4.4 Article

Comparison of two self-report instruments for assessing binge eating in bariatric surgery candidates

Journal

BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY
Volume 44, Issue 4, Pages 545-560

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.04.003

Keywords

obesity; bariatric surgery; binge eating; assessment; self-report; eating disorders

Funding

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK 49587] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared two self-report methods for assessing binge eating in severely obese bariatric surgery candidates. Participants were 249 gastric bypass candidates who completed the Questionnaire on Eating and Weight Patterns-Revised (QEWP-R) and the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q) prior to surgery. Participants were classified by binge eating status (i.e., no or recurrent binge eating) with each of the measures. The degree of agreement was examined, as well as the relationship between binge eating and measures of convergent validity. The two measures identified a similar number of patients with recurrent binge eating (i.e., at least 1 binge/week); however, overlap was modest (kappa =.26). Agreement on twice weekly binge eating was poor (kappa =.05). The QEWP-R and EDE-Q both identified clinically meaningful groups of binge eaters. The EDE-Q appeared to differentiate between non/infrequent bingers and recurrent bingers better than the QEWP-R, based on measures of convergent validity. In addition, the EDE-Q demonstrated an advantage because it identified binge eaters with elevated weight and shape overconcern. Using the self-report measures concurrently did not improve identification of binge eating in this study. More work is needed to determine the construct validity and clinical utility of these measures with gastric bypass patients. (c) 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available