临床障碍评估 3.0（CIA）在临床进食障碍样本中的因子结构和心理测量特性。
Factor structure and psychometric properties of the clinical impairment assessment 3.0 (CIA) in a clinical eating disorder sample.
机构信息
Saint Louis University, 800 Hospital Drive, Columbia, MO 65201, United States of America.
University of Missouri- St. Louis, 1 University Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63121, United States of America.
出版信息
Eat Behav. 2021 Jan;40:101469. doi: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2020.101469. Epub 2020 Dec 17.
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties and the factor structure of the Clinical Impairment Assessment 3.0 (CIA) utilizing a confirmatory factor analysis in a large clinical sample of ED patients.
METHODS
A total of 260 patients between the ages of 18 and 45 who completed assessments in a partial hospitalization or residential treatment program at an ED treatment facility between December 2012 and December 2016 were included in the analyses. Assessment measures included the CIA, EDE-Q, BDI-II, WHODAS, and a demographic questionnaire.
RESULTS
Results favored a bifactor model with a strong general factor and three unreliable subfactors. The CIA showed strong construct validity with other measures of ED pathology (EDE-Q) and health-related QoL (WHODAS). Furthermore, admission CIA scores were predictive of treatment outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
The CIA assesses general psychosocial impairment, supporting the use of a total, but not subscale scores, among symptomatic ED samples in the United States.
目的
本研究旨在利用验证性因子分析，对 ED 患者的大型临床样本进行研究，以调查临床损伤评估 3.0 版（CIA）的心理计量学特性和因子结构。
方法
在 2012 年 12 月至 2016 年 12 月期间，对一家 ED 治疗机构的部分住院或住院治疗计划中完成评估的 260 名年龄在 18 至 45 岁之间的患者进行了分析。评估措施包括 CIA、EDE-Q、BDI-II、WHODAS 和人口统计问卷。
结果
结果倾向于具有强一般因素和三个不可靠子因素的双因子模型。CIA 与 ED 病理学的其他测量方法（EDE-Q）和与健康相关的 QoL（WHODAS）具有很强的结构有效性。此外，入院 CIA 分数可预测治疗结果。
结论
CIA 评估一般的心理社会损伤，支持在美国有症状的 ED 样本中使用总分，而不是子量表分数。
Zotero 插件