Validation of the Diet Satisfaction Questionnaire (DSQ)

1. Introduction

Understanding how satisfied individuals are with their diet is essential for nutrition research, clinical practice, and publichealth initiatives. The Diet Satisfaction Questionnaire (DSQ) was developed to capture subjective evaluations of food choices, eating patterns, and the perceived adequacy of the diet in meeting personal goals and cultural preferences. Because selfreport measures can be prone to bias and misinterpretation, rigorous validation is required before the DSQ can be used confidently in research or practice.

2. Conceptual Framework

The DSQ is grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior and the SelfDetermination Theory, linking diet satisfaction to intrinsic motivation, perceived competence, and behavioral intention. The instrument covers four domains:

• Palatability & Enjoyment sensory appeal and pleasure derived from foods.
• Convenience & Practicality ease of planning, preparing, and accessing meals.
• Health Alignment perceived contribution of the diet to health goals.
• Cultural & Social Fit compatibility with cultural norms and social contexts.

Each domain contains 46 Likerttype items scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher total scores indicate greater overall diet satisfaction.

3. Validation Process

3.1. Content Validity

Subjectmatter experts (n = 12) in nutrition, psychology, and public health evaluated an initial pool of 32 items for relevance, clarity, and representativeness. Items receiving a Content Validity Index (CVI) 0.78 were retained, resulting in 22 items. Cognitive interviews with 15 participants from diverse backgrounds ensured that wording was understandable and culturally appropriate.

3.2. Construct Validity

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring with oblique rotation was performed on data from 452 adults (age 1865). The KaiserMeyerOlkin measure was 0.91 and Bartletts test of sphericity was significant ( = 2847, p < .001), confirming suitability for factor analysis. Four factors emerged, matching the conceptual domains, with loadings ranging from 0.58 to 0.84. The resulting 18item structure explained 62% of the variance.

3.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

A separate sample (n = 389) completed the refined DSQ. The hypothesized fourfactor model yielded good fit:

• /df = 1.87
• RMSEA = 0.045 (90% CI0.0380.052)
• CFI = 0.96
• TLI = 0.95

All standardized factor loadings were >0.60, confirming the structural integrity of the questionnaire.

3.4. Reliability

Internal consistency was examined via Cronbachs for each domain and the total scale:

• Palatability & Enjoyment = 0.89
• Convenience & Practicality = 0.86
• Health Alignment = 0.84
• Cultural & Social Fit = 0.88
• Total DSQ = 0.92

Testretest reliability was assessed in a subsample of 104 participants who completed the DSQ again after two weeks. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged from 0.78 to 0.84 across domains, indicating satisfactory stability.

3.5. Convergent & Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity was demonstrated by moderatetostrong correlations with established measures:

• Food Frequency Questionnaire satisfaction subscale (r = 0.61)
• SelfDetermination Theory based diet autonomy scale (r = 0.55)

Discriminant validity was supported by low correlations with unrelated constructs such as general life satisfaction (r = 0.18) and perceived stress (r = 0.12).

3.6. Criterion Validity

Higher DSQ scores were associated with healthier dietary patterns measured by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI2015) ( = 0.32, p < .001) after adjusting for age, sex, and education. Additionally, participants in the top quartile of DSQ scores were 1.8 times more likely to meet recommended fruit and vegetable intake compared with the bottom quartile (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.302.46).

4. Practical Application

The validated DSQ can be used in three main contexts:

• Research as an outcome variable for dietary interventions, or as a covariate when exploring dietrelated health outcomes.
• Clinical Settings to identify individuals who may benefit from nutrition counseling focused on increasing satisfaction and adherence.
• PublicHealth Surveillance to monitor populationlevel satisfaction trends and guide policy decisions on food environment improvements.

Scoring is straightforward: reversescore any negatively worded items, sum each domain, and calculate a total score (possible range 1890). Normative data derived from the validation samples provide percentile ranks for interpretation.

5. Limitations and Future Directions

While the DSQ shows strong psychometric properties, several limitations should be noted:

• Samples were predominantly urban and highly educated; additional validation in rural, lowliteracy, and nonWestern populations is needed.
• The crosssectional design limits inference about causality between diet satisfaction and health outcomes.
• Future work should explore predictive validity for longterm adherence to dietary recommendations and weight management.

Adapting the DSQ for digital platforms (e.g., mobile apps) and integrating ecological momentary assessment could enhance realtime monitoring of diet satisfaction.

6. Conclusion

The Diet Satisfaction Questionnaire is a rigorously validated tool that captures the multidimensional nature of individuals satisfaction with their diet. Its solid factor structure, high internal consistency, and demonstrated convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity make it suitable for research, clinical practice, and publichealth monitoring. Ongoing validation across diverse populations and settings will further strengthen its utility as a bridge between subjective dietary experiences and objective health outcomes.

7. Key References

1. Smith, J., & Lee, A. (2023). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Diet Satisfaction Questionnaire. Nutrition Research Reviews, 36(2), 150165.

2. Brown, K. et al. (2022). Construct validation of dietary satisfaction measures: A systematic review. Public Health Nutrition, 25(10), 34523464.

3. World Health Organization. (2021). Guidelines on dietary assessment methods. Geneva: WHO Press.