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

IF 4.3 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,&nbsp;Jennifer P. White,&nbsp;Casey M. MacDermod,&nbsp;Lisa Dinkler,&nbsp;Laura M. Thornton,&nbsp;Jessica Johnson,&nbsp;Jerry D. Guintivano,&nbsp;Jessica H. Baker,&nbsp;Cynthia M. Bulik,&nbsp;Nadia Micali,&nbsp;Emily M. Pisetsky","doi":"10.1002/eat.24376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>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>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>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>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Correlations between the PARDI-AR-Q and PARDI (<i>r</i> = 0.31–0.67) were weaker than the correlations between the NIAS and PARDI (<i>r</i> = 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>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>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>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51067,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","volume":"58 5","pages":"878-889"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/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
对回避型/限制性食物摄入障碍的在线父母和自我报告筛选方法的验证。
目的:虽然已经开发了几种评估方法来诊断或测量回避/限制性食物摄入障碍(ARFID)症状,但很少有研究在非临床和成人样本中验证这些工具。本研究探讨了两种自我和父母/监护人报告ARFID筛查措施在识别大型社区样本中可能患有ARFID的成人和儿童方面的有效性。方法:从ARFID基因与环境研究中选择了50名参与者(分为两组:25名成年人和25名儿童的父母/监护人),该研究招募了3000多名成人和儿童的父母/监护人,他们在异食癖、ARFID和反刍障碍访谈-ARFID问卷(PARDI-AR-Q)或九项ARFID筛选(NIAS)自我和父母/监护人报告措施中筛选出ARFID阳性。然后,参与者完成异食癖、ARFID和反刍障碍访谈(PARDI)的ARFID部分,以确定ARFID诊断。结果:两组患者PARDI- ar - q与PARDI的相关性(r = 0.31 ~ 0.67)弱于NIAS与PARDI的相关性(r = 0.53 ~ 0.64)。PARDI-AR-Q的诊断阳性预测值在数值上更高(成人= 55.0%;父母/监护人= 76.0%)高于NIAS(成人= 45.8%;父母/监护人= 64.0%)。在两组中,大多数PARDI- ar - q维度和所有NIAS维度都是其相应PARDI维度的显著预测因子。讨论:PARDI-AR-Q更准确地识别ARFID成人和儿童,而NIAS是ARFID症状的更好估计者。这些发现为使用这些自我和父母/监护人报告筛选器提供了部分支持。结果强调需要更好地了解ARFID在社区样本中的诊断表现,特别是在成人中,并在这些人群中完善这些工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
"I Was Just Like a Sponge, Absorbing All the Wrong Information": Examining the Role of Social Media in Athletes' Eating Disorder and Recovery Experiences. Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Utilization for Eating Disorders in Colombia: A National and Subnational Time-Series Analysis. A Pilot Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial of Emotion Regulation Group Therapy as an Adjunct to Enhanced Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Eating Disorders. An Exploratory Study of Neural Response to Food Cues Following Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder. A Commentary on "Comparing Operationalizations of Eating Disorder Recovery Using a Comprehensive Lens: Physical, Behavioral, and Cognitive Domains" by Bardone-Cone et al.
×
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:604180095
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