| Literature DB >> 19200401 |
Sini Lähteenmäki1, Terhi Aalto-Setälä, Jaana T Suokas, Suoma E Saarni, Jonna Perälä, Samuli I Saarni, Hillevi Aro, Jouko Lönnqvist, Jaana M Suvisaari.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We tested the validity of the SCOFF, a five-question screening instrument for eating disorders, in a general population sample.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19200401 PMCID: PMC2656502 DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-9-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Psychiatry ISSN: 1471-244X Impact factor: 3.630
Previous articles concerning the validity of the SCOFF:
| Article | Population | Number of cases | Diagnostic procedure | Sensitivity (Threshold ≥2) | Specificity | PPV | NPV |
| The SCOFF questionnaire: assessment of a new screening tool for EDs | Cases: Women confirmed as having anorexia or bulimia nervosa | 116 | SCOFF vs. clinical diagnosis based on DSM-IV* criteria | 100 | 87.5 | - | - |
| The SCOFF questionnaire and clinical interview for EDs in general practice: comparative study | Women attending two general practices in London | 341 | SCOFF vs. clinical diagnosis based on DSM-IV criteria | 84.6 | 89.6 | 24.4 | 99.3 |
| Validation of SCOFF questionnaire among pre-teenagers | One class of pre-teenagers selected randomly from 10 Spanish schools | 289 | SCOFF vs. EAT** | 64.1 | 87.2 | 43.9 | 94.0 |
| Four simple questions can help screen for EDs | College students and patients from primary care clinics in London | 129 | SCOFF and ESP*** vs. Q-EDD**** (based on DSM-IV criteria) | 78 | 88 | - | - |
| Application of the SCOFF, EAT and TFEQ questionnaires in women seeking diet-therapy | Women seeking diet-therapy at the outpatient dietetic clinic in Naples | 162 | SCOFF, EAT and TFEQ***** vs. clinical diagnosis based on DSM-IV criteria | 94 | 21 | - | - |
| Eating Disorders in Graduate Students: Exploring the SCOFF as a simple screening tool | Graduate students attending the university student health clinic | 297 | SCOFF vs. EDE-Q ****** | 53.3 | 93.2 | 66.7 | 88.7 |
| Validation of the SCOFF questionnaire for screening the eating behaviour disorders of adolescents in school | Randomly selected students from three schools in Colombia | 241 | SCOFF vs. CIDI******* (based on DSM-IV criteria) | 81.9 | 78.7 | 62.1 | 91.1 |
| Validation of the SCOFF for screening of EDs in university women | University students in Colombia | 385 | SCOFF vs. CIDI (based on DSM-IV criteria) | 78.4 | 75.8 | 46.5 | 92.9 |
| Validation of the Spanish version of the SCOFF questionnaire for the screening of EDs in primary care | Patient with probable eating disorder diagnosis from six primary health care centers in Spain. | 203 | SCOFF vs. SCAN******** (based on DSM-IV criteria) | 97.7 | 94.4 | 81 | 93.1 |
| Screening for EDs in primary care: EDE-Q versus SCOFF | Women aged 18–40 years attending two primary care practices in smaller urban regions of the USA | 147 | SCOFF and EDE-Q vs. telephone interview including diagnostic items of the EDE********* | 72 | 73 | 35 | - |
*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition
**Eating Attitude Test
***Eating disorder Screen for Primary care
****Questionnaire for Eating Disorder Diagnoses
*****Three Factor Eating Questionnaire
******Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire
*******Composite International Diagnostic Interview
********Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry
********* Eating Disorder Examination interview
The validity of the SCOFF in detecting current eating disorders (men and women combined)
| Threshold (number of positive answers) | Sensitivity | Specificity | Pos. Predictive value | Neg. Predictive value |
| ≥ 1 | 100.0 (66.4–100.0) | 70.9 (66.8–74.7) | 5.5 (2.5–10.2) | 100.0 (99.0–100.0) |
| ≥ 2 | 77.8 (40.0–97.2) | 87.8 (84.7–90.4) | 9.7 (4.0–19.0) | 99.6 (98.5–100.0) |
| ≥ 3 | 33.3 (7.5–70.1) | 97.4 (95.6–98.6) | 17.7 (3.8–43.4) | 98.9 (97.5–99.6) |
| ≥ 4 | 22.2 (2.8–60.0) | 99.6 (98.7–100.0) | 50.0 (6.8–93.2) | 98.7 (97.3–99.5) |
The validity of the SCOFF in detecting current eating disorders (women only)
| Threshold (number of positive answers) | Sensitivity | Specificity | Pos. Predictive value | Neg. Predictive value |
| ≥ 1 | 100.0 (63–100.0) | 64.1 (58.5–69.5) | 6.8 (3.0–13.0) | 100.0 (98.1–100.0) |
| ≥ 2 | 75.0 (34.9–6.87) | 84.2 (79.6–88.1) | 11.1 (4.2–22.6) | 99.2 (97.2–99.9) |
| ≥ 3 | 25.0 (3.2–65.1) | 95.6 (92.8–97.7) | 13.3 (1.7–40.5) | 98.0 (95.7–99.3) |
Figure 1The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (men and women combined). Fitted ROC Area: 0.926. Empiric ROC Area: 0.919. The solid line represents the ROC curve of the SCOFF, and the dashed lines represent 95% confidence intervals.