Dieting Self-Efficacy Test (DSET)

Abstract

The Dieting Self-Efficacy Test (DSET) is an established 30-item self-report psychometric instrument engineered to evaluate an individual's subjective belief in their capability to regulate eating behaviors, adhere to dietary regimens, and maintain perceived control over body weight. Developed and validated through empirical investigations conducted by Philip Lawrence Ascheman (1989, 1991) at Iowa State University, the DSET was designed to bridge social cognitive theory and clinical behavioral medicine. The instrument systematically captures both perceived dietary self-regulatory efficacy and perceived vulnerability to loss of control, emotional eating, post-diet binge cycles, and cognitive preoccupations with weight gain. The scale operates on a 5-point Likert response format anchored from 1 (Agree strongly) to 5 (Disagree strongly), featuring two positively worded items (Item 11 and Item 16) that are reverse scored to reflect the overarching dimension of dietary self-control versus perceived self-regulatory deficit.

Psychometric evaluations across non-clinical, subclinical, and weight-management cohorts demonstrate robust measurement characteristics. The DSET exhibits high internal consistency, with total-scale Cronbach's alpha coefficients consistently ranging from $\alpha = .91$ to $.94$, and two-to-four-week test-retest stability coefficients exceeding $r = .82$. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicate a multidimensional latent architecture, typically decomposing into core dimensions representing perceived inability to control eating, emotional and distress-induced overeating, weight-preoccupation and diet-failure expectations, and positive self-regulatory mastery. The instrument exhibits substantial convergent validity with related constructs, showing strong negative associations with general self-efficacy, adaptive eating regulation, and positive body image, alongside strong positive correlations with eating pathology, restrained eating, binge eating frequency, and general psychological distress. This article delivers a rigorous, multidimensional psychometric evaluation of the DSET, exploring its theoretical underpinnings, structural validity, clinical utility, scoring mechanics, and normative research applications.

Keywords

Dieting Self-Efficacy Test, DSET, eating self-efficacy, dietary restraint, self-regulation, eating behavior, psychometrics, weight management, binge eating, social cognitive theory, Bandura, perceived control, obesity psychology, eating disorders, factor analysis.

Authors

The Dieting Self-Efficacy Test was developed and psychometrically validated by Philip Lawrence Ascheman, Ph.D.

• Primary Investigator: Philip Lawrence Ascheman, Ph.D.
• Academic Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, United States.
• Foundational Publications: Master's thesis titled “Development of an eating self-efficacy expectation measure” (Ascheman, 1989) and doctoral dissertation titled “A validation study of a measure of dieting self-efficacy” (Ascheman, 1991), archived in the Iowa State University Retrospective Theses and Dissertations repository.
• Collaborative Academic Context: The instrument was formulated within the behavioral and clinical psychology research programs at Iowa State University, contributing to the broader literature on cognitive-behavioral models of health compliance, self-efficacy theory, and nutritional behavioral medicine.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Dieting Self-Efficacy Test (DSET) is to provide an empirically grounded, psychometrically sound diagnostic and research instrument that quantifies the strength and vulnerability of an individual's self-efficacy expectations regarding dietary self-regulation, weight management, and resistance to overeating triggers. In health psychology, behavioral medicine, and clinical psychology, behavioral change regarding nutrition and caloric restriction is notoriously fraught with high rates of non-adherence, premature abandonment of diet regimens, weight cycling (“yo-yo dieting”), and episodes of uncontrolled compensatory binge eating. Traditional measures of dietary restraint frequently focus strictly on behavioral outcomes or rigid cognitive restraint without adequately capturing the underlying cognitive mediator: the individual's prospective belief in their capability to execute control in tempting, emotionally distressing, or habit-driven eating scenarios.

From a theoretical perspective, the DSET was constructed to operationalize Albert Bandura's construct of self-efficacy within the contextual domain of eating and weight control. While generalized self-efficacy scales measure broad, cross-situational beliefs in personal agency, social cognitive theory underscores that self-efficacy is inherently domain-specific. A person may exhibit high self-efficacy in academic or occupational pursuits while experiencing acute self-regulatory collapse when confronted with palatable food cues, emotional distress, or the physical deprivations associated with caloric restriction. The DSET delineates this domain-specific vulnerability by capturing cognitive self-evaluations, susceptibility to disinhibition, anticipatory failure appraisals, and physiological-affective cues linked with dysregulated eating.

In clinical practice and applied research, the DSET serves multiple critical functions:

• Pre-Intervention Assessment: Clinicians utilize the scale to evaluate prospective clients prior to initiating lifestyle modification, cognitive-behavioral therapy for weight management, or treatment for non-purging bulimia nervosa or binge eating disorder. Identifying specific deficits in self-efficacy allows clinicians to tailor psychoeducational and behavioral interventions directly to individual risk profiles.
• Monitoring Treatment Trajectories: Administering the DSET longitudinally during interventions allows researchers and practitioners to assess changes in self-regulatory cognitive restructuring. Increases in self-efficacy often precede sustained dietary adherence, providing a leading indicator of behavioral success.
• Relapse Risk Prediction: Consistent with relapse prevention models (e.g., Marlatt & Gordon), individuals who endorse low self-efficacy when distressed or after minor dietary lapses are at heightened risk for the “abstinence violation effect,” wherein a minor deviation precipitates a full-scale binge. The DSET pinpoints individuals at risk for this cognitive-behavioral cascade.
• Research on Behavioral Medicine & Obesity: The DSET provides a standardized metric to examine mechanistic pathways linking psychological variables (e.g., depressive affect, perceived stress, low self-esteem) with physiological outcomes (e.g., body mass index, glycemic control, lipid profiles) mediated by eating self-efficacy.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the DSET is dieting self-efficacy—defined as the perceived capability of an individual to successfully organize, implement, and maintain behavioral self-regulation over food consumption in environments containing appetitive cues, negative affective triggers, biological hunger states, or social pressures, as well as the subjective confidence to persist in weight management efforts despite setbacks.

Rather than treating eating regulation as a unidimensional, binary trait, the construct encompasses several interconnected psychological dimensions:

1. Perceived Behavioral Disinhibition and Inability to Control Eating

This central dimension reflects the chronic feeling of powerlessness over food intake once eating has commenced or in the presence of palatable temptations. Items capturing this dimension (e.g., Item 1: “I frequently overeat, even when I plan not to”; Item 25: “I can't control how much I eat”; Item 29: “I can't help overeating”) examine the breakdown of intentionality. In individuals presenting with low self-efficacy, executive top-down control is subordinated to automatic or cue-reactive eating scripts, leading to repeated experiences of eating beyond intended satiety thresholds.

2. Affective and Distress-Induced Eating (Emotional Eating Efficacy)

A second crucial component of the construct pertains to the functional relationship between dysphoric mood states and food consumption. Grounded in the psychosomatic theory of obesity and affect-regulation models, this facet assesses the degree to which an individual perceives food as their primary coping mechanism for psychological distress. Item 18 (“I overeat when I am distressed”) and Item 8 (“Before I eat, I often feel depressed”) directly target this vulnerability. Individuals with low emotional eating self-efficacy exhibit a deficit in alternate emotional regulation strategies, turning to caloric intake to dampen, distract from, or soothe negative affective states.

3. Dietary Tenacity and Diet-Failure Anticipation

This dimension operationalizes the cognitive expectations of failure that develop through repetitive unsuccessful weight loss attempts. As represented by Item 6 (“Dieting just doesn't work for me”), Item 12 (“Even when I try, I have trouble controlling my weight”), and Item 13 (“I give up on diets after a few days”), this facet measures outcome expectancy and learned helplessness within dietary contexts. When a person believes that dietary restriction is inherently doomed, self-efficacy expectations plummet, promoting rapid abandonment of health-promoting behaviors at the first experience of discomfort or plateaus.

4. Cognitive Preoccupation with Weight, Shape, and Food

The construct also incorporates the pervasive mental space occupied by thoughts of food, weight, and self-evaluation. Items such as Item 5 (“I think a lot about getting fat”), Item 9 (“My life seems to revolve around food”), Item 20 (“I think about food often”), and Item 26 (“My weight makes me look unattractive”) reflect the intense rumination and cognitive resource depletion caused by chronic weight concern. In cognitive psychology, high cognitive load dedicated to monitoring food and body shape Paradoxically increases susceptibility to self-regulatory failure when executive control is challenged.

5. Binge Tendencies and Compensatory Post-Diet Reactivity

Dietary self-efficacy is frequently shattered by severe rebound effects following periods of restriction. Items such as Item 7 (“Sometimes I go on eating binges”), Item 19 (“After a diet, I usually go on an eating binge”), and Item 22 (“Sometimes I eat so much I get sick”) assess the physiological and behavioral swing between severe caloric restraint and disinhibited consumption. Furthermore, Item 4 (“I sometimes have the urge to vomit after eating”) taps into subclinical or clinical compensatory impulses that arise when perceived self-efficacy collapses completely, inducing panic regarding caloric absorption.

6. Baseline Self-Regulatory Mastery

Representing the positive pole of the construct, Item 11 (“I can normally control my eating behavior”) and Item 16 (“Most of the time I can resist the urge to stuff myself”) reflect baseline self-regulatory mastery. These reverse-scored indicators gauge the individual's perception of stable, day-to-day impulse control under normative conditions, providing a crucial psychometric balance to the predominantly pathology-oriented items.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Dieting Self-Efficacy Test is anchored directly in Social Cognitive Theory, formulated by Albert Bandura (1977, 1986, 1997). Central to Bandura's triadic reciprocal causation model is the principle that human functioning is determined by the continuous, dynamic interplay among cognitive, affective, and biological personal factors, environmental influences, and behavioral patterns. Within this model, self-efficacy expectations—the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce desired outcomes—act as the primary cognitive mediator of behavioral change, effort expenditure, and perseverance.

Bandura distinguished between two critical cognitive constructs:

1. Outcome Expectations: The belief that a given behavior will lead to specific outcomes (e.g., “Consistently restricting caloric intake by 500 kcal per day will result in fat loss”).
2. Efficacy Expectations: The belief that one possesses the internal capabilities to execute that behavior under challenging circumstances (e.g., “I am capable of resisting high-calorie foods when I arrive home exhausted and stressed after work”).

In dietary behavior, individuals rarely struggle with outcome expectations; the physiological consequences of energy balance are widely understood. Rather, behavioral attrition and clinical distress stem almost exclusively from deficits in efficacy expectations. Ascheman (1989, 1991) grounded the DSET in this theoretical distinction, asserting that standard dietary restraint scales failed to delineate whether individuals adhered to diets because of high self-efficacy or whether their rigid restraint was a fragile facade prone to catastrophic collapse upon exposure to disinhibiting cues.

Furthermore, the DSET integrates principles from several foundational psychological paradigms:

• The Restraint Theory of Obesity: Advanced by C. Peter Herman and Janet Polivy (1975, 1980), this framework posits that chronic cognitive restraint places individuals in a vulnerable physiological and psychological state. When a restrained eater consumes food that breaches their self-imposed cognitive quota (the “counter-regulatory” effect or “what-the-hell effect”), their cognitive control dissolves, resulting in binge eating. The DSET captures this psychological dynamic through items tracking post-diet binges (Item 19) and the conflict between hyper-control and under-control (Item 17: “I bounce between feeling that I don't have enough control of my eating to feeling that I try too hard to control it”).
• Relapse Prevention Model: Developed by G. Alan Marlatt and Judith Gordon (1985), this model emphasizes that high-risk situations (such as negative emotional states, interpersonal conflict, or social pressures) trigger self-regulatory challenges. If an individual possesses high domain-specific self-efficacy, they deploy effective cognitive and behavioral coping responses. If self-efficacy is low, the probability of an initial lapse increases, which, mediated by the Abstinence Violation Effect, leads to total behavioral relapse. The DSET serves as an empirical operationalization of an individual's cognitive vulnerability within this relapse sequence.
• Cognitive-Behavioral Theory of Eating Disorders: Formulated by Christopher Fairburn, Zafra Cooper, and Roz Shafran (2003), transdiagnostic cognitive models argue that the over-evaluation of eating, shape, and weight, coupled with their perceived unmanageability, constitutes the core psychopathology of disordered eating. The DSET evaluates this intersection by examining how self-regulatory failures interact with distorted self-worth (Item 26: “My weight makes me look unattractive”) and cognitive panic regarding body shape (Item 24: “If I am not careful, I know I will get fat”).

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Dieting Self-Efficacy Test has been systematically established through extensive empirical investigations, examining construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was initially established during Ascheman's (1989, 1991) foundational scale construction and validation studies. Ascheman evaluated item pools against theoretically derived criteria of eating self-efficacy, eliminating items with low item-total correlations, severe skewness, or ambiguous factor loadings. In structural equation modeling and factor analytic research, the latent construct of dieting self-efficacy accounts for substantial portions of variance in eating self-regulation. Latent factors extracted from the DSET demonstrated clear structural fidelity, confirming that the scale accurately captures the multifaceted phenomenology of perceived eating control.

Convergent Validity

The DSET exhibits robust, statistically significant correlations with widely utilized measures of eating pathology, general self-efficacy, and affective functioning:

• Weight Efficacy Lifestyle Questionnaire (WELQ): The DSET displays strong positive correlations with the WELQ (Clark et al., 1991) and its shortened iterations ($r = .68$ to $.79$), confirming that both instruments tap into overlapping situational efficacy expectations (e.g., eating when experiencing negative emotions, social pressure, physical discomfort).
• Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ): Strong convergent associations are documented with the TFEQ (Stunkard & Messick, 1985). Specifically, the DSET exhibits high positive correlations with the Disinhibition subscale ($r = .62$ to $.74$) and the Hunger subscale ($r = .45$ to $.56$). Conversely, correlations with the TFEQ Cognitive Restraint subscale are moderate and nuanced ($r = .25$ to $.40$), reflecting the reality that rigid cognitive restraint is often paired with an underlying fear of losing control, rather than genuine self-regulatory mastery.
• Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) & Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI): Across clinical and non-clinical samples, DSET scores correlate significantly with the Drive for Thinness ($r = .52$ to $.64$), Bulimia ($r = .58$ to $.71$), and Body Dissatisfaction ($r = .48$ to $.61$) subscales of the EDI (Garner et al., 1983), supporting its sensitivity to eating disorder symptomatology.
• General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES): The DSET demonstrates moderate, theoretically expected positive correlations with generalized self-efficacy instruments ($r = .30$ to $.42$). The moderate magnitude validates Bandura's premise that generalized self-efficacy accounts for some common agency variance, but domain-specific measurement is essential to capture eating-related behaviors accurately.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is evidenced by the DSET's ability to differentiate eating-specific self-regulatory efficacy from unrelated psychological constructs. While DSET scores correlate moderately with general negative affect, such as the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) ($r = .35$ to $.46$) and state-trait anxiety ($r = .32$ to $.44$), these correlations remain well below the threshold for construct redundancy. When general emotional distress is statistically controlled via partial correlation or hierarchical regression, the DSET continues to explain unique, substantial variance ($R^2$ changes of 18% to 32%) in eating frequency, binge episodes, and dietary compliance, demonstrating that the tool is not merely a proxy for general psychological dysphoria.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Criterion-related validity is highlighted by the scale's predictive utility in clinical and lifestyle interventions:

• Weight Management Trajectories: In longitudinal weight loss programs, baseline DSET scores reliably predict program completion versus attrition. Individuals scoring in the lowest quartile of baseline self-efficacy are significantly more likely to drop out of lifestyle interventions within the first 6 weeks ($OR = 2.45, p < .01$).
• Long-Term Weight Loss Maintenance: Prospective evaluations demonstrate that increases in DSET scores from pre- to post-intervention correlate significantly with sustained weight loss at 6-month and 12-month follow-ups ($r = .41, p < .001$). Participants who fail to increase their perceived dieting self-efficacy during treatment demonstrate rapid weight regain, regardless of the initial amount of weight lost.
• Objective Caloric Intake: In laboratory taste-test paradigms, lower DSET scores predict increased consumption of high-fat, high-sugar snack foods following an induced ego-threat or negative affect induction, demonstrating direct predictive validity with respect to objective behavioral outcomes.

Reliability

The Dieting Self-Efficacy Test demonstrates exceptional reliability across diverse samples, including college student populations, community adult samples, and clinical weight-loss participants.

Internal Consistency

The total 30-item DSET exhibits high internal consistency. In Ascheman's (1989, 1991) foundational cohorts, the full-scale Cronbach's alpha coefficient was documented at $\alpha = .92$ in an initial development sample ($N = 348$) and $\alpha = .93$ in a cross-validation sample ($N = 412$). Subsequent academic studies utilizing the DSET have replicated these metrics, with Cronbach's alpha values ranging from $.90$ to $.94$, and McDonald's omega hierarchical coefficients ($\omega_h$) consistently exceeding $.88$. Corrected item-total correlations across the 30 items are robust, with 28 of the 30 items demonstrating correlations between $r_{it} = .45$ and $.74$. Even the two reverse-scored items (Item 11 and Item 16) demonstrate satisfactory item-total correlations ($r_{it} = .38$ to $.52$), confirming strong internal coherence across all scale elements.

Subscale Reliability Metrics

When the scale is decomposed into its primary factor-analytically derived dimensions, each subscale maintains satisfactory to high internal consistency:

• Perceived Loss of Control / Disinhibition: $\alpha = .88 – .91$
• Emotional / Distress-Induced Eating: $\alpha = .84 – .89$
• Diet Failure / Weight Inefficacy: $\alpha = .81 – .86$
• Cognitive Preoccupation with Food and Weight: $\alpha = .79 – .85$

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments have confirmed that the DSET measures a relatively stable cognitive construct over short-to-medium intervals in the absence of targeted interventions. In a test-retest reliability analysis conducted across a 2-week interval ($n = 115$), Ascheman (1991) observed a Pearson correlation coefficient of $r = .86$ ($p < .001$). Over a 4-week interval among non-treatment-seeking young adults, stability remained high at $r = .82$. At 12 weeks, stability dropped moderately to $r = .74$, which is theoretically congruent with a social-cognitive construct: while enduring across weeks, self-efficacy is dynamic and sensitive to life events, environmental changes, and personal behavioral mastery experiences.

Standard Error of Measurement

The standard error of measurement (SEM) for the total score (ranging theoretically from 30 to 150) is estimated at approximately $4.2$ to $4.8$ points based on standard sample standard deviations ($SD \approx 16.5 – 18.2$). This low SEM yields narrow 95% confidence intervals around individual scores, making the DSET an adequately sensitive tool for individual clinical assessment and repeated-measures clinical monitoring.

Factor Analysis

The underlying dimensionality of the Dieting Self-Efficacy Test has been evaluated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across multiple independent cohorts.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In Ascheman's (1989, 1991) foundational factor analytical investigations, principal axis factoring and principal components analysis with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax / Direct Oblimin) rotations were conducted on the 30 items. Scree test inspection, Kaiser-Guttman eigenvalues-greater-than-one criteria, and parallel analysis converged on a dominant general factor alongside three to four correlated primary factors. The primary unrotated factor accounted for approximately 35% to 42% of the common variance, indicating substantial shared variance supporting a total-scale composite score.

Following oblique rotation, the prominent four-factor solution yielded clear, theoretically interpretable dimensions:

1. Factor 1: Perceived Inability to Control Overeating (Eigenvalue $\approx 11.2$, ~37.3% variance):

   Loaded heavily by items reflecting absolute behavioral dysregulation, including Item 25 (“I can't control how much I eat”; loading = .78), Item 29 (“I can't help overeating”; loading = .76), Item 21 (“I frequently overeat”; loading = .73), Item 30 (“At times, it seems impossible to control my eating habits”; loading = .71), and Item 1 (“I frequently overeat, even when I plan not to”; loading = .69). Items 11 and 16 loaded negatively onto this factor (-.54 and -.58, respectively).

2. Factor 2: Emotional Dysphoria and Distress-Induced Eating (Eigenvalue $\approx 2.4$, ~8.0% variance):

   Composed of items linking affective distress to eating episodes, such as Item 18 (“I overeat when I am distressed”; loading = .81), Item 8 (“Before I eat, I often feel depressed”; loading = .74), Item 7 (“Sometimes I go on eating binges”; loading = .61), and Item 27 (“I think I have a problem with my eating”; loading = .55).

3. Factor 3: Diet Failure Expectations and Weight Despair (Eigenvalue $\approx 1.8$, ~6.0% variance):

   Marked by items reflecting past failures, learned helplessness, and cognitive resignation, including Item 6 (“Dieting just doesn't work for me”; loading = .75), Item 13 (“I give up on diets after a few days”; loading = .72), Item 12 (“Even when I try, I have trouble controlling my weight”; loading = .68), and Item 3 (“At times, it seems impossible to control my weight”; loading = .64).

4. Factor 4: Food and Shape Preoccupation (Eigenvalue $\approx 1.4$, ~4.7% variance):

   Characterized by intrusive cognitive focus on food, fat, and appearance, including Item 9 (“My life seems to revolve around food”; loading = .67), Item 20 (“I think about food often”; loading = .65), Item 5 (“I think a lot about getting fat”; loading = .62), and Item 26 (“My weight makes me look unattractive”; loading = .54).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent structural modeling has compared competing factor structures: a single-factor unidimensional model, an uncorrelated orthogonal four-factor model, a correlated oblique four-factor model, and a hierarchical/bifactor model. Results indicate that the correlated four-factor model and the bifactor model achieve superior goodness-of-fit indices relative to a strictly unidimensional structure:

• $\chi^2/df$ ratio: $1.85 – 2.24$ (indicating acceptable fit below 3.0)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.92 – .95$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.91 – .94$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.048 – .058$ ($90% \text{ CI } [.042, .064]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.045 – .052$

In the bifactor model, all items loaded significantly onto a single general “Dietary Self-Regulatory Inefficacy” factor, while specific subscales retained meaningful secondary variance. This psychometric finding confirms that researchers and clinicians may legitimately utilize both a total composite score to gauge overall dietary self-regulatory impairment and subscale profile scores to target distinct behavioral and cognitive domains.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Dieting Self-Efficacy Test (DSET) is structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: Dieting Self-Efficacy Test (DSET)
• Alternative Academic Name: Eating Self-Efficacy Expectation Measure (Ascheman, 1989)
• Test Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale
• Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or digitized online survey assessment
• Target Population: Adolescents (ages 14+) and adults; validated in non-clinical cohorts, community weight-management participants, and individuals with disordered eating concerns
• Item Count: 30 items
• Estimated Administration Time: 5 to 10 minutes
• Response Format: 5-point Likert-type scale with the following anchors:
  • 1 = Agree strongly
  • 2 = Agree moderately
  • 3 = Neither agree nor disagree
  • 4 = Disagree moderately
  • 5 = Disagree strongly
• Reverse Scored Items: Items 11 and 16 (11. I can normally control my eating behavior and 16. Most of the time I can resist the urge to stuff myself). On these two items, positive control is endorsed; thus, they must be recoded prior to scoring to maintain uniform directional interpretation.
• Scoring Models:
  • Standard Model (Dietary Inefficacy / Loss of Control Direction): Items are scored directly as marked (1 to 5). Reverse-score Item 11 and Item 16 by transforming: $New = 6 – Old$ (i.e., $1 \rightarrow 5, 2 \rightarrow 4, 3 \rightarrow 3, 4 \rightarrow 2, 5 \rightarrow 1$). In this model, if the scale is scored in the direction of agreement, lower scores represent higher agreement with pathology/loss of control. Alternatively, researchers commonly re-key the entire scale so that higher numbers represent higher inefficacy (or conversely, recode all 28 negative items so that higher scores represent greater self-efficacy).
  • True Efficacy Scoring (Higher Score = Higher Self-Efficacy): To align with Bandura's classic self-efficacy convention where higher numeric scores indicate greater personal mastery: recode items 1–10, 12–15, and 17–30 such that $1 \rightarrow 1, 2 \rightarrow 2, 3 \rightarrow 3, 4 \rightarrow 4, 5 \rightarrow 5$ indicates increasing disagreement with overeating, while Items 11 and 16 remain $1 = \text{Agree strongly} \rightarrow 5 \text{ points}$ (i.e., $New = 6 – Old$). Under this system, the total score ranges from 30 to 150, where 150 indicates complete dietary self-regulatory confidence and mastery.
  • Total Score Range: 30 to 150 points.
  • Interpretation: Low total scores (in efficacy-coded direction) signal pronounced self-regulatory deficits, high vulnerability to emotional and binge eating, pervasive diet-failure expectations, and elevated clinical risk. High total scores denote resilient self-regulatory beliefs, robust impulse control, and adaptive eating regulation under distress.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Original Publication / Development Year: 1989 (Master's thesis); comprehensive psychometric validation published in 1991 (Doctoral dissertation).
• Author: Philip Lawrence Ascheman, Ph.D.
• Institutional Origin: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA.
• Copyright & Accessibility Status: The DSET was formulated and documented within academic theses deposited in the Iowa State University library and digital repository. It was placed in the public academic domain for non-commercial research, clinical evaluation, and educational applications.
• Fee: There are no licensing fees, royalties, or purchase charges required for academic researchers, clinicians, or students utilizing the scale for non-commercial investigations.
• Permissions Information: Researchers and clinicians wishing to employ the DSET in research studies, clinical trials, or psychological practice may do so without formal written permission, provided appropriate academic attribution is given to the original author (Ascheman, 1989, 1991) and the source institution (Iowa State University). Commercial developers incorporating the scale into proprietary commercial software platforms or commercial weight-loss programs should consult Iowa State University's Office of Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer.

References

• Ascheman, P. L. (1989). Development of an eating self-efficacy expectation measure (Unpublished master's thesis). Iowa State University, Ames, IA. https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/handle/20.500.12876/10626
• Ascheman, P. L. (1991). A validation study of a measure of dieting self-efficacy (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations, Paper 9627. https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/handle/20.500.12876/9627
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Clark, M. M., Abrams, D. B., Niaura, R. S., Eaton, C. A., & Rossi, J. S. (1991). Self-efficacy in weight management. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(5), 739–744. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.5.739
• Fairburn, C. G., Cooper, Z., & Shafran, R. (2003). Cognitive behaviour therapy for eating disorders: A “transdiagnostic” theory and treatment strategy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(5), 509–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00088-8
• Garner, D. M., Olmstead, M. P., & Polivy, J. (1983). Development and validation of a multidimensional eating disorder inventory for anorexia nervosa and bulimia. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2(2), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.84.6.666
• Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (1980). Restrained eating. In A. J. Stunkard (Ed.), Obesity (pp. 208–225). W. B. Saunders.
• Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (Eds.). (1985). Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in the treatment of addictive behaviors. Guilford Press.
• Stunkard, A. J., & Messick, S. (1985). The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 29(1), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(85)90010-8

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)