Validating Online Parent- and Self-Report Screening Methods for Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS International Journal of Eating Disorders Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1002/eat.24376
Shelby N Ortiz, Jennifer P White, Casey M MacDermod, Lisa Dinkler, Laura M Thornton, Jessica Johnson, Jerry D Guintivano, Jessica H Baker, Cynthia M Bulik, Nadia Micali, Emily M Pisetsky
{"title":"Validating Online Parent- and Self-Report Screening Methods for Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder.","authors":"Shelby N Ortiz, Jennifer P White, Casey M MacDermod, Lisa Dinkler, Laura M Thornton, Jessica Johnson, Jerry D Guintivano, Jessica H Baker, Cynthia M Bulik, Nadia Micali, Emily M Pisetsky","doi":"10.1002/eat.24376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Although several assessments have been developed to diagnose or measure avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) symptoms, few studies have validated these tools in nonclinical and adult samples. This study explored the validity of two self- and parent/guardian-report ARFID screening measures in identifying adults and children who may have ARFID within a large community sample.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Fifty participants (divided into two groups: 25 adults and 25 parents/guardians of children) were selected from the ARFID Genes and Environment study, which enrolled over 3000 adults and parents/guardians of children who screened positive for ARFID on either the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview-ARFID Questionnaire (PARDI-AR-Q) or the Nine Item ARFID Screen (NIAS) self- and parent/guardian-report measures. Participants then completed the ARFID portion of the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview (PARDI) to determine ARFID diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Correlations between the PARDI-AR-Q and PARDI (r = 0.31-0.67) were weaker than the correlations between the NIAS and PARDI (r = 0.53-0.64) in both groups. The diagnostic positive predictive value for the PARDI-AR-Q was numerically higher (adults = 55.0%; parents/guardians = 76.0%) than the NIAS (adults = 45.8%; parents/guardians = 64.0%). Most PARDI-AR-Q dimensions and all NIAS dimensions were significant predictors of their corresponding PARDI dimensions in both groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The PARDI-AR-Q more accurately identified adults and children with ARFID, whereas the NIAS was a better estimator of ARFID symptoms. These findings provide partial support for using these self- and parent/guardian-report screeners. Results highlight the need to better understand diagnostic presentations of ARFID within community samples, particularly in adults, and to refine these tools within those populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":51067,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.24376","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Although several assessments have been developed to diagnose or measure avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) symptoms, few studies have validated these tools in nonclinical and adult samples. This study explored the validity of two self- and parent/guardian-report ARFID screening measures in identifying adults and children who may have ARFID within a large community sample.

Method: Fifty participants (divided into two groups: 25 adults and 25 parents/guardians of children) were selected from the ARFID Genes and Environment study, which enrolled over 3000 adults and parents/guardians of children who screened positive for ARFID on either the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview-ARFID Questionnaire (PARDI-AR-Q) or the Nine Item ARFID Screen (NIAS) self- and parent/guardian-report measures. Participants then completed the ARFID portion of the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview (PARDI) to determine ARFID diagnosis.

Results: Correlations between the PARDI-AR-Q and PARDI (r = 0.31-0.67) were weaker than the correlations between the NIAS and PARDI (r = 0.53-0.64) in both groups. The diagnostic positive predictive value for the PARDI-AR-Q was numerically higher (adults = 55.0%; parents/guardians = 76.0%) than the NIAS (adults = 45.8%; parents/guardians = 64.0%). Most PARDI-AR-Q dimensions and all NIAS dimensions were significant predictors of their corresponding PARDI dimensions in both groups.

Discussion: The PARDI-AR-Q more accurately identified adults and children with ARFID, whereas the NIAS was a better estimator of ARFID symptoms. These findings provide partial support for using these self- and parent/guardian-report screeners. Results highlight the need to better understand diagnostic presentations of ARFID within community samples, particularly in adults, and to refine these tools within those populations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
12.70%
发文量
204
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Articles featured in the journal describe state-of-the-art scientific research on theory, methodology, etiology, clinical practice, and policy related to eating disorders, as well as contributions that facilitate scholarly critique and discussion of science and practice in the field. Theoretical and empirical work on obesity or healthy eating falls within the journal’s scope inasmuch as it facilitates the advancement of efforts to describe and understand, prevent, or treat eating disorders. IJED welcomes submissions from all regions of the world and representing all levels of inquiry (including basic science, clinical trials, implementation research, and dissemination studies), and across a full range of scientific methods, disciplines, and approaches.
期刊最新文献
Program-Led and Focused Psychological Interventions. Using Artificial Intelligence to Advance Eating Disorder Research, Treatment and Practice. Validating Online Parent- and Self-Report Screening Methods for Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder. Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) Symptoms in Adolescent Patients With Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction. Empirically Determining Binge/Purge Frequency Thresholds for Differentiating Anorexia Nervosa-Restricting Subtype vs. Binge-Purge Subtype.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1