2004
DOI: 10.1177/1073191103260623
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparability of the Eating Disorder Inventory-2 Between Women and Men

Abstract: Researchers studying eating disorders in men often use eating-disorder risk and symptom measures that have been validated only on women. Using a sample of 215 college women and 214 college men, this article reports on the validity the Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (EDI-2), one of the best-validated among women and the most widely used risk and symptom measure for women. The EDI-2 had the same, standard eight-factor structure for both genders, and tests of invariance showed that factor loadings, factor variances,… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

9
80
1
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 112 publications
(91 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
9
80
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Berman, Lam & Goldner, 1993) and has good internal consistency, reliability, and good test-retest reliability, with appropriate content, CONTROLLING FEEDING AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 13 convergent, and discriminant validity (Garner, 1991). It has also been validated for use with men (Spillane, Boerner, Anderson & Smith, 2004).…”
Section: Measures and Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Berman, Lam & Goldner, 1993) and has good internal consistency, reliability, and good test-retest reliability, with appropriate content, CONTROLLING FEEDING AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 13 convergent, and discriminant validity (Garner, 1991). It has also been validated for use with men (Spillane, Boerner, Anderson & Smith, 2004).…”
Section: Measures and Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Invariance across SEMs for probands in Figure 2 and the current results for offspring followed the approach of Hoyle and Smith (1994) and Spillane et al (2004). Steps included (a) evaluating the full model that incorporates all probands and offspring with no constraints, (b) adding equality constraints to ensure that factor loadings were the same across the two samples, (c) adding the same variances across probands and offspring, and (d) using the same structural path values across probands and offspring.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this model, mediation was evaluated using the crossproduct approach computed by the INDIRECT command in Mplus (MacKinnon et al, 2002). The invariance procedures used here (e.g., across gender) have been described by Hoyle and Smith (1994), by Spillane et al (2004), and in our prior publications (e.g., Schuckit et al, 2005). These include fi rst running the full model with no invariance constraints, then requiring that equality constraints for factor loadings be the same, followed by requiring that variances be the same across groups, and then adding equality constraints requiring that the structural paths be the same for both groups and testing whether each additional set of equality constraints across the two groups reduced the model fi t to the data with a chi-square test.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%