An Interpersonal Circumplex/Five-Factor Model Analysis Of The Eating Disorders Inventory-3

Abstract

A combined interpersonal circumplex/five-factor model approach was used to investigate personality correlates of Eating Disorders Inventory-3 (EDI-3; Garner, 2004) scales for a non-clinical sample of 234 college women. EDI-3 non-symptom scales and composites had appreciable loadings in the two-dimensional interpersonal circumplex space, with angular locations ranging mainly from Cold (180°) to Submissive (270°). In the five-factor analyses, Neuroticism made significant positive contributions to all of the EDI-3 scales and composites; Conscientiousness made contributions (all negative, save one) to 11 of the 18 scales. The results affirm the centrality of negative affect (i.e., Neuroticism) in disordered eating, but highlight also the importance of assessing interpersonal deficits, which in previous studies have been associated both with the etiology of eating-related problems and increased risk of dropout from treatment. Finally, collapsing or “weighting” EDI-3 item scores may compromise unnecessarily the psychometric properties of the scales—particularly in non-clinical populations—and we recommend derivation of additional EDI-3 norms, based on unweighted item scores.

Validation of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-64): a comparison of Swedish female outpatients with anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa and controls

“…The former of these two captures factors such as social doubt, distrust and insecurity in relationships and the latter focuses on intrapersonal aspects, characterized by negative self-evaluation and feelings of emptiness and loneliness [32]. Our results are in correspondence with the findings of Brookings and Beilstein [41], who also found that EDI-3 composite scales ineffectiveness and interpersonal problems were associated with the cold and submissive part of the interpersonal circumplex. In our study, the subscale socially inhibited was positively correlated with both ineffectiveness and interpersonal problems and this might strengthen the statement by Carter and colleagues [24] that this subscale might be central to ED pathology and especially in AN (see section IIP in a clinical context).…”

Group-Delivered Enhanced Cognitive Behavior Therapy: A Focus on a Young Adult Woman With Bulimia Nervosa

“…Normative data for the EDE-Q were obtained from Mond et al (2004)—Global: SD 0 = 1.32, α = .96; Restraint: SD 0 = 1.41, α = .83; Eating Concerns: SD 0 = 1.13, α = .83; Weight Concerns: SD 0 = 1.59, α = .86; Shape Concerns: SD 0 = 1.68, α = .93. Normative data for the EDI-3 were obtained from Brookings and Beilstein (2010)—Eating Disorder Risk: SD 0 = 21.4, α = .91; General Maladjustment: SD 0 = 27.7, α = .94. Normative data for the DASS were obtained from Crawford, Cayley, Lovibond, Wilson, and Hartley (2011)—Depression: SD 0 = 3.86, α = .90; Anxiety: SD 0 = 2.78, α = .79; Stress: SD 0 = 4.24, α = .89.…”