ArticleEating behaviors2023
Do the SCOFF items function differently by food-security status in U.S. college students?: Statistically, but not practically, significant differences.
Article in Eating behaviors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Campus climate and intersectional inequities in eating disorders among U.S. college students: A multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy.Annals of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Detecting and addressing eating disorders among individuals experiencing food insecurity: considerations for dietetic practice.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Despite food insecurity (FI) being associated with eating disorders (EDs), little research has examined if ED screening measures perform differently in individuals with FI. This study tested whether items on the SCOFF performed differently as a function of FI. As many people with FI hold multiple marginalized identities, this study also tested if the SCOFF performs differently as a function of food-security status in individuals with different gender identities and different perceived weight statuses. Data were from the 2020/2021 Healthy Minds Study (N = 122,269). Past-year FI was established using the two-item Hunger Vital Sign. Differential item functioning (DIF) assessed whether SCOFF items performed differently (i.e., had different probabilities of endorsement) in groups of individuals with FI versus those without. Both uniform DIF (constant between-group difference in item-endorsement probability across ED pathology) and non-uniform DIF (variable between-group difference in item-endorsement probability across ED pathology) were examined. Several SCOFF items demonstrated both statistically significant uniform and non-uniform DIF (ps < .001), but no instances of DIF reached practical significance (as indicated by effect sizes pseudo ΔR
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.