ArticleJournal of eating disorders2024
The validation of short eating disorder, body dysmorphia, and Weight Bias Internalisation Scales among UK adults.
Article in Journal of eating disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhen collecting data from human participants, it is often important to minimise the length of questionnaire-based measures. This makes it possible to ensure that the data collection is as engaging as possible, while it also reduces response burden, which may protect data quality. Brevity is especially important when assessing eating disorders and related phenomena, as minimising questions pertaining to shame-ridden, unpleasant experiences may in turn minimise any negative affect experienced whilst responding.
methodsWe relied on item response theory to shorten three eating disorder and body dysmorphia measures, while aiming to ensure that the information assessed by the scales remained as close to that assessed by the original scales as possible. We further tested measurement invariance, correlations among different versions of the same scales as well as different measures, and explored additional properties of each scale, including their internal consistency. Additionally, we explored the performance of the 3-item version of the modified Weight Bias Internalisation Scale and compared it to that of the 11-item version of the scale.
resultsWe introduce a 5-item version of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire, a 3-item version of the SCOFF questionnaire, and a 3-item version of the Dysmorphic Concern Questionnaire. The results revealed that, across a sample of UK adults (N = 987, ages 18-86, M = 45.21), the short scales had a reasonably good fit. Significant positive correlations between the longer and shorter versions of the scales and their significant positive, albeit somewhat weaker correlations to other, related measures support their convergent and discriminant validity. The results followed a similar pattern across the young adult subsample (N = 375, ages 18-39, M = 28.56).
conclusionsThese results indicate that the short forms of the tested scales may perform similarly to the full versions.
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.