OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the latent structures of the interview (EDE) and questionnaire (EDE-Q) versions of the Eating Disorder Examination. METHODS: Participants were 280 children, adolescents, and young adults seeking eating disorder treatment. Two separate latent structure analyses (LSAs) were conducted; one used variables from the EDE as indicators and the other used the corresponding variables from the EDE-Q as indicators. RESULTS: The EDE and EDE-Q models both yielded four-class solutions. Three of the four classes from the EDE-Q model demonstrated moderate to high concordance with their paired class from the EDE model. Using the EDE-Q to detect the EDE, the sensitivity and specificity of measuring certain classes varied from poor (18.6%) to excellent (93.7%). The overall concordance was moderate (κ=.49). DISCUSSION: These data suggest that LSAs using the EDE and EDE-Q may be directly compared; however, differences between results may represent inconsistencies in response patterns rather than true differences in psychopathology.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the latent structures of the interview (EDE) and questionnaire (EDE-Q) versions of the Eating Disorder Examination. METHODS:Participants were 280 children, adolescents, and young adults seeking eating disorder treatment. Two separate latent structure analyses (LSAs) were conducted; one used variables from the EDE as indicators and the other used the corresponding variables from the EDE-Q as indicators. RESULTS: The EDE and EDE-Q models both yielded four-class solutions. Three of the four classes from the EDE-Q model demonstrated moderate to high concordance with their paired class from the EDE model. Using the EDE-Q to detect the EDE, the sensitivity and specificity of measuring certain classes varied from poor (18.6%) to excellent (93.7%). The overall concordance was moderate (κ=.49). DISCUSSION: These data suggest that LSAs using the EDE and EDE-Q may be directly compared; however, differences between results may represent inconsistencies in response patterns rather than true differences in psychopathology.
Authors: Alexis E Duncan; Rosalind J Neuman; John Kramer; Samuel Kuperman; Victor Hesselbrock; Theodore Reich; Kathleen K Bucholz Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Pamela K Keel; Manfred Fichter; Norbert Quadflieg; Cynthia M Bulik; Mark G Baxter; Laura Thornton; Katherine A Halmi; Allan S Kaplan; Michael Strober; D Blake Woodside; Scott J Crow; James E Mitchell; Alessandro Rotondo; Mauro Mauri; Giovanni Cassano; Janet Treasure; David Goldman; Wade H Berrettini; Walter H Kaye Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2004-02
Authors: Natasha L Burke; Marian Tanofsky-Kraff; Ross Crosby; Rim D Mehari; Shannon E Marwitz; Miranda M Broadney; Lauren B Shomaker; Nichole R Kelly; Natasha A Schvey; Omni Cassidy; Susan Z Yanovski; Jack A Yanovski Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2017-04-03 Impact factor: 4.861