Dataset Information

Validation of the SCOFF questionnaire for eating disorders in a multiethnic general population sample.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

This study aimed to validate the SCOFF, an eating disorders (ED) screening questionnaire, in a multiethnic general population sample of adults.

Method

A two-stage design was employed using the South East London Community Health Study phases I and II data. A total of 1,669 participants were screened using the SCOFF in SELCoHI, and 145 were administrated an ED clinical interview in SELCoHII. We explored the diagnostic validity of the questionnaire restricting to the 145 individuals with the clinical questionnaire.

Results

Sensitivity and specificity of the SCOFF were 53.7 and 93.5%, respectively.

Conclusion

The SCOFF showed good levels of specificity but low sensitivity, resulting in a high percentage of false negatives. Given the low sensitivity found in our sample the SCOFF is likely to be a suboptimal measure for the identification of ED in the community.

SUBMITTER: Solmi F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4407952 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Findings from studies investigating cognitive flexibility in eating disorders (EDs) are inconsistent, and although neuropsychological tests are commonly used to measure these skills, they may not be particularly effective in predicting everyday functioning. Also, extant studies have largely focused on flexibility in anorexia nervosa (AN), with assessments targeting general rather than specific flexibility, and cognitive, rather than behavioral flexibility. Knowledge regarding ED specific flexibility and flexibility in bulimia nervosa (BN) and binge eating disorder (BED) is still scarce. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a novel measure assessing general and ED specific flexibility in a diagnostically diverse sample, and in healthy controls (HCs). A sample of 207 adult individuals with EDs (55% AN, 29% BN, 16% BED) and 288 HCs responded to an online, 51-item, pilot questionnaire on ED specific and general flexibility. In addition, participants completed the shift subscale from the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function Adult version (BRIEF-A), and the Eating Disorder Diagnostic Scale (EDDS). A principal component analysis (PCA) in the clinical sample yielded a 36-item, three-factor solution capturing general flexibility, flexibility related to food and exercise, and flexibility concerning body shape and weight. Results showed that the measure had good to excellent internal consistency, and good convergent validity. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using data from HCs revealed good fit indexes, supporting the original factor solution. A receiver operating characteristics analysis (ROC) demonstrated excellent accuracy in distinguishing scores from those with and without EDs. A cutoff score of 136 yielded the most balanced sensitivity and specificity. Significant differences in general and ED specific flexibility were found between individuals with and without EDs. Overall, HCs achieved the highest flexibility scores, followed by those with BED, BN, and AN. In sum this novel measure, the Eating Disorder Flexibility Index (EDFLIX) questionnaire, was found to be reliable and valid in the assessment of cognitive and behavioral flexibility, with results offering support for the conceptual distinction between general and ED related flexibility. The study also provides strong evidence for the discriminant validity of the EDFLIX with results revealing significant differences in flexibility in people with and without EDs. In addition, significant differences in flexibility also emerged when comparing diagnostic groups, indicating the utility of the assessment instrument for classification purposes.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:The Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire 6.0 (EDE-Q 6.0) is one of the most broadly used self-report tools that assesses attitudes and behaviors associated with eating disorders (EDs). The aim of the present study was to examine the reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Lithuanian version of the EDE-Q 6.0 (LT-EDE-Q 6.0) in a nonclinical student sample. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A sample of 382 students (mean age 24.0 ± 6.4) participated in the study. The students completed a self-report questionnaire measuring the risk of EDs (LT-EDE-Q 6.0), body image (LT-MBSRQ-AS), quality of life (LT-WHOQOL-BREF), and self-esteem (RSES). Cronbach's alpha assessed the internal consistency of the EDE-Q 6.0. Pearson's correlations were used for the analyses of the construct and concurrent validity with the subscales of LT-MBSRQ-AS, LT-WHOQOL-BREF, and RSES. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for assessing test-retest reliability. RESULTS:The mean score of the LT-EDE-Q 6.0 in the mixed sample was 1.5 ± 1.02. For women and men, the general mean scores were higher than in the majority of the samples of Western Europe but lower than in the United States. Acceptable internal consistency for the four subscales (0.75-0.88) and the LT-EDE-Q 6.0 general score (0.94) was obtained. Test-retest reliability was good to excellent for all subscales (0.66-0.91) and for the items that assessed essential behavioral features of EDs (0.84-0.90, except item 14 ICC = 0.4). The LT-EDE-Q 6.0 scores had adequate concurrent validity. However, the original 4-factor structure or other proposed models of EDE-Q were not obtained by CFA. CONCLUSIONS:The results of the current study support the applicability, validity, and reliability of the LT-EDE-Q 6.0 in a nonclinical Lithuanian student sample. However, we recommend assessing the general scale score without the application of the subscales. The Lithuanian version of this instrument should be further investigated with clinical samples to identify clinically diagnosed cases.

Project description:Assessing the validity of a psychometric test is fundamental to ensure a reliable interpretation of its outcomes. Few attempts have been made recently to complement classical approaches (e.g., factor models) with a novel technique based on network analysis. The objective of the current study is to carry out a network-based validation of the Eating Disorder Inventory 3 (EDI-3), a questionnaire designed for the assessment of eating disorders. Exploiting a reliable, open source sample of 1206 patients diagnosed with an eating disorder, we set up a robust validation process encompassing detection and handling of redundant EDI-3 items, estimation of the cross-sample psychometric network, resampling bootstrap procedure and computation of the median network of the replica samples. We then employed a community detection algorithm to identify the topological clusters, evaluated their coherence with the EDI-3 subscales and replicated the full validation analysis on the subpopulations corresponding to patients diagnosed with either anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa. Results of the network-based analysis, and particularly the topological community structures, provided support for almost all the composite scores of the EDI-3 and for 2 single subscales: Bulimia and Maturity Fear. A moderate instability of some dimensions led to the identification of a few multidimensional items that should be better located in the intersection of multiple psychological scales. We also found that, besides symptoms typically attributed to eating disorders, such as drive for thinness, also non-specific symptoms like low self-esteem and interoceptive deficits play a central role in both the cross-sample and the diagnosis-specific networks. Our work adds insights into the complex and multidimensional structure of EDI-3 by providing support to its network-based validity on both mixed and diagnosis-specific samples. Moreover, we replicated previous results that reinforce the transdiagnostic theory of eating disorders.

Project description:BackgroundPublished validation studies have reported different factor structures for the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). The objective of this study was to assess the factor structure of the SCS in a large general population sample representative of the German population.MethodsA German population sample completed the SCS and other self-report measures. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in MPlus was used to test six models previously found in factor analytic studies (unifactorial model, two-factor model, three-factor model, six-factor model, a hierarchical (second order) model with six first-order factors and two second-order factors, and a model with arbitrarily assigned items to six factors). In addition, three bifactor models were also tested: bifactor model #1 with two group factors (SCS positive items, called SCS positive) and SCS negative items, called SCS negative) and one general factor (overall SCS); bifactor model #2, which is a two-tier model with six group factors, three (SCS positive subscales) corresponding to one general dimension (SCS positive) and three (SCS negative subscales) corresponding to the second general dimension (SCS negative); bifactor model #3 with six group factors (six SCS subscales) and one general factor (overall SCS).ResultsThe two-factor model, the six-factor model, and the hierarchical model showed less than ideal, but acceptable fit. The model fit indices for these models were comparable, with no apparent advantage of the six-factor model over the two-factor model. The one-factor model, the three-factor model, and bifactor model #3 showed poor fit. The other two bifactor models showed strong support for two factors: SCS positive and SCS negative.ConclusionThe main results of this study are that, among the German general population, six SCS factors and two SCS factors fit the data reasonably well. While six factors can be modelled, the three negative factors and the three positive factors, respectively, did not reflect reliable or meaningful variance beyond the two summative positive and negative item factors. As such, we recommend the use of two subscale scores to capture a positive factor and a negative factor when administering the German SCS to general population samples and we strongly advise against the use of a total score across all SCS items.