ArticleJournal of eating disorders2025
Development and face validity of the Danish STOB screening tool for early detection of binge eating disorder in children and adolescents.
Article in Journal of eating disorders, 2025. 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.
- Development and Preliminary Psychometric Evaluation of the Spiritual Needs Scale for Older Adults Receiving Palliative Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A scoping review of instruments used to assess disordered eating in children and adolescents with higher weight.Journal of eating disorders · 2026Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBinge Eating Disorder (BED) is prevalent among children and adolescents and is associated with severe psychological and somatic health complications. Early detection and intervention are therefore crucial. This study aimed to develop, pilot test, and validate the STOB screening tool (Screening Tool for the early detection Of BED), designed for use in children and adolescents aged 13-18 in primary care settings using a qualitative face validity approach. Additionally, the study explored the perceived acceptability of a supplementary dialogue tool.
methodsThe development, pilot testing, and validation of the screening tool followed a two-phase qualitative process. In phase one, development and pilot-testing of the 6-item STOB tool was conducted. In phase two, the validation process incorporated a survey and semi-structured interviews, both assessing various aspects of the screening tool, including language complexity, usability, acceptability, and the presence of uncomfortable or intrusive terms. A total of 42 participants, aged 14-18 years (mean age = 16.4 years), were recruited from a community sample for the survey (23 females, 19 males). For the interviews, 10 participants (8 females, 2 males; mean age = 15.7 years) from the community sample were included, resulting in seven individual interviews and one group interview. Additionally, two female participants with BED, aged 16 and 17, were recruited for interviews only.
resultsA total of 16.7% of survey respondents met the screening tool threshold for possible BED, and 4.8% of the total sample scored positive on all questions, further increasing the suspicion of BED. Both the survey and interviews indicated that the screening questions were generally well-understood. However, a few linguistic challenges were identified during interviews, prompting minor semantic adjustments to enhance clarity and accessibility. The Interviews revealed age-related differences in language perception and notable differences in content comprehension between participants with and without BED.
conclusionThe STOB screening tool demonstrates acceptable face validity and potential for implementation in primary care, particularly when accompanied by the supplementary dialogue tool. This study underscores the importance of evaluating self-report questionnaires in terms of terminology and acceptability within the target population. Further validation is recommended across broader adolescent populations.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.