4.3 Article

Development and Validation of the Eating Loss of Control Scale

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 77-89

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0034729

关键词

eating disorder; loss of control; measurement; scale development; validation

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK049587, K24 DK070052, K23 DK092279, R01 DK49587] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recurrent objective bulimic episodes (OBE) are a defining diagnostic characteristic of binge eating disorder (BED) and bulimia nervosa (BN). OBEs are characterized by experiencing loss of control (LOC) while eating an unusually large quantity of food. Despite nosological importance and complex heterogeneity across patients, measurement of LOC has been assessed dichotomously (present/absent). This study describes the development and initial validation of the Eating Loss of Control Scale (ELOCS), a self-report questionnaire that examines the complexity of the LOC construct. Participants were 168 obese treatment-seeking individuals with BED who completed the Eating Disorder Examination interview and self-report measures. Participants rated their LOC-related feelings or behaviors on continuous Likert-type scales and reported the number of LOC episodes in the past 28 days. Principal component analysis identified a single-factor, 18-item scale, which demonstrated good internal reliability (alpha = .90). Frequency of LOC episodes was significantly correlated with frequency of OBEs and subjective bulimic episodes. The ELOCS demonstrated good convergent validity and was significantly correlated with greater eating pathology, greater emotion dysregulation, greater depression, and lower self-control but not with body mass index. The findings suggest that the ELOCS is a valid self-report questionnaire that may provide important clinical information regarding experiences of LOC in obese persons with BED. Future research should examine the ELOCS in other eating disorders and nonclinical samples.

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

4.3
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