Wilfley D E, Schwartz M B, Spurrell E B, Fairburn C G
San Diego State University, USA.
Behav Res Ther. 1997 Dec;35(12):1151-9.
Research addressing the assessment of binge eating and associated eating disorder psychopathology has steadily increased in recent years. Few studies have examined the relationship between the various assessment methods. This study compared an investigator-based interview, the Eating Disorder Examination (EDE), with a self-report version of that interview, the EDE-Q. Fifty-two individuals (six men and 46 women) with binge eating disorder (BED) completed both instruments. Modest-to-good agreement and significant correlations (P < 0.0001) were found between the two methods on all four subscales assessing specific eating disorder psychopathology (i.e., Restraint, Eating Concern, Weight Concern, and Shape Concern subscales). However, higher levels of disturbance were consistently reported on the EDE-Q than the EDE interview. The two methods were not significantly or reliably related to one another when assessing binge eating. This may be due in part to the difficulty inherent in identifying binges in subjects with BED. Examination of individual item scores suggest that it might be possible to improve the performance of the EDE-Q by clarifying the definitions of certain complex features, although this should not be at the expense of compromising the practical utility of its self-report format.
近年来，针对暴饮暴食及相关饮食失调精神病理学评估的研究稳步增加。很少有研究探讨各种评估方法之间的关系。本研究将基于研究者的访谈即饮食失调检查（EDE）与该访谈的自我报告版本即EDE-Q进行了比较。52名患有暴饮暴食症（BED）的个体（6名男性和46名女性）完成了这两种测评工具。在评估特定饮食失调精神病理学的所有四个子量表（即克制、饮食关注、体重关注和体型关注子量表）上，两种方法之间发现了中等至良好的一致性和显著相关性（P < 0.0001）。然而，EDE-Q报告的紊乱水平始终高于EDE访谈。在评估暴饮暴食时，这两种方法彼此之间没有显著或可靠的关联。这可能部分归因于在患有BED的受试者中识别暴饮暴食所固有的困难。对单个项目分数的检查表明，尽管不应以牺牲其自我报告形式的实际效用为代价，但通过澄清某些复杂特征的定义可能会提高EDE-Q的性能。
