4.2 Article

The EDE-Q, BULIT-R, and BEDT as self-report measures of binge eating disorder

Journal

EATING BEHAVIORS
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages 267-271

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2011.07.006

Keywords

Binge eating disorder; Assessment; Questionnaires; Diagnosis; Self-report

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Binge eating disorder, currently classified as an eating disorder not otherwise specified, is a valid and clinically useful psychiatric diagnosis. Given its probable inclusion in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), identification of self-report measures with high levels of diagnostic utility should improve the likelihood and accuracy of screening. The aim of the current study was to assess the diagnostic utility of two widely used measures of eating disorder symptoms, namely the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDEQ) and the Bulimia Test-Revised (BULIT-R), as well as a factor of the BULIT-R (coined the Binge Eating Disorder Test or BEDT), newly created specifically for the assessment of BED. Participants included 15 individuals with BED and 26 non-BED controls, as determined via the diagnostic section of the Eating Disorder Examination, who met criteria for being overweight or obese. Results showed that the BEDT achieved 100% sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values. The BULIT-R and Eating Concern subscale of the EDE-Q evidenced strong sensitivity (100 vs 87), specificity (96 vs 100), positive predictive values (94 vs 100), and negative predictive values (100 vs 93), respectively. Results suggest that the BEDT is an excellent overall measure of BED in obese populations. The BULIT-R affords the advantage of ruling out compensatory behaviors, particularly of the non-purging variety (e.g., severe restriction outside of binges), while the brevity of the Eating Concern subscale of the EDE-Q makes it optimal for use in brief screening situations. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available