Validity and reliability of a Fijian translation and adaptation of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of disordered eating has uncertain validity across culturally diverse populations. This study evaluated Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) performance in an ethnic Fijian study population. METHOD: The EDE-Q was translated, adapted, and administered to school-going Fijian adolescent females (N = 523). A subsample (n = 81) completed it again within approximately 1 week. We assessed feasibility, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability; evaluated construct validity through factor analysis and correlation with similar constructs; and examined the marginal utility of an additional question on traditional purgative use. RESULTS: Internal consistency reliability was adequate for the global scale and subscales (Cronbach's alpha = 0.66-0.91); retest reliability was adequate for both the languages (range of ICCs, 0.50-0.79, and of kappas, 0.46-0.81, excluding purging items). Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with measures of similar constructs. Factor analysis confirms multiple dimensions of eating disorder symptoms but suggests possible culture-specific variation in this population. The majority of respondents endorsing traditional purgative use (58%) did not endorse conventional EDE-Q items assessing purging. DISCUSSION: The EDE-Q is a valid measure of eating disorder pathology for ethnic Fijian adolescent females and measures a unitary underlying construct.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".