ArticleThe International journal of eating disorders2026
The Chinese Eating Disorder Brief Screening Scale (CEDBS): Development and Psychometric Validation in General and Clinical Populations.
Article in The International journal of eating disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Chinese Eating Disorder Brief Screening Scale (CEDBS): Development and Psychometric Validation in General and Clinical Populations.The International journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDespite growing recognition of eating disorders (EDs) as a public health concern in China, validated instruments suitable for efficient large-scale screening remain limited. This study aimed to develop and validate the Chinese Eating Disorder Brief Screening Scale (CEDBS).
methodScale development and validation were structured across two studies. Study 1 involved item generation and refinement through expert evaluation, cognitive interviews, and a pilot study (N = 146). Study 2 examined psychometric properties in large non-clinical (N = 3573) and clinical (N = 325) samples. Analyses included exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis for construct validity, McDonald's ω and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for reliability, Pearson correlations for convergent and discriminant validity, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for screening accuracy.
resultsThe final 10-item CEDBS demonstrated a unidimensional structure, high internal consistency (ω = 0.95), and acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.81). CEDBS scores correlated strongly with established ED-specific measures (eating disorder inventory subscales: rs = 0.51-0.87; eating disorder examination-questionnaire global score: r = 0.74; eating attitudes test-26: r = 0.81) and showed a moderate correlation with the anxiety scale (r = 0.35), supporting discriminant validity. ROC analysis yielded an area under the curve of 0.88, with an optimal cutoff of 16.5 (sensitivity = 0.75, specificity = 0.84). DISCUSSION: The CEDBS demonstrates preliminary psychometric support as a brief screening tool for identifying probable ED cases in Chinese populations. An integer cutoff score of 17 may be considered for practical use.
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.