4.4 Article

Gender Norms, Psychometric Properties, and Validity for the Eating Pathology Symptoms Inventory

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eat.22180

关键词

eating pathology symptoms inventory; eating disorders; disordered eating; self-report; psychometrics; assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveThe Eating Pathology Symptoms Inventory [EPSI; Forbush KT, Wildes JE, Pollack LO, Dunbar D, Luo J, Patterson K, et al. Development and validation of the EPSI. Psychological Assessment, in press] is an empirically derived self-report measure of eating disorder (ED) symptoms. The EPSI is able to capture the majority of variance associated with established ED measures, yet possesses additional content that is not currently represented in any existing multidimensional ED measure. The purpose of this study was to present normative and psychometric data for the EPSI in a large sample of college men (N=502) and women (N=625). MethodParticipants completed the EPSI and a battery of self-report measures to evaluate convergent and discriminant validity. To provide context as to how normative scores compare to ED psychopathology, undergraduate student scores were compared to scores from individuals with EDs (N=150). ResultsConfirmatory factor analyses indicated that the EPSI had a robust eight-factor structure that was replicated in both men and women. Mean scores for most scales were significantly higher in women, except for Excessive Exercise, Muscle Building, and Negative Attitudes toward Obesity, which were significantly higher in men. Most scale scores were significantly lower in college students than in patients with EDs. Results indicated excellent convergent and discriminant validity in both genders. DiscussionThese data provide the first large-scale normative data for the EPSI in young adults, as well as additional evidence supporting the psychometric properties and construct validity of the EPSI. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (Int J Eat Disord 2014; 47:85-91)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据