Cited by 419Eating Disorders and BehaviorsNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Development and psychometric validation of the EDE-QS, a 12 item short form of the eating disorder examination questionnaire (EDE-Q)

Open access
Gideon, Nicole, Hawkes, Nick, Mond, Jonathan, Saunders, Rob, Tchanturia, Kate, Serpell, Lucy·2016·PLoS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a short form of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) for routine, including session by session, outcome assessment. METHOD: The current, 28-item version (6.0) of the EDE-Q was completed by 489 individuals aged 18-72 with various eating disorders recruited from three UK specialist eating disorder services. Rasch analysis was carried out on factors identified by means of principal component analysis, which in combination with expert ratings informed the development of an EDE-Q short form. The shortened questionnaire's reliability, validity and sensitivity was assessed based on online data collected from students of a UK university and volunteers with a history of eating disorders recruited from a national eating disorders charity aged 18-74 (N = 559). RESULTS: A 12-item short form, the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire Short (EDE-QS) was derived. The new measure showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .913) and temporal stability (ICC = .93; p < .001). It was highly correlated with the original EDE-Q (r = .91 for people without ED; r = .82 for people with ED) and other measures of eating disorder and comorbid psychopathology. It was sufficiently sensitive to distinguish between people with and without eating disorders. DISCUSSION: The EDE-QS is a brief, reliable and valid measure of eating disorder symptom severity that performs similarly to the EDE-Q and that lends itself for the use of sessional outcome monitoring in treatment and research.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0152744

Cites

64 of 64 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

3 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gideon, N., Hawkes, N., Mond, J., Saunders, R., Tchanturia, K., & Serpell, L.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • East London NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • North East London NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Gideon, Nicole
  • Serpell, Lucy
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2016-05-03
Volume
11
Issue
5
Pages
e0152744
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2346705627
Cited by
419
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 72 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 74 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2
FWCI
15.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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
Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire, eating disorders, symptom severity assessment, questionnaire shortening, psychometric validation, Rasch analysis, treatment outcome assessment, temporal stability, sensitivity to change
MeSH terms
Feeding and Eating Disorders, United Kingdom, Humans, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires

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