Eating Disorder Examination‐Questionnaire: Evaluating factor structures and establishing measurement invariance with Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Black, and White American college men

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluated the factor structure and invariance of the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q) in a sample of Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (n = 163), Black (n = 155), and White (n = 367) American university men.Method: Twelve different EDE-Q factor structures reported in the literature were evaluated using multi-group confirmatory factor analyses, and measurement invariance assessed.Results: A respecified four-factor structure proposed by Parker et al. (2016) showed superior fit and was invariant across groups. Significant differences emerged across all latent factors, with small to medium effects. Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander men reported significantly higher scores on factors assessing Appearance Concern, Overvaluation of Shape/Weight, and Eating Concerns, and were more likely to endorse regular objective binge eating (OBE) and fasting episodes than their Black and White peers. Both White and Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander men reported greater dietary restraint than Black men. Among this sample, frequencies of regular compensatory exercise ranged from 10% to 16%, fasting 6% to 14%, and OBEs 1% to 10%.Discussion: Results provide further support for the use of alternate EDE-Q factor structures, especially among non-White men. In this study, Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander men reported the highest levels of ED psychopathology relative to White and Black men, indicating they might be particularly vulnerable to EDs.

Structural validity of the Eating Disorder Examination—Questionnaire: A systematic review

“…The Weight Concern and Shape Concern subscales have been found to be highly correlated, and several studies in the current review generated latent structures through EFA whereby items of these subscales were considered under a “Weight and Shape Concern” subscale (e.g., Carey et al, 2019; Darcy et al, 2013; White et al, 2014). There was mixed evidence for the presence of a “Global” index of eating pathology, with several studies (Friborg et al, 2013; Klimek et al, 2021; Rand‐Giovannetti et al, 2020) generating conflicting findings regarding higher‐order models, suggesting that interpretation of the Global score might remain cautious, particularly in non‐female or ethnic minority groups (Goel, Burnette et al, 2022). Similarly, whilst some studies found that a one‐factor solution emerged from EFA (e.g., Peterson et al, 2020), others failed to find support using CFA (e.g., Calugi et al, 2017; Penelo et al, 2013).…”

“…Using a Spanish translation of the EDE-Q in college women, Villarroel et al (2011) reported "satisfactory" fit, noting that they The Weight Concern and Shape Concern subscales have been found to be highly correlated, and several studies in the current review generated latent structures through EFA whereby items of these subscales were considered under a "Weight and Shape Concern" subscale (e.g., Carey et al, 2019;Darcy et al, 2013;White et al, 2014). There was mixed evidence for the presence of a "Global" index of eating pathology, with several studies (Friborg et al, 2013;Klimek et al, 2021;Rand-Giovannetti et al, 2020) generating conflicting findings regarding higher-order models, suggesting that interpretation of the Global score might remain cautious, particularly in non-female or ethnic minority groups (Goel, Burnette et al, 2022).…”

“…Turning to the identification of a “Global” score, a bifactor (or “nested”) model, where a latent ‘Global’ factor reflecting common variance across all items is orthogonal (uncorrelated) to the EDE‐Q subscales, performed well compared to models with correlated subscales (Friborg et al, 2013), suggesting that the EDE‐Q Global score represents a useful measure of eating pathology and may thus be a valid indicator of treatment outcome (Tatham et al, 2015). However, given that few studies have explicitly addressed this issue, further work is required in light of other work challenging the computation of a “Global” score (Rand‐Giovannetti et al, 2020), perhaps through greater correspondence with other clinical indicators (Goel, Burnette et al, 2022).…”

“…Several studies have set out to compare the performance of different models through CFA rather than generating additional novel solutions in future samples, particularly given the exploratory, and at times volatile, nature of EFA (Osborne, 2014). Such studies (e.g., Calugi et al, 2017; Goel, Burnette et al, 2022; Machado et al, 2020; Rand‐Giovannetti et al, 2020; Scharmer et al, 2020) are usually preferable to those evaluating the fit of only one model (Jackson et al, 2009) and, although more data are needed—particularly in under‐represented groups—findings appear to suggest (statistical) superiority of briefer models, particularly that attributed to Grilo et al, 2015) (Table S6). Whilst it should also be borne in mind that a “perfect” latent structure of the EDE‐Q may not emerge, further (confirmatory) validation of 22‐item (e.g., Friborg et al, 2013) and brief versions (e.g., Gideon et al, 2016; Grilo et al, 2013) seems warranted, as well as greater investigation into the optimal construction of a “Global” score.…”

“…Similarly, whilst some studies found that a one-factor solution emerged from EFA (e.g., Peterson et al, 2020), others failed to find support using CFA (e.g., Calugi et al, 2017;Penelo et al, 2013). Investigations of the "full" (i.e., 22-item) measure using CFA (Table S4) offered some support for a three-factor model (Peterson et al, 2007) and a four-factor model departing from the "Original" (Goel, Burnette et al, 2022;Friborg et al, 2013), although further work in different samples is needed. Interestingly, these models show similarities, such as combining Weight and Shape Concern into one factor (Rand-Giovannetti et al, 2020).…”