Methodological and reporting quality in laboratory studies of human eating behavior

Eric Robinson · Kirsten E. Bevelander · Matt Field · Andrew Jones

53 citations0/0 files storedAppetite

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior Psychology Research and Bibliometrics

Abstract

The methodological quality and reporting practices of laboratory studies of human eating behavior determine the validity and replicability of nutrition science. The aim of this research was to examine basic methodology and reporting practices in recent representative laboratory studies of human eating behavior. We examined laboratory studies of human eating behavior (N = 140 studies) published during 2016. Basic methodology (e.g., sample size, use of participant blinding) and reporting practices (e.g., information on participant characteristics) were assessed for each study. Some information relating to participant characteristics (e.g., age, gender) and study methodology (e.g., length of washout periods in within-subjects studies) were reported in the majority of studies. However, other aspects of study reporting, including participant eligibility criteria and how sample size was determined were frequently not reported. Studies often did not appear to standardize pre-test meal appetite or attempt to blind participants to study aims. The average sample size of studies was small (between-subjects design studies in particular) and the primary statistical analyses in a number of studies (24%) were reliant on very small sample sizes that would be likely to produce unreliable results. There are basic methodology and reporting practices in the laboratory study of human eating behavior that are sub-optimal and this is likely to be affecting the validity and replicability of research. Recommendations to address these issues are discussed.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 53 citations exist upstream.

References

2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials 2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False 2013Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs 2013Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience 2011False-Positive Psychology 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False 1962On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications.

Cited by

2021Interoception and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between interoception and BMI 2019Quantifying the presence of evidential value and selective reporting in food-related inhibitory control training: ap-curve analysis 2020Translation of findings from laboratory studies of food and alcohol intake into behavior change interventions: The experimental medicine approach.2025Being transparent about personalization: The case of personalized digital “just-in-time” nudges for healthier food choice

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.