利用项目反应理论分析法研究饮食失调症患者饮食失调检查问卷的维度和项目质量。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS International Journal of Eating Disorders Pub Date : 2024-11-16 DOI:10.1002/eat.24330
Rachel Dufour, Howard Steiger, Linda Booij
{"title":"利用项目反应理论分析法研究饮食失调症患者饮食失调检查问卷的维度和项目质量。","authors":"Rachel Dufour, Howard Steiger, Linda Booij","doi":"10.1002/eat.24330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) is a widely-used measure of eating-disorder symptoms. However, inconsistent replication of the subscale structure raises concern about validity. To provide a rigorous test of the EDE-Q's dimensionality and item-quality, we applied modern and classical test theory approaches to data obtained from a large, transdiagnostic sample of people with clinical eating disorders.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We analyzed data from 1197 individuals (M<sub>age</sub> = 27.9 years, SD = 10.08, 95% female) with various eating disorders, who had been assessed for treatment at a specialized program. Exploratory analyses (including Parallel Analyses), Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) and graded-response Item Response Theory (IRT) analyses, were conducted with Mplus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Factor analyses showed inappropriate fit to the original EDE-Q subscales, as well as for alternative 1,2,3, and 4-factor solutions. Parallel analyses suggested a one-dimensional structure as best fit. IRT analyses showed substantial variability in EDE-Q-item quality and indicated that five items (fear of weight gain, feeling fat, desire to lose weight, importance of weight, importance of shape) were most pertinent to determining severity. The construct validity of the five EDE-Q items was confirmed by a CFA, showing excellent fit.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our results suggest that EDE-Q scores are best interpreted as spanning a one-factor continuum. IRT results suggest that some items are more pertinent than others for determining eating-disorder severity. Results could be useful for establishing short EDE-Q versions, such as a five-item version, which, in turn, would be helpful for measurement-based clinical practice and for data-collection in epidemiological and experimental studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":51067,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining Dimensionality and Item-Quality of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire in Individuals With Eating Disorders Using Item Response Theory Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Dufour, Howard Steiger, Linda Booij\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eat.24330\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) is a widely-used measure of eating-disorder symptoms. However, inconsistent replication of the subscale structure raises concern about validity. To provide a rigorous test of the EDE-Q's dimensionality and item-quality, we applied modern and classical test theory approaches to data obtained from a large, transdiagnostic sample of people with clinical eating disorders.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We analyzed data from 1197 individuals (M<sub>age</sub> = 27.9 years, SD = 10.08, 95% female) with various eating disorders, who had been assessed for treatment at a specialized program. Exploratory analyses (including Parallel Analyses), Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) and graded-response Item Response Theory (IRT) analyses, were conducted with Mplus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Factor analyses showed inappropriate fit to the original EDE-Q subscales, as well as for alternative 1,2,3, and 4-factor solutions. Parallel analyses suggested a one-dimensional structure as best fit. IRT analyses showed substantial variability in EDE-Q-item quality and indicated that five items (fear of weight gain, feeling fat, desire to lose weight, importance of weight, importance of shape) were most pertinent to determining severity. The construct validity of the five EDE-Q items was confirmed by a CFA, showing excellent fit.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our results suggest that EDE-Q scores are best interpreted as spanning a one-factor continuum. IRT results suggest that some items are more pertinent than others for determining eating-disorder severity. Results could be useful for establishing short EDE-Q versions, such as a five-item version, which, in turn, would be helpful for measurement-based clinical practice and for data-collection in epidemiological and experimental studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Eating Disorders\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-16\",\"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.24330\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.24330","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

摘要

目的:进食障碍检查问卷(EDE-Q)是一种广泛使用的进食障碍症状测量方法。然而,子量表结构的不一致性引起了人们对其有效性的担忧。为了对 EDE-Q 的维度和项目质量进行严格测试,我们将现代和经典测试理论方法应用于从临床进食障碍患者的大型跨诊断样本中获得的数据:我们分析了 1197 名患有各种进食障碍的患者(年龄:27.9 岁,标准差:10.08,95% 为女性)的数据。使用 Mplus 进行了探索性分析(包括平行分析)、确证因子分析(CFA)和分级反应项目反应理论(IRT)分析:因子分析结果表明,原始 EDE-Q 子量表以及 1、2、3 和 4 个因子的替代方案均不合适。平行分析表明一维结构最为合适。IRT分析表明,EDE-Q项目质量存在很大差异,并表明五个项目(担心体重增加、感觉肥胖、渴望减肥、体重的重要性、体形的重要性)与确定严重程度最为相关。CFA 证实了 EDE-Q 五个项目的建构有效性,并显示出良好的拟合性:讨论:我们的研究结果表明,EDE-Q 分数最好被解释为跨越一个连续的单因素。IRT结果表明,在确定饮食失调的严重程度时,某些项目比其他项目更相关。研究结果可能有助于建立简短的 EDE-Q 版本,如五项目版本,这反过来又有助于以测量为基础的临床实践以及流行病学和实验研究中的数据收集。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Examining Dimensionality and Item-Quality of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire in Individuals With Eating Disorders Using Item Response Theory Analysis.

Objective: The Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) is a widely-used measure of eating-disorder symptoms. However, inconsistent replication of the subscale structure raises concern about validity. To provide a rigorous test of the EDE-Q's dimensionality and item-quality, we applied modern and classical test theory approaches to data obtained from a large, transdiagnostic sample of people with clinical eating disorders.

Method: We analyzed data from 1197 individuals (Mage = 27.9 years, SD = 10.08, 95% female) with various eating disorders, who had been assessed for treatment at a specialized program. Exploratory analyses (including Parallel Analyses), Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) and graded-response Item Response Theory (IRT) analyses, were conducted with Mplus.

Results: Factor analyses showed inappropriate fit to the original EDE-Q subscales, as well as for alternative 1,2,3, and 4-factor solutions. Parallel analyses suggested a one-dimensional structure as best fit. IRT analyses showed substantial variability in EDE-Q-item quality and indicated that five items (fear of weight gain, feeling fat, desire to lose weight, importance of weight, importance of shape) were most pertinent to determining severity. The construct validity of the five EDE-Q items was confirmed by a CFA, showing excellent fit.

Discussion: Our results suggest that EDE-Q scores are best interpreted as spanning a one-factor continuum. IRT results suggest that some items are more pertinent than others for determining eating-disorder severity. Results could be useful for establishing short EDE-Q versions, such as a five-item version, which, in turn, would be helpful for measurement-based clinical practice and for data-collection in epidemiological and experimental studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Examining Dimensionality and Item-Quality of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire in Individuals With Eating Disorders Using Item Response Theory Analysis. Exploring Reciprocal Associations Between Self-Reported Anxiety and Eating Disorder Symptoms Longitudinally: A Bivariate Latent Change Score Approach. Ketogenic Food Ameliorates Activity-Based Anorexia of Adult Female Mice. A Mixed Method Systematic Review Into the Impact of ED Treatment in Autistic People and Those With High Autistic Traits. A Role for the Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis in Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder: A New Conceptual Model.
×
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