Psychometric Evaluation of the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire for Bariatric Surgery Candidates

Abstract

Objective-Despite increasing use of the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q) in bariatric surgery patients, little is known about the utility and psychometric performance of this self-report measure in this clinical group. The primary purpose of the current study was to evaluate the factor structure and construct validity of the EDE-Q in a large series of bariatric surgery candidates.Methods and Procedures-Participants were 337 obese bariatric surgery candidates. Participants completed the EDE-Q and a battery of behavioral and psychological measures.Results-Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) produced a 12-item, 4-factor structure of the EDE-Q. The four factors, interpreted as Dietary Restraint, Eating Disturbance, Appearance Concerns, and Shape/Weight Overvaluation, were found to be internally consistent and converged with other relevant measures of psychopathology.Discussion-Factor analysis of the EDE-Q in bariatric surgery candidates did not replicate the original subscales but revealed an alternative factor structure. Future research must further evaluate the psychometric properties, including the factor structure, of the EDE-Q in this and other diverse populations and consider means of improving this measure's ability to best assess eatingrelated pathology in bariatric surgery patients.

Eating disorder examination questionnaire: Factor structure for adolescent girls and boys

“…Furthermore, collapsing the original shape and weight concern subscales into one single factor is consistent with previous research on both the EDE and EDE‐Q among women with bulimic symptoms, women from an outpatient eating disorder service, female community samples, treatment seeking obese females, and adolescent girls . This notion supports a model where adolescents have difficulty in distinguishing shape and weight as separate concepts, as found previously with obese adults . Furthermore, support for separate restraint and eating concern subscales have also been provided previously …”

“…The findings support research which has failed to substantiate the EDE‐Q's original four factor structure . However, it is worth acknowledging that the original subscales were mostly reproduced within the new model, aside from the combination of the original shape and weight concern subscales.…”

Core pathology of eating disorders as measured by the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE‐Q): the predictive role of a nested general (g) and primary factors

“…The factor structure as originally published by Fairburn (Fairburn and Beglin, ) was not replicated in the present study, as numerous others have found (Allen et al ., ; Becker et al ., ; Hrabosky et al ., ; Peterson et al ., ). The first factor we obtained represented a mix of all the SC and WC items, except the preoccupation with weight/shape item.…”

“…For example, Hrabosky et al . () found support for an abbreviated 12‐item four‐factor scale, whereas Becker et al . () argued for the interpretation of the global EDE‐Q score as a unitary construct.…”

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Eating Disorder Examination‐Questionnaire: A comparison of five factor solutions across vegan and omnivore participants

“…While the EDE‐Q consistently demonstrates acceptable reliability and validity, one point of weakness is in its proposed four‐factor structure, which has proven difficult to replicate. At present, ten studies have subjected EDE‐Q data to confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) (Allen, Byrne, Lampard, Watson, & Fursland, ; Barnes, Prescott, & Muncer, ; Chan & Leung, ; Darcy, Hardy, Crosby, Lock, & Peebles, ; Franko et al, ; Grilo, Henderson, Bell, & Crosby, ; Grilo, Reas, Hopwood, & Crosby, ; Hrabosky et al, ; Penelo, Negrete, Portell, & Raich, ; White, Haycraft, Goodwin, & Meyer, ; Table ). Four studies, surveying male and female athletes and non‐athletes, Latina women, bariatric surgery patients, and schoolchildren reported indices of model fit in the acceptable range for the four‐factor model (Darcy et al, ; Franko et al, ; Hrabosky et al, ; Penelo et al, ).…”