2019
DOI: 10.1037/pas0000703
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q): Norms and psychometric properties in U.K. females and males.

Abstract: The Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) is a widely used assessment of eating disorder psychopathology; however, EDE-Q norms are yet to be provided within a nonclinical UK adult sample. Secondly, there is considerable disagreement regarding the psychometric properties of this measure. Several alternative factor structures have been previously proposed, but very few have subsequently validated their new structure in independent samples and many are often confined to specific sub-populations. There… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
70
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 81 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 72 publications
(210 reference statements)
4
70
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We found that the LT‐EDE‐Q general mean score of 1.5 ± 1.02 was close to the level of the mixed‐gender sample in the UK (1.63 ± 1.25; Carey et al, ). The general mean score for women was higher than in men, and these findings go in line with other studies (Carey et al, ; Isomaa et al, ; Mitsui et al, ; Reas, Øverås, & Rø, ; Yucel et al, ). For women, general score (1.64 ± 1.22) was higher compared with the female samples of comparable age in Norway (1.42 ± 1.07), Portugal (1.49 ± 1.50) and Spain (1.41 ± 1.19; Rø, Reas, & Lask, ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 66%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We found that the LT‐EDE‐Q general mean score of 1.5 ± 1.02 was close to the level of the mixed‐gender sample in the UK (1.63 ± 1.25; Carey et al, ). The general mean score for women was higher than in men, and these findings go in line with other studies (Carey et al, ; Isomaa et al, ; Mitsui et al, ; Reas, Øverås, & Rø, ; Yucel et al, ). For women, general score (1.64 ± 1.22) was higher compared with the female samples of comparable age in Norway (1.42 ± 1.07), Portugal (1.49 ± 1.50) and Spain (1.41 ± 1.19; Rø, Reas, & Lask, ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 66%
“…For women, general score (1.64 ± 1.22) was higher compared with the female samples of comparable age in Norway (1.42 ± 1.07), Portugal (1.49 ± 1.50) and Spain (1.41 ± 1.19; Rø, Reas, & Lask, ). However, the general score for women was lower to the samples of US and UK women, accordingly (1.74 ± 1.3 and 1.75 ± 1.25; Carey et al, ; Mond, Hay, Rodgers, & Owen, ). For men, the general mean score 1.08 ± 1.07 was higher than in the student sample from Norway (0.44 ± 0.52; Reas et al, ) and Spain (0.58 ± 0.83; Peláez‐Fernández, Labrador, & Raich, ) but close to UK and US men, accordingly (1.16 ± 1.11 and 1.09 ± 1.00; Carey et al, ; Lavender, De Young, & Anderson, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…However, while the reliability and validity of the EDE-Q items have been robustly supported, the replication of this four-factor model has proven to be challenging. In this regard, a recent study has failed to support the original theoretical proposal in a large nonclinical sample females or males in the UK (Carey et al, 2019).…”
Section: Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Measurement Invariance Ofmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Neither the clinical nor the nonclinical sample contained missing data. A series of CFAs were conducted in both clinical and nonclinical samples to evaluate and compare the fit of four different EDE‐Q forms: (a) the original factor structure proposed by Fairburn and Beglin (2008), (b) a 7‐item EDE‐Q proposed by Grilo et al (2013), (c) an 8‐item EDE‐Q proposed by Kliem et al (2016), and (d) an 18‐item EDE‐Q one (Carey et al, 2019). Model fit was evaluated using two incremental fit tests, the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), for which values <0.90 indicate a bad fit, values ≥0.90 and <0.95 indicate a good fit, and values ≥0.95 indicate a very good fit (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1999).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%