Open AccessValidation of the Lithuanian version of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire 6.0 in a student sample
Author(s) -
Baceviciene Migle,
Balciuniene Vaiva,
Jankauskiene Rasa
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
brain and behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.915
H-Index - 41
ISSN - 2162-3279
DOI - 10.1002/brb3.1555
Subject(s) - cronbach's alpha , intraclass correlation , psychology , eating disorders , clinical psychology , construct validity , internal consistency , reliability (semiconductor) , psychometrics , quality of life (healthcare) , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics , psychotherapist
Background and Objectives The Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire 6.0 (EDE‐Q 6.0) is one of the most broadly used self‐report tools that assesses attitudes and behaviors associated with eating disorders (EDs). The aim of the present study was to examine the reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Lithuanian version of the EDE‐Q 6.0 (LT‐EDE‐Q 6.0) in a nonclinical student sample. Materials and Methods A sample of 382 students (mean age 24.0 ± 6.4) participated in the study. The students completed a self‐report questionnaire measuring the risk of EDs (LT‐EDE‐Q 6.0), body image (LT‐MBSRQ‐AS), quality of life (LT‐WHOQOL‐BREF), and self‐esteem (RSES). Cronbach's alpha assessed the internal consistency of the EDE‐Q 6.0. Pearson's correlations were used for the analyses of the construct and concurrent validity with the subscales of LT‐MBSRQ‐AS, LT‐WHOQOL‐BREF, and RSES. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for assessing test‐retest reliability. Results The mean score of the LT‐EDE‐Q 6.0 in the mixed sample was 1.5 ± 1.02. For women and men, the general mean scores were higher than in the majority of the samples of Western Europe but lower than in the United States. Acceptable internal consistency for the four subscales (0.75–0.88) and the LT‐EDE‐Q 6.0 general score (0.94) was obtained. Test‐retest reliability was good to excellent for all subscales (0.66–0.91) and for the items that assessed essential behavioral features of EDs (0.84–0.90, except item 14 ICC = 0.4). The LT‐EDE‐Q 6.0 scores had adequate concurrent validity. However, the original 4‐factor structure or other proposed models of EDE‐Q were not obtained by CFA. Conclusions The results of the current study support the applicability, validity, and reliability of the LT‐EDE‐Q 6.0 in a nonclinical Lithuanian student sample. However, we recommend assessing the general scale score without the application of the subscales. The Lithuanian version of this instrument should be further investigated with clinical samples to identify clinically diagnosed cases.