Initial validation of the Nine Item Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake disorder screen (NIAS): A measure of three restrictive eating patterns

Zickgraf, Hana F.; Ellis, Jordan M.

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.111

Cited by 200 publications

(195 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

170

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Potential ARFID subdomains are described in seven original research publications (14%) and two reviews (11%). The most common subgrouping, reported in five original research publications (10%) (Eddy et al, ; Kurz et al, ; Kurz et al, ; Norris et al, ; Zickgraf & Ellis, ) and one review (5%) (Thomas et al, ), consists of the three presentations that are used as examples in the DSM‐5. One original research publication (Bryson et al, ) also reports the identification of three subdomains, albeit slightly different ones.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, compared to patients with other eating disorders, ARFID patients have been reported to score significantly lower on the Children's Eating Attitudes Test (Nicely et al, ; Ornstein et al, ) and on all subscales of the Eating Attitudes Test and the Eating Disorder Inventory (Nakai et al, ). Notably, a couple of these studies (Ellis, Galloway, Webb, & Martz, ; Zickgraf & Ellis, ) utilize the highly opaque convenience samples of Amazon's Mechanical Turk web panel, the validity of which has, as seen above, been questioned (Landers & Behrend, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic scoping review of diagnostic validity in avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder

Strand

Hausswolff-Juhlin

Welch

2018

Intl J Eating Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) was introduced as a new diagnosis in the DSM‐5. This systematic scoping review explores how ARFID as a diagnostic entity is conceptualized in the research literature and evaluates the diagnostic validity according to the Feighner criteria. Method A systematic scoping review of papers on ARFID in PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science was undertaken, following PRISMA and Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Results Fifty‐one original research publications, 23 reviews and commentaries, and 20 case reports were identified. The use of ARFID as a conceptual category varies significantly within this literature. At this time, the ARFID diagnosis does not fulfil the Feighner criteria for evaluating the validity of diagnostic constructs, the most urgent problem being the demarcation toward other disorders. A three‐dimensional model—lack of interest in food, selectivity based on sensory sensitivity, and fear of aversive consequences—is gaining support in the research literature. Discussion The introduction of the ARFID diagnosis has undoubtedly increased the recognition of a previously largely neglected group of patients. However, this article points to an inability of the current DSM‐5 diagnostic criteria to ensure optimal diagnostic validity, which risks making them less useful in clinical practice and in epidemiological research. To increase the conceptual validity of the ARFID construct, several possible alterations to the current diagnostic criteria are suggested, including a stronger emphasis of the three identified subdomains and further clarifying the boundaries of ARFID.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic scoping review of diagnostic validity in avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder

Strand

Hausswolff-Juhlin

Welch

2018

Intl J Eating Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, in a study of elementary school students in Switzerland using the EDY-Q, fear of aversive consequences (5.0%) was the rarest ARFID profile endorsed, with nearly four times as many children (19.3%) endorsing lack of adequate intake and five times as many (26.1%) endorsing inadequate variety (Kurz et al, 2015). Alternatively, the lack of significance could be due to the positively skewed distribution of the fear of aversive consequences profile in our sample, which is also in line with findings that these symptoms are positively skewed among adults in the general population when assessed with the NIAS (Zickgraf & Ellis, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview, a multi‐informant, semi‐structured interview of feeding disorders across the lifespan: A pilot study for ages 10–22

Bryant‐Waugh

Micali

Cooke

et al. 2018

Intl J Eating Disorders

150

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), pica, and rumination disorder (RD) were added to the revised DSM‐5 Feeding and Eating Disorders chapter in 2013. We developed a structured interview—the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview (PARDI)—to assess the presence and severity of these diagnoses for evaluation and treatment planning in clinical and research settings. Here, we describe the development of the PARDI and provide a preliminary report on feasibility, acceptability, reliability, and validity in relation to ARFID. Method We created an initial item pool from existing measures of similar constructs and clinical experience. The PARDI includes items assessing the level of endorsement and overall severity of common ARFID features organized into profiles (i.e., sensory sensitivity, lack of interest in eating, and fear of aversive consequences) and algorithms for diagnosing ARFID, pica, and RD. We collected initial psychometric data from participants (10–22 years) with ARFID (n = 39), clinically significant avoidant/restrictive eating (n = 8), and healthy controls (n = 10). Results On average, the PARDI took 39 min to complete and was acceptable to participants. All subscales achieved internal consistency greater ≥0.77, and inter‐rater reliability for the ARFID diagnosis was moderate (κ = 0.75). Individuals with ARFID scored significantly higher than healthy controls on ARFID severity and ARFID profiles. Discussion The PARDI appears acceptable to respondents and preliminary evidence of reliability and validity has been demonstrated in an initial sample. Larger‐scale validation studies are currently underway. The PARDI is freely available to clinicians and researchers.

show abstract

“…The Pica ARFID and Rumination Disorder Interview (PARDI) (20) is a comprehensive structured clinical interview designed to confer diagnosis and to measure global severity and severity across rationales for restriction. In addition, patient responses to brief self-report screening tools, such as the Eating Disorders in Youth Questionnaire (EDY-Q) (21) or the Nine-Item ARFID Screen (NIAS) (22), may provide clues to appropriate follow-up questions at the clinical interview.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation and Treatment of Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) in Adolescents

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of review: Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) was added to the psychiatric nomenclature in 2013. However, youth with ARFID often present first to medical— rather than psychiatric—settings, making its evaluation and treatment relevant to pediatricians. Recent findings: ARFID is defined by limited volume or variety of food intake motivated by sensory sensitivity, fear of aversive consequences, or lack of interest in food or eating, and associated with medical, nutritional, and/or psychosocial impairment. It appears to be as common as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa and can occur in individuals of all ages. ARFID is heterogeneous in presentation and may require both medical and psychological management. Summary: Pediatricians should be aware of the diagnostic criteria for ARFID and the possibility that these patients may require medical intervention and referral for psychological treatment. The neurobiology underlying ARFID is unknown, and novel treatments are currently being tested.

show abstract

Initial validation of the Nine Item Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake disorder screen (NIAS): A measure of three restrictive eating patterns

Cited by 200 publications

References 57 publications

A systematic scoping review of diagnostic validity in avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder

A systematic scoping review of diagnostic validity in avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder

Development of the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview, a multi‐informant, semi‐structured interview of feeding disorders across the lifespan: A pilot study for ages 10–22

Evaluation and Treatment of Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) in Adolescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About