Does Adherence to Early Infant Hearing Detection and Intervention Guidelines Positively Impact Pediatric Speech Outcomes?

Emotional eating has a pooled prevalence of 44.9% (95% CI: .29–.62) among populations with overweight or obesity, according to a recent meta-analysis that included 18 studies []. This high prevalence has been linked to multiple adverse outcomes. In the metabolic domain, emotional eating is positively associated with higher body mass index (BMI), overweight, and obesity []. Furthermore, individuals with emotional eating tendencies have been found to consume greater amounts of energy-dense foods, fast food, ultra-processed products, and sugar-sweetened beverages, contributing to poorer diet quality and an increased risk of cardiometabolic diseases [,]. From a psychological perspective, emotional eating is consistently associated with depressive symptoms, anxiety, stress, and greater emotional dysregulation, creating a vicious cycle in which emotional distress reinforces maladaptive eating behaviors [,]. In terms of eating-related behaviors, emotional eating has been associated with overeating and binge eating, suggesting that it may serve as a marker of more severe eating-related psychopathology []. Taken together, the available evidence indicates that emotional eating is not only a highly prevalent phenomenon but also a variable associated with obesity and mood-related disorders, highlighting the need to address it in both clinical and public health interventions. In this context, several instruments have been developed to assess emotional eating. For example, one of the earliest and most widely used measures is the Emotional Eating Scale (EES), developed by Arnow et al. [], which consists of 25 items and assesses the urge to eat in response to negative emotions such as anxiety, depression, and anger/frustration []. Subsequently, Garaulet et al. [] developed the Emotional Eater Questionnaire (EEQ), a 10-item instrument primarily designed for individuals with obesity, identifying dimensions such as disinhibition, food type, and guilt []. Later, Sultson et al. [] proposed the Positive-Negative Emotional Eating Scale (PNEES), comprising 19 items that distinguish between positive and negative emotional eating []. Likewise, Meule et al. [] developed the Salzburg Emotional Eating Scale (SEES), a 20-item instrument that incorporates both positive and negative emotions and differentiates between increased and decreased food intake according to emotional states []. Along the same line, Paleo Garnica [] developed the Emotional Intake Scale (EIE), whose final version consisted of 42 items distributed across dimensions related to positive emotions, negative emotions, weight concerns, and post-intake thoughts []. Furthermore, Cassioli et al. [] validated the Florence Emotional Eating Drive (FEED), a 25-item measure that simultaneously assesses the intensity and frequency of emotions associated with the desire to eat []. Finally, Hooper et al. [] developed the Comprehensive Emotional Eating Scale (CEES), a 40-item instrument comprising four dimensions related to both positive and negative overeating and undereating behaviors []. Although these instruments have substantially contributed to the assessment of emotional eating, no instrument has yet been identified that measures this construct specifically according to Plutchik's model of the eight basic emotions []. This represents an important conceptual and practical gap, as existing instruments assess emotional eating without being grounded in a theoretical framework that integrates a specific set of emotions, such as Plutchik's model adopted in the present study []. Consequently, they do not allow emotional eating to be examined within this theoretical framework or facilitate the identification of distinct emotional profiles associated with eating behavior. In this context, a brief instrument based on Plutchik's model may provide a more theory-driven assessment of emotional eating, support the identification of specific emotional patterns, and contribute to the development of more targeted preventive and therapeutic interventions. Furthermore, considering that existing instruments comprise between 10 and 42 items, the development of a brief eight-item scale represents a more efficient alternative for large-scale epidemiological studies, routine clinical screening, and other healthcare settings where assessment time is limited, by reducing respondent burden without compromising the theoretical coverage of the construct.