Further development of the 12-item EDE-QS: identifying a cut-off for screening purposes.


Journal

BMC psychiatry
ISSN: 1471-244X
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968559

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 04 2020
Historique:
received: 24 01 2020
accepted: 23 03 2020
entrez: 5 4 2020
pubmed: 5 4 2020
medline: 30 10 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The Eating Disorder Examination - Questionnaire Short (EDE-QS) was developed as a 12-item version of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) with a 4-point response scale that assesses eating disorder (ED) symptoms over the preceding 7 days. It has demonstrated good psychometric properties at initial testing. The purpose of this brief report is to determine a threshold score that could be used in screening for probable ED cases in community settings. Data collected from Gideon et al. (2016) were re-analyzed. In their study, 559 participants (80.86% female; 9.66% self-reported ED diagnosis) completed the EDE-Q, EDE-QS, SCOFF, and Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA). Discriminatory power was compared between ED instruments using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. A score of 15 emerged as the threshold that ensured the best trade-off between sensitivity (.83) and specificity (.85), and good positive predictive value (.37) for the EDE-QS, with discriminatory power comparable to other ED instruments. The EDE-QS appears to be an instrument with good discriminatory power that could be used for ED screening purposes.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The Eating Disorder Examination - Questionnaire Short (EDE-QS) was developed as a 12-item version of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) with a 4-point response scale that assesses eating disorder (ED) symptoms over the preceding 7 days. It has demonstrated good psychometric properties at initial testing. The purpose of this brief report is to determine a threshold score that could be used in screening for probable ED cases in community settings.
METHODS
Data collected from Gideon et al. (2016) were re-analyzed. In their study, 559 participants (80.86% female; 9.66% self-reported ED diagnosis) completed the EDE-Q, EDE-QS, SCOFF, and Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA). Discriminatory power was compared between ED instruments using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses.
RESULTS
A score of 15 emerged as the threshold that ensured the best trade-off between sensitivity (.83) and specificity (.85), and good positive predictive value (.37) for the EDE-QS, with discriminatory power comparable to other ED instruments.
CONCLUSION
The EDE-QS appears to be an instrument with good discriminatory power that could be used for ED screening purposes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32245441
doi: 10.1186/s12888-020-02565-5
pii: 10.1186/s12888-020-02565-5
pmc: PMC7118929
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

146

Références

PLoS One. 2016 May 03;11(5):e0152744
pubmed: 27138364
Int J Eat Disord. 1994 Dec;16(4):363-70
pubmed: 7866415
BMJ. 1999 Dec 4;319(7223):1467-8
pubmed: 10582927
Int J Eat Disord. 2017 Jul;50(7):769-775
pubmed: 28436086
Body Image. 2019 Dec;31:204-220
pubmed: 30220631
Behav Res Ther. 2008 May;46(5):612-22
pubmed: 18359005
Int J Eat Disord. 2010 May;43(4):344-51
pubmed: 19343793
Psychother Res. 2013;23(3):287-300
pubmed: 23656489
Compr Psychiatry. 2015 Feb;57:160-6
pubmed: 25542817
Int J Eat Disord. 2012 Apr;45(3):428-38
pubmed: 21744375
Psychol Med. 1982 May;12(2):431-4
pubmed: 7100366
Appetite. 2018 Apr 1;123:32-42
pubmed: 29208483
Int J Eat Disord. 2004 Nov;36(3):280-95
pubmed: 15478137
Behav Res Ther. 2011 Feb;49(2):85-91
pubmed: 21185552
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991 Feb;59(1):12-9
pubmed: 2002127
Behav Res Ther. 2008 Oct;46(10):1105-10
pubmed: 18710699
Behav Res Ther. 2012 Jun;50(6):407-14
pubmed: 22516320
Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2015 Sep;23(5):408-12
pubmed: 26094887
Behav Res Ther. 2004 May;42(5):551-67
pubmed: 15033501
Int J Eat Disord. 2016 Jun;49(6):613-6
pubmed: 26711183
J Gen Psychol. 1998 Apr;125(2):175-91
pubmed: 9935342
Am J Psychiatry. 2009 Mar;166(3):311-9
pubmed: 19074978
Eat Behav. 2013 Apr;14(2):241-3
pubmed: 23557830
Science. 1988 Jun 3;240(4857):1285-93
pubmed: 3287615
Eat Behav. 2017 Apr;25:81-88
pubmed: 27354266

Auteurs

Katarina Prnjak (K)

School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia. katarinaprnjak@gmail.com.

Deborah Mitchison (D)

School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.
Centre for Emotional Health, Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Scott Griffiths (S)

Physical Appearance Research Team, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Jonathan Mond (J)

School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.
Centre for Rural Health, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TAS, Australia.

Nicole Gideon (N)

Suffolk Family Focus Psychology Service, Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Suffolk, UK.

Lucy Serpell (L)

Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
North East London NHS Foundation Trust, Essex, UK.

Phillipa Hay (P)

School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.
Camden and Campbelltown Hospitals, SWSLHD, Campbelltown, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH