Examining Dimensionality and Item‐Quality of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire in Individuals With Eating Disorders Using Item Response Theory Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) is a widely-used measure of eating-disorder symptoms. However, inconsistent replication of the subscale structure raises concern about validity. To provide a rigorous test of the EDE-Q's dimensionality and item-quality, we applied modern and classical test theory approaches to data obtained from a large, transdiagnostic sample of people with clinical eating disorders. METHOD: = 27.9 years, SD = 10.08, 95% female) with various eating disorders, who had been assessed for treatment at a specialized program. Exploratory analyses (including Parallel Analyses), Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) and graded-response Item Response Theory (IRT) analyses, were conducted with Mplus. RESULTS: Factor analyses showed inappropriate fit to the original EDE-Q subscales, as well as for alternative 1,2,3, and 4-factor solutions. Parallel analyses suggested a one-dimensional structure as best fit. IRT analyses showed substantial variability in EDE-Q-item quality and indicated that five items (fear of weight gain, feeling fat, desire to lose weight, importance of weight, importance of shape) were most pertinent to determining severity. The construct validity of the five EDE-Q items was confirmed by a CFA, showing excellent fit. DISCUSSION: Our results suggest that EDE-Q scores are best interpreted as spanning a one-factor continuum. IRT results suggest that some items are more pertinent than others for determining eating-disorder severity. Results could be useful for establishing short EDE-Q versions, such as a five-item version, which, in turn, would be helpful for measurement-based clinical practice and for data-collection in epidemiological and experimental studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".