Shelby N Ortiz, Jennifer P White, Casey M MacDermod, Lisa Dinkler, Laura M Thornton, Jessica Johnson, Jerry D Guintivano, Jessica H Baker, Cynthia M Bulik, Nadia Micali, Emily M Pisetsky
{"title":"对回避型/限制性食物摄入障碍的在线父母和自我报告筛选方法的验证。","authors":"Shelby N Ortiz, Jennifer P White, Casey M MacDermod, Lisa Dinkler, Laura M Thornton, Jessica Johnson, Jerry D Guintivano, Jessica H Baker, Cynthia M Bulik, Nadia Micali, Emily M Pisetsky","doi":"10.1002/eat.24376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Although several assessments have been developed to diagnose or measure avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) symptoms, few studies have validated these tools in nonclinical and adult samples. This study explored the validity of two self- and parent/guardian-report ARFID screening measures in identifying adults and children who may have ARFID within a large community sample.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Fifty participants (divided into two groups: 25 adults and 25 parents/guardians of children) were selected from the ARFID Genes and Environment study, which enrolled over 3000 adults and parents/guardians of children who screened positive for ARFID on either the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview-ARFID Questionnaire (PARDI-AR-Q) or the Nine Item ARFID Screen (NIAS) self- and parent/guardian-report measures. Participants then completed the ARFID portion of the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview (PARDI) to determine ARFID diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Correlations between the PARDI-AR-Q and PARDI (r = 0.31-0.67) were weaker than the correlations between the NIAS and PARDI (r = 0.53-0.64) in both groups. The diagnostic positive predictive value for the PARDI-AR-Q was numerically higher (adults = 55.0%; parents/guardians = 76.0%) than the NIAS (adults = 45.8%; parents/guardians = 64.0%). Most PARDI-AR-Q dimensions and all NIAS dimensions were significant predictors of their corresponding PARDI dimensions in both groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The PARDI-AR-Q more accurately identified adults and children with ARFID, whereas the NIAS was a better estimator of ARFID symptoms. These findings provide partial support for using these self- and parent/guardian-report screeners. Results highlight the need to better understand diagnostic presentations of ARFID within community samples, particularly in adults, and to refine these tools within those populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":51067,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validating Online Parent- and Self-Report Screening Methods for Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder.\",\"authors\":\"Shelby N Ortiz, Jennifer P White, Casey M MacDermod, Lisa Dinkler, Laura M Thornton, Jessica Johnson, Jerry D Guintivano, Jessica H Baker, Cynthia M Bulik, Nadia Micali, Emily M Pisetsky\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eat.24376\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Although several assessments have been developed to diagnose or measure avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) symptoms, few studies have validated these tools in nonclinical and adult samples. This study explored the validity of two self- and parent/guardian-report ARFID screening measures in identifying adults and children who may have ARFID within a large community sample.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Fifty participants (divided into two groups: 25 adults and 25 parents/guardians of children) were selected from the ARFID Genes and Environment study, which enrolled over 3000 adults and parents/guardians of children who screened positive for ARFID on either the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview-ARFID Questionnaire (PARDI-AR-Q) or the Nine Item ARFID Screen (NIAS) self- and parent/guardian-report measures. Participants then completed the ARFID portion of the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview (PARDI) to determine ARFID diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Correlations between the PARDI-AR-Q and PARDI (r = 0.31-0.67) were weaker than the correlations between the NIAS and PARDI (r = 0.53-0.64) in both groups. The diagnostic positive predictive value for the PARDI-AR-Q was numerically higher (adults = 55.0%; parents/guardians = 76.0%) than the NIAS (adults = 45.8%; parents/guardians = 64.0%). Most PARDI-AR-Q dimensions and all NIAS dimensions were significant predictors of their corresponding PARDI dimensions in both groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The PARDI-AR-Q more accurately identified adults and children with ARFID, whereas the NIAS was a better estimator of ARFID symptoms. These findings provide partial support for using these self- and parent/guardian-report screeners. Results highlight the need to better understand diagnostic presentations of ARFID within community samples, particularly in adults, and to refine these tools within those populations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Eating Disorders\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Eating Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.24376\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.24376","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:虽然已经开发了几种评估方法来诊断或测量回避/限制性食物摄入障碍(ARFID)症状,但很少有研究在非临床和成人样本中验证这些工具。本研究探讨了两种自我和父母/监护人报告ARFID筛查措施在识别大型社区样本中可能患有ARFID的成人和儿童方面的有效性。方法:从ARFID基因与环境研究中选择了50名参与者(分为两组:25名成年人和25名儿童的父母/监护人),该研究招募了3000多名成人和儿童的父母/监护人,他们在异食癖、ARFID和反刍障碍访谈-ARFID问卷(PARDI-AR-Q)或九项ARFID筛选(NIAS)自我和父母/监护人报告措施中筛选出ARFID阳性。然后,参与者完成异食癖、ARFID和反刍障碍访谈(PARDI)的ARFID部分,以确定ARFID诊断。结果:两组患者PARDI- ar - q与PARDI的相关性(r = 0.31 ~ 0.67)弱于NIAS与PARDI的相关性(r = 0.53 ~ 0.64)。PARDI-AR-Q的诊断阳性预测值在数值上更高(成人= 55.0%;父母/监护人= 76.0%)高于NIAS(成人= 45.8%;父母/监护人= 64.0%)。在两组中,大多数PARDI- ar - q维度和所有NIAS维度都是其相应PARDI维度的显著预测因子。讨论:PARDI-AR-Q更准确地识别ARFID成人和儿童,而NIAS是ARFID症状的更好估计者。这些发现为使用这些自我和父母/监护人报告筛选器提供了部分支持。结果强调需要更好地了解ARFID在社区样本中的诊断表现,特别是在成人中,并在这些人群中完善这些工具。
Validating Online Parent- and Self-Report Screening Methods for Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder.
Objective: Although several assessments have been developed to diagnose or measure avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) symptoms, few studies have validated these tools in nonclinical and adult samples. This study explored the validity of two self- and parent/guardian-report ARFID screening measures in identifying adults and children who may have ARFID within a large community sample.
Method: Fifty participants (divided into two groups: 25 adults and 25 parents/guardians of children) were selected from the ARFID Genes and Environment study, which enrolled over 3000 adults and parents/guardians of children who screened positive for ARFID on either the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview-ARFID Questionnaire (PARDI-AR-Q) or the Nine Item ARFID Screen (NIAS) self- and parent/guardian-report measures. Participants then completed the ARFID portion of the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview (PARDI) to determine ARFID diagnosis.
Results: Correlations between the PARDI-AR-Q and PARDI (r = 0.31-0.67) were weaker than the correlations between the NIAS and PARDI (r = 0.53-0.64) in both groups. The diagnostic positive predictive value for the PARDI-AR-Q was numerically higher (adults = 55.0%; parents/guardians = 76.0%) than the NIAS (adults = 45.8%; parents/guardians = 64.0%). Most PARDI-AR-Q dimensions and all NIAS dimensions were significant predictors of their corresponding PARDI dimensions in both groups.
Discussion: The PARDI-AR-Q more accurately identified adults and children with ARFID, whereas the NIAS was a better estimator of ARFID symptoms. These findings provide partial support for using these self- and parent/guardian-report screeners. Results highlight the need to better understand diagnostic presentations of ARFID within community samples, particularly in adults, and to refine these tools within those populations.
期刊介绍:
Articles featured in the journal describe state-of-the-art scientific research on theory, methodology, etiology, clinical practice, and policy related to eating disorders, as well as contributions that facilitate scholarly critique and discussion of science and practice in the field. Theoretical and empirical work on obesity or healthy eating falls within the journal’s scope inasmuch as it facilitates the advancement of efforts to describe and understand, prevent, or treat eating disorders. IJED welcomes submissions from all regions of the world and representing all levels of inquiry (including basic science, clinical trials, implementation research, and dissemination studies), and across a full range of scientific methods, disciplines, and approaches.