Katrina Parker1, Sarah Mitchell2, Paul O'Brien3, Leah Brennan4. 1. Centre for Obesity Research and Education (CORE), Level 6, The Alfred Centre, Monash University, 99 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia; School of Psychological Sciences, Level 4, Building 17, Monash University Clayton Campus, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia. Electronic address: Katrina.Parker@monash.edu. 2. School of Psychological Sciences, Level 4, Building 17, Monash University Clayton Campus, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia. Electronic address: mis@unimelb.edu.au. 3. Centre for Obesity Research and Education (CORE), Level 6, The Alfred Centre, Monash University, 99 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia. Electronic address: Paul.Obrien@monash.edu. 4. Centre for Obesity Research and Education (CORE), Level 6, The Alfred Centre, Monash University, 99 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia; School of Psychology, Australian Catholic University, Locked Bag 4115, Melbourne, Victoria 3065, Australia. Electronic address: leah.brennan@acu.edu.au.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Bariatric surgery is considered the most effective weight loss intervention for obese persons. However, accurate assessment is essential to identify disordered eating that may impair achievement of optimal post-surgical outcomes. Measures of disordered eating are yet to be thoroughly psychometrically evaluated in bariatric surgery patients, therefore their utility is unknown. METHODS: Participants were 108 adults who completed psychological measures approximately 12 months after bariatric surgery. The fit of the original scale structures was tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and alternative factor solutions were generated using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Reliability (internal consistency) and construct validity (convergent and divergent) were also assessed. MATERIALS: Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q), Questionnaire of Eating and Weight Patterns Revised (QEWP-R), Three Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) and Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA). RESULTS: CFA revealed none of the original disordered eating measures met adequate fit statistics. EFA produced revised scales with improved reliability (original scales α=0.47-0.94; revised scales α=0.76-0.98) and correlational analyses with measures of psychological wellbeing and impairment demonstrated adequate convergent validity. Reported prevalence of disordered eating behaviours differed between the EDE-Q and QEWP-R. CONCLUSIONS: Psychometric evaluation did not support the use of the commonly used disordered eating measures in bariatric patients in their original form. The revised version of the EDE-Q replicates findings from recent research in bariatric surgery candidates. The alternate structures of the CIA and TFEQ suggest differences in the manifestation of disordered eating following surgery. Results suggest that revised measures are required to overcome the limitations of existing measures.
INTRODUCTION: Bariatric surgery is considered the most effective weight loss intervention for obesepersons. However, accurate assessment is essential to identify disordered eating that may impair achievement of optimal post-surgical outcomes. Measures of disordered eating are yet to be thoroughly psychometrically evaluated in bariatric surgery patients, therefore their utility is unknown. METHODS:Participants were 108 adults who completed psychological measures approximately 12 months after bariatric surgery. The fit of the original scale structures was tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and alternative factor solutions were generated using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Reliability (internal consistency) and construct validity (convergent and divergent) were also assessed. MATERIALS: Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q), Questionnaire of Eating and Weight Patterns Revised (QEWP-R), Three Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) and Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA). RESULTS: CFA revealed none of the original disordered eating measures met adequate fit statistics. EFA produced revised scales with improved reliability (original scales α=0.47-0.94; revised scales α=0.76-0.98) and correlational analyses with measures of psychological wellbeing and impairment demonstrated adequate convergent validity. Reported prevalence of disordered eating behaviours differed between the EDE-Q and QEWP-R. CONCLUSIONS: Psychometric evaluation did not support the use of the commonly used disordered eating measures in bariatric patients in their original form. The revised version of the EDE-Q replicates findings from recent research in bariatric surgery candidates. The alternate structures of the CIA and TFEQ suggest differences in the manifestation of disordered eating following surgery. Results suggest that revised measures are required to overcome the limitations of existing measures.
Authors: Lois J Surgenor; Deborah L Snell; Richard J Siegert; Steven Kelly; Richard Flint; Grant Coulter Journal: J Clin Psychol Med Settings Date: 2020-03
Authors: Maria C Swartz; Karen M Basen-Engquist; Christine Markham; Elizabeth J Lyons; Matthew Cox; Joya Chandra; Joann L Ater; Martha A Askins; Michael E Scheurer; Philip J Lupo; Rachel Hill; Jeffrey Murray; Wenyaw Chan; Paul R Swank Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 2.223
Authors: Angelique F Ralph; Leah Brennan; Sue Byrne; Belinda Caldwell; Jo Farmer; Laura M Hart; Gabriella A Heruc; Sarah Maguire; Milan K Piya; Julia Quin; Sarah K Trobe; Andrew Wallis; A J Williams-Tchen; Phillipa Hay Journal: J Eat Disord Date: 2022-08-18
Authors: Meagan M Carr; Jessica L Lawson; Valentina Ivezaj; Kerstin K Blomquist; Carlos M Grilo Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 4.734