Ann F Haynos1, Alan E Fruzzetti. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Reno, Mail Stop 296, Reno, NV, 89511, USA, ahaynosa@unr.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Existing measures to assess restrictive eating conflate both problematic and healthy restrictive practices, and perceived restriction without reduced caloric intake. In this study, we devised and tested the utility of a single-item screener, the Dietary Restriction Screener (DRS), to assess problematic restriction. METHODS: 94 individuals completed the DRS and measures assessing eating disorder symptoms, preoccupations, and rituals. Participants were given access to an ad libitum single-item test snack. Linear regressions were conducted to evaluate whether the DRS predicted eating disorder symptoms and snack intake after controlling for relevant covariates and a commonly used restraint scale. RESULTS: The DRS significantly predicted eating disorder symptoms (p < 0.001), preoccupations (p < 0.001), rituals (p = 0.001), and snack intake (p = 0.017) above covariates and an existing restraint scale. CONCLUSIONS: The DRS may offer added utility in predicting problematic dietary restriction over existing measures and is beneficial due to its brevity and low burden.
PURPOSE: Existing measures to assess restrictive eating conflate both problematic and healthy restrictive practices, and perceived restriction without reduced caloric intake. In this study, we devised and tested the utility of a single-item screener, the Dietary Restriction Screener (DRS), to assess problematic restriction. METHODS: 94 individuals completed the DRS and measures assessing eating disorder symptoms, preoccupations, and rituals. Participants were given access to an ad libitum single-item test snack. Linear regressions were conducted to evaluate whether the DRS predicted eating disorder symptoms and snack intake after controlling for relevant covariates and a commonly used restraint scale. RESULTS: The DRS significantly predicted eating disorder symptoms (p < 0.001), preoccupations (p < 0.001), rituals (p = 0.001), and snack intake (p = 0.017) above covariates and an existing restraint scale. CONCLUSIONS: The DRS may offer added utility in predicting problematic dietary restriction over existing measures and is beneficial due to its brevity and low burden.
Authors: Marian Tanofsky-Kraff; Lauren B Shomaker; Cara Olsen; Caroline A Roza; Laura E Wolkoff; Kelli M Columbo; Gina Raciti; Jaclyn M Zocca; Denise E Wilfley; Susan Z Yanovski; Jack A Yanovski Journal: J Abnorm Psychol Date: 2011-02
Authors: Ann F Haynos; Allison W Watts; Katie A Loth; Carolyn M Pearson; Dianne Neumark-Stzainer Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2016-05-07 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Kathryn R Fox; Shirley B Wang; Chelsea Boccagno; Ann F Haynos; Evan Kleiman; Jill M Hooley Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Michael V Bronstein; Jonas Everaert; Erich Kummerfeld; Ann F Haynos; Sophia Vinogradov Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 5.791
Authors: Shirley B Wang; Kathryn R Fox; Chelsea Boccagno; Jill M Hooley; Patrick Mair; Matthew K Nock; Ann F Haynos Journal: J Abnorm Psychol Date: 2021-10
Authors: Shirley B Wang; Emily M Pisetsky; Julie M Skutch; Alan E Fruzzetti; Ann F Haynos Journal: Compr Psychiatry Date: 2018-02-11 Impact factor: 3.735
Authors: Ann F Haynos; Shirley B Wang; Sarah LeMay-Russell; Jason M Lavender; Carolyn M Pearson; Karen J Mathis; Carol B Peterson; Scott J Crow Journal: Eat Behav Date: 2021-05-24