<p>Orthorexia nervosa could be conceptualized as extreme or excessive preoccupation with eating food believed to be healthy. Up to now, there is no available instrument evaluating every aspect of orthorexia with sufficient psychometric guarantees. The objective of the present study was two-fold. First, to develop and validate a new questionnaire of orthorexia –the Teruel Orthorexia Scale– and, second, to analyze the association with other psychological constructs and disorders theoretically related to orthorexia nervosa: eating disorder symptoms, obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, negative affect, and perfectionism. Participants were 942 mainly university students who completed a battery of online questionnaires. Starting with an initial item bank of 31 items, we proposed a bidimensional test of orthorexia. This final version, with 17 items, encompassed two related, although differentiable (<em>r</em> = .43), aspects of orthorexia. First, <em>Orthorectic Efforts</em>, which evaluates the “healthy” preoccupation with diet, which is independent of psychopathology, and even inversely associated with it. Second, <em>Orthorectic Concerns</em>, which assesses the negative social and emotional impact of trying to achieve a rigid way of eating. This dimension represents a pathological preoccupation with a healthy diet. This study presents a new instrument that offers promising possibilities in the study of orthorexia.</p>

Recent research points to the bidimensional nature of orthorexia, with one dimension related to interest in healthy eating (healthy orthorexia) and another dimension related to a pathological preoccupation with eating healthily (orthorexia nervosa). Research was needed to provide further support for this differentiation. We examined the food-choice motives related to both aspects of orthorexia. Participants were 460 students from a Spanish university who completed the Teruel Orthorexia Scale and the Food Choice Questionnaire. By means of structural equation modeling, we analyzed the relationship between orthorexia, food-choice motives, gender, body mass index, and age. The motives predicting food choices in orthorexia nervosa and healthy orthorexia were quite different. In the case of orthorexia nervosa, the main motive was weight control, with sensorial appeal and affect regulation also showing significant associations. For healthy orthorexia, the main motive was health content, with sensorial appeal and price also showing significant associations. This supports the hypothesis that orthorexia nervosa is associated with maladaptive eating behavior motived more by weight control than by health concerns.

It was recently proposed that healthy orthorexia (HeOr) and orthorexia nervosa (OrNe) should be differentiated. The aim of the present study was to analyze whether the two dimensions of orthorexia can be considered new eating styles or basically equivalent to restrained eating behavior. Two samples of university students (sample 1, n = 460; sample 2, n = 509) completed the Teruel Orthorexia Scale (TOS), the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ), and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Factor analysis with the TOS and DEBQ items together revealed an adequate fit for the preexisting five-factor solution (TOS: OrNe and HeOr; DEBQ: Restrained Eating, Emotional Eating, and External Eating). This result points out that these factors are conceptually distinguishable. Moreover, we tested whether the different eating styles presented different patterns of correlations with gender, body mass index (BMI), and age, and whether OrNe and HeOr predicted Positive and Negative Affect after controlling for Restrained, Emotional, and External Eating. Whereas Restrained and Emotional Eating were higher for women and increased with BMI in both samples, HeOr and OrNe presented much lower associations with these variables. OrNe was positively related to Negative Affect and negatively to Positive Affect, whereas HeOr was positively related to Positive Affect. Again, this result supports the assumption that OrNe is a new variant of disordered eating, whereas HeOr could possibly be seen as a protective behavior.

Orthorexia nervosa has recently been defined as excessive preoccupation with healthy eating, causing significant nutritional deficiencies and social and personal impairments. The ORTO-15 is the most widely used instrument to evaluate orthorexia nervosa, although previous studies obtained inconsistent results about its psychometric properties, and there are no data on the Spanish version. Thus, the main objective of the present study was to analyze the psychometric properties of the Spanish adaptation of the ORTO-15. In order to cross-validate the results, two independent samples were used (Sample 1: n = 807, 74.1% women; Sample 2: n = 242, 63.2% women). The results did not support the original recoding and reversal of the items; thus, the original scores were maintained. The analysis of the internal structure showed that the best interpretable solution was unidimensional, and due to low loadings, four items were removed. The internal consistency (α = .74) and temporal stability (r = .92; p < .001) of the final ORTO-11 version were adequate, higher than the 15-item version. The questionnaire showed significant associations with eating psychopathology (EAT-26 and SR-YBC-EDS; range r = .64 - .29; p < .05). However, this result should be interpreted with caution due to the redundancy observed between the ORTO-15 and the EAT-26. Our results suggest that the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the ORTO-15 are not adequate. Moreover, the instrument detects people who are on diets, but it is not efficient in detecting the severity of orthorexic behaviors and attitudes. New instruments are needed to continue the study of orthorexia nervosa.

Purpose Since the term orthorexia nervosa (ON) was coined from the Greek (ὀρθός, right and ὄρεξις, appetite) in 1997 to describe an obsession with “correct” eating, it has been used worldwide without a consistent definition. Although multiple authors have proposed diagnostic criteria, and many theoretical papers have been published, no consensus definition of ON exists, empirical primary evidence is limited, and ON is not a standardized diagnosis. These gaps prevent research to identify risk and protective factors, pathophysiology, functional consequences, and evidence-based therapeutic treatments. The aims of the current study are to categorize the common observations and presentations of ON pathology among experts in the eating disorder field, propose tentative diagnostic criteria, and consider which DSM chapter and category would be most appropriate for ON should it be included. Methods 47 eating disorder researchers and multidisciplinary treatment specialists from 14 different countries across four continents completed a three-phase modified Delphi process, with 75% agreement determined as the threshold for a statement to be included in the final consensus document. In phase I, participants were asked via online survey to agree or disagree with 67 statements about ON in four categories: A–Definition, Clinical Aspects, Duration; B–Consequences; C–Onset; D–Exclusion Criteria, and comment on their rationale. Responses were used to modify the statements which were then provided to the same participants for phase II, a second round of feedback, again in online survey form. Responses to phase II were used to modify and improve the statements for phase III, in which statements that met the predetermined 75% of agreement threshold were provided for review and commentary by all participants. Results 27 statements met or exceeded the consensus threshold and were compiled into proposed diagnostic criteria for ON. Conclusions This is the first time a standardized definition of ON has been developed from a worldwide, multidisciplinary cohort of experts. It represents a summary of observations, clinical expertise, and research findings from a wide base of knowledge. It may be used as a base for diagnosis, treatment protocols, and further research to answer the open questions that remain, particularly the functional consequences of ON and how it might be prevented or identified and intervened upon in its early stages. Although the participants encompass many countries and disciplines, further research will be needed to determine if these diagnostic criteria are applicable to the experience of ON in geographic areas not represented in the current expert panel. Level of evidence Level V: opinions of expert committees