Cited by 58Eating Disorders and BehaviorsNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Diagnostic efficiency of DSM–IV indicators for binge eating episodes.

Open access
White, Marney A., Grilo, Carlos M.·2011·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Research has examined various aspects of the validity of the research criteria for binge eating disorder (BED) but has yet to evaluate the utility of the 5 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) "indicators for impaired control" specified to help determine loss of control while overeating (i.e., binge eating). We examined the diagnostic efficiency of these indicators proposed as part of the research criteria for BED (eating until uncomfortably full; eating when not hungry; eating more rapidly than usual; eating in secret; and feeling disgust, shame, or depression after the episode). METHOD: A total of 916 community volunteers completed a battery of measures including questions about each of the indicators. Participants were categorized into 3 groups: BED (N = 164), bulimia nervosa (BN; N = 83), and non-binge-eating controls (N = 669). Four conditional probabilities (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive power [PPP], and negative predictive power [NPP]) as well as total predictive value (TPV) and kappa coefficients were calculated for each indicator criterion in separate analyses comparing BED, BN, and combined BED + BN groups relative to controls. RESULTS: PPPs and NPPs suggest all of the indicators have predictive value, with eating alone because embarrassed (PPP = .80) and feeling disgusted (NPP = .93) performing as the best inclusion and exclusion criteria, respectively. The best overall indicators for correctly identifying binge eating (based on TPV and kappa) were eating when not hungry and eating alone because embarrassed. CONCLUSIONS: All 5 proposed indicators for impaired control for determining binge eating have utility, and the diagnostic efficiency statistics provide guidance for clinicians and the DSM-5 regarding their usefulness for inclusion or exclusion.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0022210

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
White, M. A., & Grilo, C. M.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2011
Volume
79
Issue
1
Pages
75-83
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2072956704
Cited by
58
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (K23 DK071646, K24 DK070052)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
binge eating disorder, DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, diagnostic validity, bulimia nervosa, sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Bulimia, Female, Humans, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Binge-Eating Disorder

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review