably.Sponsorship: Medical Research Council.

Description and evaluation of a Newton-based electronic appetite rating system for temporal tracking of appetite in human subjects.

This study assessed the reliability and validity of a palm-top-based electronic appetite rating system (EARS) in relation to the traditional paper and pen method. Twenty healthy subjects [10 male (M) and 10 female (F)] - mean age M=31 years (S.D.=8), F=27 years (S.D.=5); mean BMI M=24 (S.D.=2), F=21 (S.D.=5) - participated in a 4-day protocol. Measurements were made on days 1 and 4. Subjects were given paper and an EARS to log hourly subjective motivation to eat during waking hours. Food intake and meal times were fixed. Subjects were given a maintenance diet (comprising 40% fat, 47% carbohydrate and 13% protein by energy) calculated at 1.6xResting Metabolic Rate (RMR), as three isoenergetic meals. Bland and Altmans test for bias between two measurement techniques found significant differences between EARS and paper and pen for two of eight responses (hunger and fullness). Regression analysis confirmed that there were no day, sex or order effects between ratings obtained using either technique. For 15 subjects, there was no significant difference between results, with a linear relationship between the two methods that explained most of the variance (r(2) ranged from 62.6 to 98.6). The slope for all subjects was less than 1, which was partly explained by a tendency for bias at the extreme end of results on the EARS technique. These data suggest that the EARS is a useful and reliable technique for real-time data collection in appetite research but that it should not be used interchangeably with paper and pen techniques.