Table 3.

Multiple linear regression analysis of the relationship between hedonic hunger (PEMS and PFS subscale scores) and total PSQI score.

Hedonic hunger		Total (N = 565)
		β	SE	95%CI	P-value
PEMS
Coping motive	Crude	0.17	0.12	0.25–0.73	<0.001
	Adjusteda	0.17	0.13	0.24–0.74	<0.001
Reward enhancement motive	Crude	0.10	0.14	0.06–0.61	0.020
	Adjusted	0.10	0.14	0.04–0.60	0.020
Social motive	Crude	0.06	0.11	−0.09–0.46	0.180
	Adjusted	0.06	0.14	−0.09–0.46	0.190
Conformity motive	Crude	0.10	0.17	0.06–0.71	0.020
	Adjusted	0.10	0.17	0.06–0.72	0.020
Total PEMS	Crude	0.14	0.05	0.07–0.25	<0.001
	Adjusted	0.14	0.05	0.06–0.25	<0.001
PFS
Food available	Crude	0.17	0.08	0.17–0.50	<0.001
	Adjusted	0.16	0.09	0.16–0.50	<0.001
Food present	Crude	0.17	0.12	0.27–0.76	<0.001
	Adjusted	0.17	0.13	0.27–0.75	<0.001
Food tasted	Crude	0.12	0.15	0.14–0.72	<0.001
	Adjusted	0.12	0.15	0.13–0.71	<0.001
Aggregated factor	Crude	0.21	0.15	0.45–1.02	<0.001
	Adjusted	0.21	0.15	0.45–1.04	<0.001

PEMS, Palatable Eating Motive Scale; PFS, Power of Food Scale; PSQI, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; β, standardized beta coefficient; SE, standard error; CI, confidence interval.

Standardized beta coefficients, standard errors, 95% confidence intervals, and P-values were obtained from a multiple linear regression analysis.

^aAll the models adjusted for age, body mass index, physical activity, and smoking.