Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Eating disorders are severe and often chronic mental illnesses that are associated with high impairment and mortality rates. Recent estimates suggest that eating disorder prevalence rates are on the rise, indicating an increased need for accurate assessment and detection. The current review provides an overview of transdiagnostic eating disorder assessments, including interview, self-report, health and primary care screeners, and technology-based and objective assessments. We focused on assessments that are transdiagnostic in nature and exhibit high impact in the field. We provide recommendations for how these assessments should be used in research and clinical settings. We also discuss considerations that are crucial for assessment, including the use of a categorical versus dimensional diagnostic framework, assessment of eating disorders in related fields (i.e., anxiety and depression), and measurement-based care for eating disorders. Finally, we provide suggestions for future research, including the need for more research on short transdiagnostic screeners for use in health care settings, standardized assessments for ecological momentary assessment, development of state-based assessment of eating disorder symptoms, and consideration of assessment across multiple timescales.

Keywords

eating disorders assessment anorexia nervosa detection bulimia nervosa

Introduction

Eating disorders (EDs) are serious psychiatric illnesses with high mortality, morbidity, and societal cost (Deloitte Access Economics, 2020). EDs are characterized by disturbances in eating behaviors, changes in weight, and impaired physical, emotional, and social functioning. Due to physiological complications and high suicide rates, EDs have the second-highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder, after opioid use disorder (Chesney et al., 2014). Lifetime prevalence of EDs is 14.3% in males and 19.7% in females (Ward et al., 2019). However, these rates likely underestimate the actual prevalence of EDs due to low rates of recognition, treatment-seeking, and lack of psychometrically strong assessment and screening in minorities, males, and older adults (Grillot & Keel, 2018), signifying the need for strong assessments of EDs that can accurately detect EDs in all populations.

ED Diagnoses

The three primary ED diagnoses include anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge-eating disorder (BED; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). However, about 50% of those with EDs fall into the category of other specified feeding and eating disorder (OSFED), such as atypical AN (AAN), which is a clinically significant and impairing ED that does not neatly fit into one of the primary diagnostic categories (Dalle Grave, 2011). Regardless of diagnosis, EDs are highly heterogeneous with high diagnostic overlap (i.e., restriction and binge eating are transdiagnostic behaviors, regardless of diagnosis), which complicates assessment and treatment (Keel et al., 2012). The Transdiagnostic Theory of EDs posits that common mechanisms and symptoms (e.g., overvaluation of eating, shape, and weight) are shared among all EDs such as AN, BN, and AAN (Fairburn et al., 2003). As such, this review focuses on transdiagnostic assessment of behaviors and cognitions that span across ED diagnoses (AN, BN, BED, and OSFED). Timely and accurate assessment of EDs can aid in early recognition and treatment of EDs and therefore reduce mortality rates and societal burden of these disorders.

Broad Overview of Current Assessment in EDs

Assessment is the foundation of both treatment of and research on EDs (Poston & Hanson, 2010). To date, ED assessments are used for several purposes, including determination of presence of an ED diagnosis, progress in treatment, and intensity of ED symptoms (including the following important domains: behaviors [e.g., restriction], cognitions [e.g., body dissatisfaction], and affect [e.g., fear of weight gain], and physiology [e.g., feeling full]). Currently, four types of assessments exist for EDs: Semi-structured interviews generally administered by a trained professional, self-report measures, task-based assessments, and technology-based assessments. In general, interviews (discussed in more depth below) are considered to be the most accurate type of assessment, but these can be lengthy and costly because they require a large amount of training to administer. Self-report assessments, including brief screening instruments, are easier to administer, but may be less reliable due to participant or client potentially misinterpreting the questions or desire to answer in a particular way (i.e., minimize symptoms). Task-based assessments (e.g., modified stroop task; Jones-Chesters et al., 1998) have the potential to eliminate these biases, but can be difficult to administer because they often require special equipment and laboratory environment. Finally, assessments using technologies such as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and sensor technology are emerging, such as wearable watch or a ring that passively (i.e., without any effort from a participant) collects physiological data (e.g., heart rate), geolocation data, and so on (K. E. Smith et al., 2019). These tools have the potential to provide low-burden and low-bias assessments of ED behavior (i.e., gym attendance and exercise intensity) but are still in the nascent stages. We will review each of these areas below and provide recommendations on their usage for both clinical and research purposes.

Importantly, a recent systematic review of the literature found close to 100 different assessments related to ED pathology (Piotrowski, 2018; Schaefer et al., 2021). Inclusion of all 100 assessments is beyond the scope of this review paper. Our overall aim of this article is to provide new, cutting-edge evidence-based assessment guidelines and raise issues in need of current research. As such, we focused this review on high impact transdiagnostic, and dimensional assessments of ED cognitions and behaviors (symptoms) that are common across all EDs. We had two primary selection criteria for assessments we review. First, we only included measures (interview and self-report) that assess EDs transdiagnostically and focus on dimensions rather than diagnoses. In other words, we did not include assessments of specific disordered eating behaviors. Instead, we focused only on assessments that measure core ED behaviors (e.g., restriction and binge eating) AND cognitions (e.g., overvaluation of weight and shape), given that research suggests that transdiagnostic EDs are characterized by behaviors and cognitions (e.g., Fairburn et al., 2003). Second, we focused on assessments that demonstrated high impact in the field (>20 cites standardized by years in existence). The only exceptions to this rule were inclusion of the relatively new Eating Pathology Symptoms Inventory–Clinician-Rated Version (EPSI-CRV; Forbush et al., 2020) and the Screen for Disordered Eating Scale (SDE; Maguen et al., 2018). We included the EPSI-CRV because we think it has great promise and expect it to garner high impact in the future, and we included the SDE to compare with the SCOFF (Morgan et al., 1999) in primary care settings. Notably, we only included assessments that have strong psychometric properties for the assessment of EDs: We did not include any highly cited measures with poor measurement. Finally, we included task-based measures and technology measures as areas in need of additional research. Of note, we focus our review on measures primarily on adults but also note when assessments are supported in adolescent populations. Please see Tables 1 and 2 for a list of included and excluded measures, along with a justification for inclusion/exclusion.

Table 1.

Included Measures.

Author(s), year	Measure name	Number of citations	Standardized citations^a	Reason for inclusion
Interviews
Z. Cooper & Fairburn (1987)	Eating Disorder Examination (EDE)	1,635	191.34	High impact^b
First (2015)	Structured clinical interview for DSM-5 (SCID-5)	1,505	167	High impact
Sheehan et al. (1998)	The MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview	23,368	935	High impact
Forbush et al. (2020)	Eating Pathology Symptoms Inventory-Clinician Rated Version (EPSI-CRV)	9	2	Possibility of high impact in the future
Maguen et al. (2018)	Screen for disordered eating	63	4	Use as a comparison of the SCOFF in primary care settings
Morgan et al. (1999)	SCOFF	1,474	65	High impact
Self-report
Fairburn & Beglin (1994)	Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q)	5,548	191.34	High impact
Carey et al. (2019)	Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q18)	65	16	EDE-Q with alternate factor structure
Kliem et al. (2016)	Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q8)	93	12	EDE-Q with alternate factor structure
Gideon et al. (2016)	Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire Short Form (EDE-SF)	190	27	EDE-Q with alternate factor structure
Grilo et al. (2013)	Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire Short Form (EDE-Q7)	172	21.5	EDE-Q with alternate factor structure
Stice et al. (2008)	Eating Disorder Diagnostic Scale (EDDS)	497	33	High impact
Forbush et al. (2013)	Eating Pathology Symptoms Inventory (EPSI)	315	31	High impact
Garner & Garfinkel (1979)	Eating Attitudes Test (EAT)	6,358	155	High impact
Garner et al. (1983)	Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI)	6,508	163	High impact
Stice et al. (2000)	Eating Disorder Diagnostic Scale (EDDS)	1,031	45	High impact
Tatham et al. (2015)	ED-15	90	11	Only state ED measure
Bohn & Fairburn (2008)	Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA)	442	29	High impact

Citations were standardized by dividing total number of citations by number of years in existence. ^bImpact was operationalized as scales with > 20 citations per year.

Table 2.

Excluded Measures.

Author(s), year	Measure	Citations	Standardized number of citations^a	Reason for exclusion
Interview
Carrard et al. (2016)	Semi-structured Interview for Eating Disorders (ESSCA)	0	0	Did not meet impact cut-off^b
Sysko et al. (2015)	Eating Disorder Assessment for DSM-5 (EDA-5)	162	20	Did not meet impact cut-off
Fichter et al. (1998)	Structured interview for anorexic and bulimic disorders for DSM-IV and ICD-10 (Third Version)	255	10	Did not meet impact cut-off
Fichter et al. (1991)	Structured Interview for Anorexia and Bulimia Nervosa (SIAB)	114	4	Did not meet impact cut-off
Self-report
Sunday et al. (1995)	The Yale-Brown-Cornell Eating Disorder Scale	213	7	Did not meet impact cut-off
van Strien et al. (1986)	Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire	4,332	117	Use of controversial construct (emotional eating)
Mintz et al. (1997)	Questionnaire for Eating Disorder Diagnosis	393	15	Did not meet impact cut-off
von Ranson et al. (2005)	Minnesota Eating Behaviors Survey	133	7	Did not meet impact cut-off
Fichter et al. (2015)	Munich ED-Quest	25	3	Did not meet impact cut-off
Anderson et al. (1999)	Multifactorial Assessment of Eating Disorders Symptoms (MAEDS)	119	5	Did not meet impact cut-off
Alvarenga et al. (2010)	Disordered Eating Attitude Scale (DEAS)	123	9	Did not meet impact cut-off
Moessner et al. (2015)	Clinical and Research Inventory for Eating Disorders (CR-EAT)	20	3	Did not meet impact cut-off
ter Huurne et al. (2015)	Eating Disorder Questionnaire–Online (EDE-Q Online)	15	2	Did not meet impact cut-off
Yanovski et al. (2015)	Questionnaire of Eating and Weight Patterns–5 (QEWP-5)	114	14	Did not meet impact cut-off
Blomquist et al. (2014)	Eating Loss of Control Scale	73	8	Did not meet impact cut-off
Latner et al. (2014)	Loss of Control Over Eating Scale	114	13	Did not meet impact cut-off
M. Cooper et al. (1997)	Eating Disorder Belief Questionnaire	144	6	Did not meet impact cut-off
Spangler (2010)	Change in Eating Disorder Symptoms Scale (CHEDS)	17	1	Did not meet impact cut-off
de Young & Anderson (2017)	Interactive, Graphical Assessment Tool (IGAT)	3	< 1	Did not meet impact cut-off
Bauer et al. (2005)	Short Evaluation of Eating Disorders (SEED)	146	8	Did not meet impact cut-off
Bachner-Melman et al. (2018)	Eating Disorders Recovery Endorsement Questionnaire (EDREQ)	20	4	Did not meet impact cut-off

Citations were standardized by dividing total number of citations by number of years in existence. ^bImpact was operationalized as scales with >20 citations per year.

Current Eating Disorder Assessments

Structured and Semi-Structured Clinical Interviews

The Eating Disorder Examination (EDE; Z. Cooper & Fairburn, 1987) is a semi-structured interview designed to assess the full range of current ED psychopathology (cognitions and behaviors). The EDE is widely used and often considered the “gold standard for ED assessment” (Walsh et al., 2015). The EDE, 17th edition (EDE-17.0D; Fairburn et al., 2014) consists of 62 items that mainly focus on the previous 4 weeks (e.g., 28 days or 1 month). Each item includes at least one mandatory probe question, as well as optional supplementary questions designed to elicit sufficient information for the interviewer to make an informed rating. The EDE yields frequency data on key ED behaviors in terms of the number of episodes of a specific behavior or the number of days on which the behavior occurred, and subscale scores reflecting cognitive features of EDs, including the following four subscales: Dietary Restraint, Eating Concern, Weight Concern, and Shape Concern (Fairburn et al., 2014). In addition, there is an overall global score that is derived by taking the average of the four subscale scores. The EDE takes approximately 45 minutes to 1.25 hours to administer, generally by a highly trained professional, and is appropriate for ages 14 years and older (Fairburn et al., 2014; Walsh et al., 2015). It is important to note that administration of the EDE requires clinical expertise and specialized training to administer (Fairburn et al., 2014; Walsh et al., 2015). While psychometric data for the EDE-17.0D are not available in the primary publication, the psychometric properties of earlier versions support the reliability and validity of EDE scores (Berg, Peterson, Frazier, & Crow, 2012; Schaefer et al., 2021). Prior studies have also found that the EDE is able to capture clinically significant change across treatments (Fairburn et al., 2009; Le Grange et al., 2007).

Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; APA, 2013) Eating Disorder Modules (SCID-5; APA, 2013) is a semi-structured interview for making standardized DSM-5 (APA, 2013) diagnoses in adults. The SCID-5 Research Version (SCID-5-RV; First et al., 2015) contains a module for assessing diagnostic criteria for feeding and eating disorders (i.e., AN-R, AN-B/P, BN, BED, OSFED, and avoidant–restrictive food intake disorder [ARFID]) that include transdiagnostic ED symptoms. The SCID assesses both current and lifetime diagnoses and includes criteria for partial or full remission, which may be important to assess for clinical treatment and research purposes. The assessor is also prompted to obtain age at illness onset and to rate current illness severity. Administration time of the full SCID ranges from 1 to 2 hours; however, implementation and scoring of the ED module only can be completed in about 10 minutes (Walsh et al., 2015). Ideally, the SCID should be administered by an assessor who has sufficient clinical experience and knowledge of ED psychopathology and DSM diagnostic criteria to make informed clinical judgments about the interviewee’s responses. However, those with less knowledge or clinical experience can administer the SCID if they receive appropriate training under the supervision of an experienced assessor (Walsh et al., 2015).

There are currently no reliability and validity data available for SCID-5 eating and feeding disorder diagnoses, however, prior research provides support for the psychometric properties of earlier versions of the SCID (Lobbestael et al., 2011; Schaefer et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2010; Walsh et al., 2015; Zanarini et al., 2000). For example, one study found evidence of fair interrater reliability (κ = 0.61) for SCID-IV diagnoses of EDs, while another found evidence of excellent interrater reliability (κ = 0.70; Lobbestael et al., 2011; Thomas et al., 2010). Similarly, another study reported excellent interrater reliability (κ = 0.77) and good test–retest reliability (κ = 0.64) for SCID-IV diagnoses of EDs (Zanarini et al., 2000). Our recommendation for usage of the SCID-5 ED modules is to use them in conjunction with another more specific assessment of ED pathology. Our team generally implements the SCID-5 in conjunction with the Eating Disorders Diagnostic Interview (EDDI; see below) to arrive at a clear ED diagnosis, as there is limited psychometric data on the ED modules administered on their own.

The EDDI (Stice et al., 2008) is a semi-structured interview that was adapted from the EDE by capturing the presence of each ED symptom (cognitions and behaviors) over the past month. Nondiagnostic items from the Weight Concern, Shape Concern, Eating Concern, and Dietary Restraint subscales of the EDE were omitted from the EDDI (Rohde et al., 2015). Items assessing ED symptoms in the past month are summed to create an overall ED symptom composite (Stice et al., 2008). Prior studies have shown that the symptom composite exhibits good internal consistency, test–retest reliability, interrater agreement, sensitivity to detect effects of ED prevention and intervention programs, and predictive validity for onset of depression (Rohde et al., 2015; Stice et al., 2008, 2011, 2013).

Eating Pathology Symptoms Inventory–Clinician Rated Version (EPSI-CRV; Forbush et al., 2020). The EPSI-CRV is a semi-structured interview for assessment of ED symptoms pathology in adults that is based on the self-report version of the EPSI (Forbush et al., 2013). This assessment is novel, but is included in this review because of its strong psychometrics, transdiagnostic assessment, and potential for high impact. The EPSI-CRV measures both dimensional nature of ED symptoms and generates a current DSM-5 ED diagnoses. The EPSI-CRV consists of 13 modules. Eight modules mimic self-report version of the EPSI and include Body Dissatisfaction, Binge Eating, Cognitive Restraint, Excessive Exercise, Restricting, Purging, Muscle Building, and Negative Attitudes Toward Obesity. Five additional modules are used to determine DSM-5 diagnoses: Subjective Binge Episodes, Binge Eating Disorder, Low Weight, Overvaluation of Weight and Shape, and Fear of Weight Gain. Items within each dimensional module are rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very often) based on the frequency of behaviors or cognitions. The module is then scored by adding up item responses to derive a total score. Modules that are used to determine ED diagnosis also include a categorical rating that is coded as absent, subthreshold, or present. The EPSI-CRV demonstrated good interrater reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, strong construct validity, and a good factor structure (Forbush et al., 2020). The EPSI-CRV takes approximately 40 minutes to administer and can be used in both clinical and research settings. The recommended training for administering EPSI-CRV includes knowledge of DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, competency in interviewing skills, and some basic knowledge of ED psychopathology. One benefit of EPSI-CRV is it was designed for the use in the community settings and specialty training in EDs is not required. EPSI-CRV may also be better at capturing ED pathology in diverse populations than other interviews (e.g., presence of muscle building subscale). Finally, the EPSI-CRV is highly structured and desired to minimize clinician or researcher interpretation and therefore bias.

The MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.; Sheehan et al., 1998) is a brief diagnostic structured interview designed to assess for the presence of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; APA, 1994) and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) psychiatric disorders. Sheehan et al. (1998) identified a need for a structured interview that could simultaneously meet the needs of academic research–oriented settings, clinical settings in psychiatry and psychology, and primary care settings that require brief and accurate screening measures (Sheehan et al., 1998). Early in the development of the M.I.N.I., Sheehan et al. (1998) recognized the implicit tradeoff between brevity and accuracy and ultimately decided to design each module to be slightly overinclusive to accept more false positives rather than miss true cases (Sheehan et al., 1998). The current version of the M.I.N.I. (English Version 7.0.2) consists of modules for the following DSM-5 and ICD-10 diagnostic categories, including AN, BN, and BED. Most of the modules include one or two screening questions to rule out the diagnosis when answered negatively (Lecrubier et al., 1997). Administration of the M.I.N.I. takes approximately 15 minutes and requires limited training; however, lay interviewers may require more extensive training relative to experienced clinicians (Sheehan et al., 1998).

The initial validation of the M.I.N.I. evaluated the diagnostic concordance among the M.I.N.I., the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., rev.; DSM-III-R; APA, 1987; SCID-III), and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI; Sheehan et al., 1998). The comparison of the M.I.N.I. and the SCID-III provided evidence of good to excellent diagnostic concordance, with kappa values of 0.90 and 0.78 for AN and BN, respectively (Sheehan et al., 1998). The comparison of the M.I.N.I. and the CIDI also showed good to very good diagnostic concordance, with a kappa value of 0.53 for lifetime BN (Sheehan et al., 1998). The M.I.N.I. also showed excellent interrater reliability for AN and BN, and good to excellent test–retest reliability for AN and BN, respectively (Sheehan et al., 1998).

Based on the available literature, we recommend using either the EDE or a combination of the SCID-V ED modules with another assessment (either EDE or EDDI) to capture accurate ED diagnoses. This combination allows for characterization of transdiagnostic EDs and includes all relevant cognitions and behaviors. In addition, although psychometric data are limited, the EPSI-CRV demonstrates strong promise as an interview assessment for EDs.

Self-Report in Clinical Practice and Research

Although clinical interviews are considered the “gold standard” for the assessment of EDs, they are often time-intensive and require extensive training to administer properly (Berg, Peterson, & Frazier, 2012). As an alternative, researchers have developed various self-report assessments that quickly and efficiently assess ED symptoms. Self-report assessments are particularly useful in settings that do not specialize in the diagnosis and treatment of EDs, as self-report instruments often require significantly less training and time to administer. Unsurprisingly, self-report ED assessments are frequently used among clinicians and researchers alike (Fitzsimmons-Craft et al., 2019; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [USPSTF], 2022). Commonly used transdiagnostic ED self-report assessments that capture both cognitions and behaviors include the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q; Fairburn & Beglin, 2008), the Eating Pathology Symptom Inventory (EPSI; Forbush et al., 2013), the Eating Attitudes Test (EAT; Garner & Garfinkel, 1979), the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI; Garner et al., 1983), and the Eating Disorder Diagnostic Scale (EDDS; Stice et al., 2000).

Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire Version 6

The EDE-Q is a self-report measure commonly used for diagnostic and screening and for assessment of ED severity (cognitions and behaviors) either in terms of treatment outcome or in terms of research purposes (Ayala et al., 2022; Mond et al., 2004). As a self-report alternative to the EDE, the 28-item questionnaire is similarly composed of four subscales measuring dietary restraint and eating, weight, and shape concerns, and utilizes the same 28-day time frame as the EDE. Instead of an interview, the 28-item EDE-Q uses 6-point Likert-type scales ranging from 0 days to everyday for each item (Mond et al., 2008). The convergent validity between the EDE and the EDE-Q is considered acceptable (Mond et al., 2004; Reas et al., 2011); however, individuals tend to score higher on the EDE-Q compared with the EDE (Mond et al., 2004). Research also suggests the EDE-Q sufficiently differentiates people with EDs from those without EDs, although the questionnaire is less adept at detecting the presence of binge-eating disorder (BED) and subjective binge-eating episodes (Aardoom et al., 2012; Berg, Peterson, Frazier, & Crow, 2012; Reas et al., 2006). Overall, data on the EDE-Q suggest that the factor validity is strongest for use of an overall subscale of ED symptom severity (Calugi et al., 2017; Peterson et al., 2007). Furthermore, a cut-off score of 2.3 is commonly used to indicate likelihood of clinically elevated ED symptoms (Mond et al., 2004). In addition to the full version of the EDE-Q, several shorter versions exist when time is a consideration for assessment, including the EDE-Q7, EDE-Q18, EDE-Q8, and EDE-SF.

Short Versions of the EDE-Q

The EDE-Q7 was developed by Grilo and colleagues (2013) and includes seven items with three subscales: dietary restraint, overvaluation of shape/weight, and body dissatisfaction. While the EDE-Q18 is also composed of three subscales, the subscales are restriction, weight/shape concern, and preoccupation/eating concerns (Carey et al., 2019). Alternatively, the EDE-Q8 (Kliem et al., 2016), comprised of eight items, provided support for the original four subscale model of the EDE-Q. Finally, Gideon and colleagues (2016) developed the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire Short Form (EDE-SF), which includes 12 items loading onto five factors. Because the EDE-SF evaluates the prior 7 days rather than the typical 28-day timeframe, it has been used by clinicians and researchers to measure treatment progress and research outcomes (Piya et al., 2021; Rom et al., 2022). Overall, the identified brief versions of the EDE-Q show acceptable psychometric properties, although some, such as the EDE-SF and the EDE-Q7, currently have greater evidence of strong validity and are used more frequently than others (Jenkins & Rienecke, 2019; Machado et al., 2020). Future research is needed from the field for consensus on which short form is ideal for usage in research and clinical work, although in general the EDE-SF and EDE-Q7 appear to have the best evidence of validity.

The Eating Pathology Symptom Inventory (Forbush et al., 2013) is a 45-item multidimensional measure developed to assess ED pathology (cognitions and behaviors) across a variety of populations. EPSI has six subscales: Body Dissatisfaction, Binge Eating, Cognitive Restraint, Excessive Exercise, Restricting, Purging, Muscle Building and Negative Attitudes toward Obesity. The items are rated on the Likert-type scale from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). The EPSI has demonstrated strong evidence for test–retest reliability, internal consistency, and convergent and discriminant validity across a range of samples in men and women (Forbush et al., 2014). The EPSI was designed to minimize gender and weight-related bias (Forbush et al., 2013, 2020). The EPSI has a strong factor structure and is able to differentiate between ED diagnoses (Forbush et al., 2013, 2014). Advantages of EPSI include separation of cognitive restraint and restriction constructs, inclusion of excessive exercise subscale, and muscle building subscale, which allows for more effective assessment of EDs in males. Overall, the EPSI is a very strong assessment of ED pathology, especially when implementing research from a latent variable perspective (i.e., use of subscales).

Eating Attitudes Test 26

Originally comprised of 40 items evaluating eating attitudes and behaviors (Garner & Garfinkel, 1979), the EAT was quickly shortened to its current version, the Eating Attitudes Test 26 (EAT-26), which includes 26 items with responses ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always; Garner & Garfinkel, 1979). The EAT-26 is composed of three transdiagnostic subscales (dieting behavior, preoccupation with food and “bulimic behaviors” [p. 873], and self-control and external pressure regarding weight). As with the EDE-Q, researchers have identified differences in the factor structure during subsequent confirmatory factor analyses, although most studies demonstrate items loading onto either three or five factors (Rivas et al., 2010; Spivak-Lavi et al., 2021).

Although the EAT-26 has performed well in some cross-cultural replication studies (Asl et al., 2021; Kang et al., 2017), some research suggests the EAT-26 may not translate well across cultures and racial groups (Kelly et al., 2012; Spivak-Lavi et al., 2021). In addition, the EAT-26 demonstrates appropriate sensitivity to change, making it a useful tool for clinical trials or with health care settings (Hepworth et al., 2010). Although the EAT-26 has frequently been used as an assessment tool, Garfinkel and Newman (2001) advised caution for use as a screening tool in community samples due to evidence suggesting its relatively low sensitivity with nonclinical populations. This continues to be a concern among some researchers (McEnery et al., 2016).

Eating Disorder Inventory Version 3

The EDI was first developed to assess cognitions and behaviors of AN and BN but has since been adapted to include additional transdiagnostic EDs. The first edition of the EDI included 64 items with responses ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). The most recent version, the 91-item Eating Disorder Inventory Version 3 (EDI-3; Garner, 2004), was developed by Garner in 2004 and is composed of three ED-specific subscales (drive for thinness, bulimic behaviors, and body dissatisfaction) in addition to nine subscales measuring associated mental health symptoms (“low self-esteem, personal alienation, interpersonal insecurity, interpersonal alienation, interoceptive deficits, emotional dysregulation, perfectionism, asceticism and maturity fear” [Clausen et al., 2011, p. 102]). Clausen et al. (2011) tested the psychometric properties of the EDI-3 using confirmatory factor analysis, and results aligned with Garner’s original factor structure. In addition, the EDI-3 demonstrates acceptable detection of positive ED cases and non-ED cases as well as good internal consistency and construct validity (Clausen et al., 2011; Cumella, 2006). Unlike other ED diagnostic tools, the EDI-3’s assessment of ED adjacent subscales could provide additional context about participant responses to the ED subscales. However, research suggests the EDI-3 may be less appropriate to use with men (Stanford & Lemberg, 2012). A final consideration is that the EDI-3 is copyrighted, and researchers and clinicians must pay for its use, limiting its ability to be a widely inclusive assessment.

Eating Disorder Diagnostic Scale (EDDS) is a 22-item self-report tool that assesses a variety of cognitions and behaviors associated with AN, BN, and BED within the past 3 to 6 months. The scale utilizes a variety of response options, including items that are dichotomous, multiple-choice, and based on frequency of ED behaviors, all of which are summed to create the total score. Higher scores likely indicate more severe ED pathology. Because the EDDS is based on the diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (APA, 2013), it is frequently used as a tool to diagnose EDs and can be used as a self-report assessment to determine diagnoses (Bankoff et al., 2016). However, limitations of the EDDS include its relatively high identification of false-positive cases and suboptimal psychometric properties across gender and racial/ethnic groups (Kelly et al., 2012). Notable advantages of the EDDS include the assessment of BED behaviors and ability to detect BED as well as its sensitivity to change, which makes it a useful tool for monitoring treatment progress.

Eating Disorder–15 is a brief 10-item assessment that measures ED cognitions and behaviors over the prior 7 days (Tatham et al., 2015). It consists of two subscales, namely, the Weight/Shape concern subscale and the Eating Concerns subscale, which measure “near identical constructs” to the EDE-Q (Tatham et al., 2015, p. 1005). Similar to the EDE-Q, the ED-15 has high internal consistency, sensitivity, and test–retest reliability, making it a useful tool for measuring rapid changes in ED symptomology in both clinical and research settings (Rodrigues et al., 2019; Tatham et al., 2015). Tatham and colleagues (2015) note, however, that although the ED-15 is useful for session-by-session monitoring, it should be used in conjunction with longer measurement tools to assess change in overall symptoms over extended periods of time.

State ED Assessments

State assessments measure psychological phenomena that are unstable across time and can be affected by a variety of internal and external factors (Cole et al., 2005; Hertzog & Nesselroade, 1987). Despite evidence demonstrating differing physiological and emotional states can impact disordered eating behaviors (Dingemans et al., 2017; Leehr et al., 2015), the ED literature is currently lacking state assessments of transdiagnostic ED cognitions and behaviors (i.e., symptoms). In recent years, however, two brief measures have been developed to measure changes in ED symptoms across a brief period of time (7 days): EDE-SF and the ED-15. In contrast to most ED assessments that assess symptoms over extended periods of time, usually a month or longer, the ED-15 (Tatham et al., 2015) evaluates symptoms within the past 7 days, making it better suited to track session by session changes in ED symptoms (Tatham et al., 2015). In addition, the brevity and efficiency of the ED-15 make it more conducive for consistent use and monitoring of rapid changes in symptoms throughout treatment. Similarly, the EDE-SF mentioned previously is used to measure rapid changes in treatment by evaluating the prior 7 days of treatment (Piya et al., 2021; Rom et al., 2022). Development of an ED state measure is a crucial need for the ED field, as such a measure could be used in experimental, prospective, and momentary study designs to assess current levels of ED symptoms.

Recommendations for Self-Report Assessments

Usage of self-report assessments depends heavily on the intended function of the assessment. In general, the EPSI has the strongest psychometric reports for use in research populations when research is centered from a traditional disease model and drawing from latent variable theory (Forbush et al., 2016). The EDE-Q is a strong measure in terms of symptom report and can be used either in its original or in its short form in both research and clinical work to determine symptom severity, and when research is drawing from a network perspective (i.e., symptom reports; Mond et al., 2004). The EDDS is advantageous for diagnosis when an interview is too timely or costly. In general, self-report assessment should consider the function, purpose, and feasibility of their assessment when selection is made. Notably, additional self-report measures that measure either specific ED behaviors only or eating styles (rather than symptoms; for example, emotional eating) not discussed, but also warranting consideration dependent upon the construct/symptom of interest are the Dutch Eating Behavior Scale (Van Strien et al., 1986), the Binge Eating Scale (Gormally et al., 1982), and the Yale-Brown-Cornell Eating Disorder Scale (Sunday et al., 1995). For a full systematic review of self-report assessments, see Schaefer et al. (2021).

Screening Assessments for Use in Primary Care and Other Health Care Settings

Research suggests early detection and treatment of ED cognitions and behaviors (i.e., symptoms) is associated with better health and psychological outcomes, including shorter duration of illness, decreased symptom severity, and increased ED recovery rates (Austin et al., 2021; Treasure et al., 2015). In addition, some research suggests that simply screening for EDs may not significantly facilitate increased treatment-seeking behavior among people at risk of an ED, indicating a possible need for the simultaneous provision of screening and treatment interventions (Shah et al., 2022). Furthermore, EDs are most often detected and diagnosed by a primary care provider (PCP; Striegel-Moore et al., 2008), signifying the need for accurate and comprehensive ED screening assessments that can be used within primary and other health care settings. Unfortunately, researchers have observed inconsistent and insufficient use of ED assessments among many PCPs, who often report feeling ill-equipped to assess and treat EDs (Currin et al., 2009; Linville et al., 2013; Thompson-Brenner et al., 2012). However, there is evidence suggesting that when PCPs are provided appropriate ED-specific training and support, they are more likely to assess and identify patients with EDs, and subsequently, provide a higher number of referrals to specialized ED services (Linville et al., 2013; Wade et al., 2022). When PCPs do conduct ED assessments, they frequently use brief self-report screening tools such as the SCOFF or the Screen for Disordered Eating (SDE), rather than more time-intensive diagnostic assessments such as the EDE-Q (Johnston et al., 2007). Below we review assessments that can be used in primary care settings.

SCOFF

Morgan and colleagues (1999) created the five-item SCOFF questionnaire, which is the most frequently used transdiagnostic ED screening tool in primary care settings, possibly due to its brevity and satisfactory ability to discriminate between individuals with and without EDs (Hay et al., 2022). SCOFF is an acronym based on the first letter of the five questions assessing for ED symptoms: Sick (self-Induced vomiting), control (feeling out of control around food), One (weight loss of one or more European Stones), Fat (belief that oneself is larger than others claim), and Food (feeling that food dominates one’s life). The five dichotomously scored items assess the presence of cognitive or behavioral symptoms of AN and BN, and endorsement of two or more items indicates clinically significant ED symptoms. Although the SCOFF demonstrates an adequate ability to identify people with AN and BN, research indicates it is less sensitive in detecting other EDs, including BED and OSFED (Kutz et al., 2020; Solmi et al., 2015). In addition, the USPSTF (2022) indicates there is currently a lack of evidence regarding its use with adolescents, men and gender-diverse individuals, and among racial and ethnic minorities.

Screening for Disordered Eating

Maguen and colleagues (2018) combined select items from previous ED assessments to develop the SDE in an attempt to increase identification of BED and other transdiagnostic disordered eating behaviors in primary care settings. Like the SCOFF, the SDE is composed of five items that assess common ED symptoms. Also similar to the SCOFF, the SDE uses a cutoff score of two or more affirmative responses. Unlike the SCOFF, however, the SDE assesses for episodes of binge eating, making it a promising tool for identifying BED in primary care settings. In a comparison between the two measures, the SDE demonstrated greater detection of AN, BN, and BED compared with the SCOFF (Maguen et al., 2018). However, more research is needed as there is not yet sufficient evidence to make definitive claims about the superiority of either screening tool.

Recommendations for Screenings in Primary Care

Our recommendation for screenings in primary care is to use the SDE to ensure comprehensive assessment of all EDs. However, use of either the SCOFF or SDE is encouraged. Finally, clearly given the lack of evidence on screening tools for EDs and high prevalence of treatment seeking in these settings, this area is a high priority area for future research.

We will now briefly review additional areas of assessment that are needed to broadly assess ED symptoms, including an emphasis on areas that are in need of future research.

Assessment of Comorbidities

EDs are highly comorbid with multiple additional mental disorders, including, but not limited to, depression, social anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and substance use disorders (Pallister & Waller, 2008; Pearlstein, 2002; Vagg et al., 1980; Van Alsten & Duncan, 2020). While a review of the assessments for each of these conditions is beyond the scope of this article, we highly recommend assessment of these disorders, in addition to ED symptoms to gain a full picture of ED pathology. We also highly recommend that researchers and clinicians who specialize in anxiety and depression include assessments of EDs, given that EDs are significantly elevated in these populations (Garcia et al., 2020). Furthermore, recent research has shown, in particular, that social appearance anxiety (i.e., fear of evaluation of one’s appearance), shame, perfectionism, and self-criticism are core aspects of ED pathology (Bardone-Cone et al., 2007; Levinson et al., 2021), indicating that these constructs are also extremely relevant for assessment.

Ecological Momentary Assessment

A major limitation of interview, self-report, and screening assessments is that most require individuals to report on cognitions, behaviors, and emotions that occurred prior, which introduces recall biases (Berg, Peterson, & Frazier, 2012; Ebner-Priemer et al., 2006) and that these assessments are generally focused on one time point, which limits the ability to explore symptom dynamics (Stone & Shiffman, 1994). In response to concerns with response bias and in an effort to increase the ability to capture processes across time, new types of assessments have been developed. EMA, also called experience sampling or time-series methodologies (Trull & Ebner-Priemer, 2009; Walz et al., 2014), is an assessment method that uses repeated real-time sampling of a person’s current behavior, emotions, and cognitions in their natural environment. EMA generally involves prompted (time-contingent) or participant-initiated (event-contingent) self-report ratings focused on how participant feels “in the moment” and any behaviors they have engaged in since last check-in. In general, EMA typically measures state versus trait psychological constructs (e.g., body dissatisfaction experienced in the moment rather than in general). For more information on EMA, see Stone and Shiffman (1994) for a review. We will concentrate our discussion on EMA for the assessment of EDs.

Current EMA Assessments for ED

Research

EMA assessments can capture antecedents and consequences of ED behaviors (e.g., how an emotion may lead to a behavior or vice-versa) and can provide insight on the frequency and patterns of ED symptoms (e.g., change in symptoms at different times of the day; Engel et al., 2016), both of which are important for clinical work and research-focused investigations. To date, EMA assessment items have typically been developed for each study by modifying questions from existing self-report measures. For example, Engel et al. (2013) asked participants whether they engaged in a variety of ED behaviors since last check-in, such as binge eating, loss of control eating, and vomiting. Other measures include ED-related cognitions such as analog scale asking participants to rate how dissatisfied they were with their body since last check-in (Fitzsimmons-Craft et al., 2015). Another EMA measure included items to assess behaviors, cognitions, and emotions both in general and around mealtimes in individuals with EDs (e.g., I felt guilty during the most recent meal; Levinson et al., 2022). The most comprehensive ED EMA measure to date consists of 56 items assessing common behavioral, cognitive, and emotional symptoms of EDs as well as related transdiagnostic constructs and comorbidities (Levinson et al., 2021). One major limitation of EMA measures is lack of evaluation of psychometric properties, although past studies found convergence of EMA assessments with retrospective measures (Engel et al., 2016).

Clinical

Finally, Recovery Record is a clinical tool that adapted self-monitoring (a primary intervention in gold-standard treatments for EDs; Fairburn & Beglin, 2008) to an easy-to-use mobile application format that is used with clinician–patient pairs (Tregarthen et al., 2015). Recovery Record assesses daily ED symptoms, food intake, and current cognitions. In addition to Recovery Record, there are three additional commercialized applications with evidence-based assessment elements (Wasil et al., 2021). However, only Recovery Record was reported to have feasibility and acceptability compared with paper–pencil methods (Keshen et al., 2020; Lindgreen et al., 2018). This technology has strong support for its utility and shows how assessment methodologies can be integrated into clinical use (Goodwin et al., 2019; Peis et al., 2020).

Recommendations for EMA

EMA is a rapidly burgeoning area of assessment in the EDs, which has primarily been used for research purposes. There are many existing EMA assessments that have been used; however, few (if any) have had their psychometric properties tested. This area is also an area of high priority for additional research. Research is needed to establish comprehensive and uniform use of EMA in research that captures relevant aspects of EDs and related comorbidities. Finally, there is some research showing the utility of EMA-like tools for use in clinical treatment. Again, more research is needed to expand upon the best ways to use EMA in clinical settings. For example, EMA could be used to track progress across treatment or could be integrated into electronic medical records to help establish and guide evidence-based treatment.

Behavioral Tasks

Laboratory Tasks

Another area of growing interest for assessment is the use of objective assessments of behavior. For example, behavioral tasks such as modified stroop, modified dot-probe (MacLeod et al., 1986), Go/No-Go, visual search task, word association, and anagrams as well as psychophysiological methodologies such as eye-tracking, startle eye-blink modulation and facial electromyography, event-related potentials, positron emission tomography, and functional magnetic resonance imaging have been shown to identify ED symptoms, cognitions, and behaviors more implicitly (see systematic and methodological review for more details on these methods; Ralph-Nearman, Achee, et al., 2019). An examination of literature with implicit processing, and automatic approach and avoidance responses to ED-related stimuli (e.g., food, body, and perfectionism) demonstrated that while behavioral responses were typically similar across ED diagnoses transdiagnostically, that diagnostic differences immersed with those studies that also included psychophysiological assessments (Ralph-Nearman, Achee, et al., 2019).

Assessment in the Natural Environment

Outside the laboratory, behavioral tasks, smartphone applications, and wearable sensor technologies are being developed to assess EDs and related symptoms. These tools may include self-assessment and passive monitoring (see review of digital psychiatry tools: Torous et al., 2021) as well as more implicit and visual assessments in individuals’ everyday life. Both behavioral avoidance of ED stimuli (such as high-fat body size or food) and body image disturbance (such as overestimation of body size, or body dissatisfaction) increase risk of relapse in EDs and are therefore crucial behaviors to assess (e.g., Carter et al., 2012; Keel et al., 2005).

Behavioral Avoidance Assessments

Behavioral avoidance of ED stimuli, such as high-fat food and high body mass index (BMI), is predictive of ED relapse and related to ED pathology. One such multi-platform assessment, the Approach-Avoidance task (AAT), has recently been developed (Ciotti et al., 2022). This tool assesses the implicit processing of visual body- and food-related stimuli. See Brockmeyer et al. (2020), Lender et al. (2019), and Neimeijer et al. (2019) for more information. The advantage of this assessment is the objective measurement of implicit cognitive biases toward food and body present in EDs.

Visual Body Image Disturbance and Concerns Assessments

Body-related disturbance are made up of perceptual (e.g., body size distortion) and attitudinal (e.g., body dissatisfaction) aspects and are a key cognitive symptom that drives ED pathology (e.g., Metral et al., 2014; Stice, 2002) and a criterion for diagnosing EDs (e.g., AN; APA, 2013). A new digital multi-platform to assess multidimensional aspects of body-related disturbance, called Somatomap (Ralph-Nearman, Arevian, et al., 2019; Ralph-Nearman et al., 2021), has demonstrated high reliability as a perceptual marker of visual body image disturbance in AN (Ralph-Nearman, et al., 2023). See Ralph-Nearman, Arevian, et al. (2019) for more information on this tool.

The Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP; Payne et al., 2005) is a computer-based measure to assess automatic affective reactions or implicit affect by indexing reactions to stimuli such as larger bodies and high-calorie food pictures (Spring & Bulik, 2014). The AMP has been adapted for use in remote settings to detect negative implicit evaluations of eating and food-related stimuli. The AMP was shown to predict ED symptoms and behaviors overtime (A. R. Smith et al., 2018) and represents an additional behavioral assessment that can be used to assess ED pathology.

Physiological Indices

Another area of potential promise in terms of objective assessment is psychophysiological assessment. Wearable physiological sensors have shown some promise in passively detecting the pre-onset of problematic behavioral episodes in other illnesses such as predicting epileptic seizures (Meritam et al., 2018), autistic outbursts (Goodwin et al., 2019), and discharge timing for hospitalized patients with severe depression (Peis et al., 2020). Recent research has begun to explore passive sensor technology in relation to ED symptoms and prediction of relapse. For example, recent research has found that global positioning system can predict binge eating (Juarascio et al., 2015) and that passively collected physiological data combined with machine learning analytics can predict purging behaviors (Ralph-Nearman, et al., in press 2023). This type of assessment may provide a new methodology for easy to collect, low-burden assessment of ED psychopathology (see K. E. Smith et al., 2019, for a review).

Recommendations for Objective Assessments

To date, there are few objective assessments of ED symptoms and related pathology, although some newer measures, including measures of body and food avoidance, perceptual body disturbances, and implicit attitudes toward food and body, are in existence. This area is one with great promise and more research is needed to both develop objective assessments and test how to best implement these assessments into research and clinical settings.

Summary of Existing Assessments

Overall, there are data suggesting that the EDE, SCID-V, EPSI-CRV, and EDDI are strong interview assessments. There is support for several self-report assessments, including the EPSI, EDE-Q, and EDDS, although consideration for the perspective and function of assessment should be considered when selecting assessments. There are two current short assessments that can be used in primary care/health care settings, the SCOFF and SDE. The SCOFF’s primary limitation is that it does not assess for binge eating, which may limit detection of many binge-spectrum EDs. Assessment of comorbidities should be prioritized and researchers and clinicians working with anxiety and depression should strongly consider inclusion of ED assessments. There are currently no assessments of state ED in existence. EMA is a promising area for dynamic assessment and integration into clinical practice, but more research is needed specifically to develop psychometrically strong assessments. Finally, behavioral assessments such as the AAT, Somatomap, and physiological indices hold promise for more objective measurement of EDs.

We want to note that our inclusion criteria for assessments in the current view is limited to measures that captured cognitive-behavioral dimensional, transdiagnostic, and had citations >20 a year. This definition is somewhat arbitrary and it is possible that some strong assessments with high utility may not meet this criteria.

Next, we will review considerations for use of the assessments we have discussed above. In particular, we will discuss assessment use in research versus clinical practice, assessment setting (specialty clinic vs. general health care), assessments for diagnostic and treatment planning, use of categorical assessment, and measurement-based care.

ED Assessments in Research and Clinical Practice

In addition to their clinical utility, ED assessments are often imperative for ED and non-ED researchers alike. They are frequently used in research settings to screen prospective participants, identify categorical or dimensional illness characteristics between participants or groups, and evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions and treatments (Catalan-Matamoros et al., 2011; Kristeller et al., 2014; Wagner et al., 2016). For example, many randomized controlled trials on clinical treatments for EDs use the EDE and/or the EDE-Q as an outcome variable to identify changes in ED symptomatology over time, either within a single individual or between distinct groups, which can be used to illustrate the possible efficacy and impact of a particular treatment or intervention (Le Grange et al., 2007; Linardon et al., 2022; Wagner et al., 2016). Given the current recommendations by the USPSTF (2022), researchers should analyze the disadvantages and benefits of using a particular assessment, especially when used in populations where sufficient empirical support is still lacking (adolescents, gender-diverse individuals, gender and ethnic minorities, etc.).

Assessment Goals Based on Setting (e.g., Emergency Room vs. Specialized ED Services)

Current guidelines on the management of EDs emphasize the importance of early detection and its potential to improve outcomes, including likelihood of recovery (Johns et al., 2019; Peat & Feltner, 2022; Raffoul et al., 2022). Primary care and emergency department settings are well suited for the screening and early detection of EDs, as they are often the first point of contact for any health-related complaints (Dooley-Hash et al., 2012; Peat & Feltner, 2022; Redekopp et al., 2022; Striegel-Moore et al., 2008). However, the USPSTF (2022) was unable to recommend the routine screening of EDs in adolescents and adults in primary care settings due to a lack of direct evidence on the benefits and harms associated with such screenings (Feltner et al., 2022; Peat & Feltner, 2022). This decision is undoubtedly disappointing for ED clinicians and researchers, and it is in direct conflict with guidelines and recommendations from several professional organizations who advocate for routine screening for EDs, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Academy for Eating Disorders, and the American Association of Family Physicians (Academy for Eating Disorders, 2021; Harrington et al., 2015; Hornberger et al., 2021; Peat & Feltner, 2022). In light of these seemingly conflicting recommendations, it is important to consider that the definitions and goals of “screening” and “diagnosis” differ across treatment settings (i.e., primary care and emergency departments vs. ED-specific services; for example, Peat & Feltner, 2022).

In the primary care and emergency department settings, screening refers to the possible identification of an unknown disease using rapid tests, examinations, or other procedures in seemingly well individuals who present for routine care (Hill et al., 2010; Peat & Feltner, 2022; Wilson & Jungner, 1968). Importantly, screening is not meant to be diagnostic and is not intended to be implemented in patients presenting with obvious signs or symptoms of EDs (e.g., underweight as defined by BMI) or seeking ED-specific care (Peat & Feltner, 2022). As such, the goal of screening in primary care and emergency department settings is to differentiate between patients who likely do not have an ED from those who likely have an ED and may benefit from additional, more in-depth assessment and treatment (Peat & Feltner, 2022).

In contrast, the definition of “screening” in specialized treatment settings and research trials is broader and includes the identification of a specific clinically significant ED and ongoing monitoring of symptom severity (Peat & Feltner, 2022). In addition, patients seeking care at ED-specific treatment settings and research trials typically present with obvious signs and symptoms of EDs (e.g., underweight, restriction, and inappropriate compensatory behaviors). Notably, the USPSTF (2022) excluded studies that focused on underweight populations because patients presenting for care with obvious signs and symptoms of a disorder fall outside the scope of routine screening in primary care settings (Peat & Feltner, 2022). Furthermore, assessment tools commonly used by ED specialists, such as the EDE, the SCID-V ED modules, or the EDDI, are long, difficult to interpret, and require extensive clinical experience and knowledge regarding ED psychopathology and DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. However, to be useful within the context of a primary care or emergency department visit where time is limited, screening measures must be accurate, brief, and require little to no training prior to implementation in routine practice (Peat & Feltner, 2022). Taken together, measures routinely used by ED clinicians and researchers are neither appropriate nor practical for routine use in primary care and emergency department settings, and the implementation of these measures in individuals presenting with obvious signs and symptoms of EDs deviates from the notion of screening as a preventive service (Hill et al., 2010; Peat & Feltner, 2022).

While the USPSTF (2022) concluded that the evidence was insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for EDs in adolescent and adults, they identified several screening questionnaires that could be used in primary care settings for individuals without obvious signs and symptoms of EDs, including the SCOFF (Hill et al., 2010; Morgan et al., 1999; Peat & Feltner, 2022). The SCOFF questionnaire is a brief, validated five-item tool designed to address core features of AN and BN, and has been the dominant screening tool used in primary care settings over the past three decades (Hay et al., 2022; Hill et al., 2010; Morgan et al., 1999). The USPSTF found adequate evidence on the accuracy of the SCOFF for screening EDs in adult females; however, the evidence is insufficient for other populations, including adolescents and males (USPSTF, 2022).

Overall, there is a strong need for the additional studies on the benefits and harms of screening in diverse populations to better reflect the demographics of patients presenting to primary care and emergency department settings (Feltner et al., 2022; Hay et al., 2022; Peat & Feltner, 2022). In addition, most of the existing screening tools were designed to detect AN and BN, but not EDs that were introduced in the DSM-5, including ARFID and atypical anorexia, or EDs in diverse populations, such as racial minorities, males, individuals in larger bodies, and transgender youth (Feltner et al., 2022; Hay et al., 2022; House et al., 2022; Nagata & Golden, 2022).

Assessments for ED Diagnosis and Treatment Planning

Diagnoses and Implications for Treatment Planning

There are two main frameworks to conceptualize and assess ED diagnosis for treatment planning, which are (a) categorical assessment or (b) dimensional and transdiagnostic assessment. Categorical assessment follows the most current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; APA, 2013) and views EDs as several distinct and separate mental illnesses (i.e., AN, BN, BED, and OSFED). This viewpoint is based on the medical model and is often used by insurance companies for reimbursement purposes, for inclusion into certain clinically based ED programs, and in research for inclusion into clinical trials (Mond et al., 2004). Alternatively, the dimensional and transdiagnostic approach, following the Transdiagnostic Theory for EDs (Fairburn et al., 2003), is in line with more recent viewpoints on psychopathology, such as the network perspective (Cramer et al., 2010); conceptualizes EDs as having shared underlying mechanisms and symptoms; and conceptualizes pathology on a continuum of severity. Conceptualization of EDs as either categorical or continuous has implications for the assessments of corresponding pathology.

Limitations of Categorical Diagnosis for Assessment

In some instances, categorical diagnoses may prove to be problematic for accurate assessment. For example, the primary difference via assessment between AN and OSFED AAN is if the individual is over or under 18.5 body mass index (BMI). However, most research points to these illnesses as being more similar than different behaviorally and cognitively. One area of assessment that is particularly problematic with this distinction is in the ability to capture AN versus atypical AN versus AN in partial remission. For example, when an individual is weight restored above 18.5 BMI, they would technically be considered as meeting criteria for atypical AN if assessment is not done on prior weight loss. In this example, a diagnosis of AN in partial remission may be more appropriate. An additional limitation of current categorical conceptualizations is that individuals diagnosed with a specific ED, such as AN, will often migrate to a different ED category (e.g., Fichter et al., 2017). These examples point to (a) the limitations of relying on categorical markers (BMI categories) and (b) the need for detailed information on both current and prior indicators of pathology. These issues point to the need for both categorical (e.g., structured clinical interviews) assessments that provide diagnostic information and dimensional (e.g., EDE-Q and EPSI) assessments that provide more detailed dimensional assessment of ED pathology.

Inclusion of ED Measures in Anxiety and Depression Assessments

As discussed above, EDs are highly comorbid with additional psychological disorders, most notably anxiety and depression. Despite this fact, few anxiety and depression researchers routinely include ED assessments both in research and in clinical practice (Mond et al., 2004). We highly recommend that any researcher or clinician working with anxiety and depression include routine questions to screen for EDs. If a short screening measure is needed, we recommend using the SCOFF or SDE. If there is room or need for additional assessment, we recommend using the EDE-Q or EPSI as self-report assessments of ED symptoms. More work is needed to implement ED assessment routinely in these settings, including work on how ED researchers can work with depression and anxiety researchers and clinicians to implement existing or develop new assessments that can easily be integrated into routine depression and anxiety assessment settings.

Measurement-Based Care for EDs

Measurement-based care is the systematic evaluation of patient symptoms before or during a psychotherapy session to inform treatment that has been utilized in the treatment of depression and anxiety disorders (Lewis et al., 2019). Measurement-based care includes administering symptom, outcome, or process measure at each session, clinician review of data, sharing data with patient, and collaborative reevaluation of the treatment plan informed by data. Measurement-based care helps detect failure to respond to treatment, worsening of symptoms, or symptom improvement as well as helps engage patients in treatment (Simon et al., 2013).

Measurement-based care for EDs has used the EDE-QS, which is a 12-item 7-day recall measure of ED symptoms to assess weekly changes in ED symptoms (Gideon et al., 2016). A measurement-based care model is used by the National Health Service in the United Kingdom and is referred to as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; Austin et al., 2021). Initially, PROMs included the EDE-Q (Fairburn & Beglin, 1994) and the Clinical Impairment Assessment Questionnaire (CIA; Bohn & Fairburn, 2008). However, more recently individualized i-PROMs have been piloted, where patients write in their symptoms and rate them on a severity scale (Austin et al., 2021). In the United States, outcome measurements at admission and discharge are becoming a common practice in ED treatment (Attia et al., 2017), although measurement-based care has not been widely implemented and is not standard. More research on the use of measurement-based care in countries outside of the United Kingdom is needed.

Future Directions for ED Assessment Research

Ecological Momentary Assessment

One area in need of more research is on the development of psychometrically strong EMA measures that capture (a) ED symptoms, (b) co-occurring conditions, and (c) mechanisms that maintain ED (e.g., perfectionism and self-criticism: Bardone-Cone et al., 2007; Levinson et al., 2021). The development of comprehensive and standard measures in momentary can be used in both research and clinical settings. For example, in research this type of assessment could better capture momentary dynamics among ED symptoms in daily life, which can lead to the development of personalized treatments and better conceptualization of the cyclical nature of ED symptoms. In clinical settings, these types of EMA assessments could be integrated into electronic health records or given throughout treatment for measurement-based care. This type of integration could provide feedback to clinicians on how to tailor treatments.

Network Theory

Given the emphasis in this review on transdiagnostic assessment, we will discuss network theory, given its emphasis on symptom dimensions as underlying pathology. Notably, we do not review other dimensional systems such as HITOP but instead refer the reader to other sources for this information (e.g., Kotov et al., 2022). To date, most assessments have been developed based on latent variable theory and use factor analysis to distinguish which constructs underlie assessments (Fitzsimmons-Craft et al., 2019). For example, the EPSI is a strong measure of ED pathology that was developed with several factors mapping onto subscales of binge eating, purging, dietary restraint, and so on (see description of EPSI above; Forbush et al., 2013). However, as additional perspectives on how psychopathology arises and maintains itself become more mainstream, new types of assessments may be needed. Specifically, network theory proposes that psychopathology arises and maintains itself through dynamic relationships among symptoms (for more information see Cramer et al., 2010). Notably, because most assessments were not developed for network theory, these assessments may not be the best way to capture psychopathology through a network perspective. Instead, measures that comprehensively assess the entire scope of psychopathology symptoms may be needed. For an example, please see work by Cusack et al. (2022), who developed a measurement of interoceptive sensations in EDs based on a network perspective. More research is needed to develop and test assessments developed stemming from a network theory perspective.

Timescale

As mentioned above, there are currently no assessments of state ED symptoms. More research is needed to develop ED assessments across a variety of timescales. For example, the EDE-Q has been developed into multiple versions that assess timescales ranging from 7 to 28 days. However, given the fact that ED symptoms have high variability, even within moments, more research is needed to develop ED assessments on multiple time scales ranging from seconds to months.

Summary

There are several strong assessments of ED psychopathology, including structured clinical interviews, self-report assessments, and behavioral assessments. We provide recommendations on how to best use these assessments for clinical and research purposes, including recommendations for screening in health care settings and in clinical and research settings focused on anxiety and depression. We also discuss several considerations for integration into clinical practice and treatment outcome research, including the limits of a categorical diagnostic system and need for more dimensional or symptom-based assessment. Finally, we provide recommendations for future research, including the need to develop strong EMA measures, capture objective measures possibly through passive sensing, and consider development of assessments that capture psychopathology from a network perspective. Overall, there is much work left to do in the area of ED assessment.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Cheri A. Levinson

Christina Ralph-Nearman

References

Aardoom

J. J.

Dingemans

A. E.

Op’t Landt

M. C. S.

Van Furth

E. F.

(2012). Norms and discriminative validity of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q). Eating Behaviors, 13(4), 305–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2012.09.002

Academy for Eating Disorders. (2021). Eating disorders: A guide to medical care. https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AEDWEB/27a3b69a-8aae-45b2-a04c-2a078d02145d/UploadedImages/Publications_Slider/2120_AED_Medical_Care_4th_Ed_FINAL.pdf

American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed., rev.).

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.).

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).

Alvarenga

M. D. S.

Scagliusi

F. B.

Philippi

S. T.

(2010). Development and validity of the Disordered Eating Attitude Scale (DEAS). Perceptual and Motor Skills, 110(2), 379–395. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.110.2.379-395

Anderson

D. A.

Williamson

D. A.

Duchmann

E. G.

Gleaves

D. H.

Barbin

J. M.

(1999). Development and validation of a multifactorial treatment outcome measure for eating disorders. Assessment, 6(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191199006001

Asl

E. M.

Mahaki

Bardezard

Y. A.

Mohammadian

(2021). Eating disorders screening tools: The psychometric properties of the Persian version of eating attitude test. International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(122), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_355_19

Attia

Marcus

M. D.

Walsh

B. T.

Guarda

A. S.

(2017). The need for consistent outcome measures in eating disorder treatment programs: A proposal for the field. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 50(3), 231–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22665

10.

Austin

Flynn

Richards

Hodsoll

Duarte

T. A.

Robinson

Kelly

Schmidt

(2021). Duration of untreated eating disorder and relationship to outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. European Eating Disorders Review, 29(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2745

11.

Ayala

C. O.

Scarpatto

Garizábalo-Davila

C. M.

Valencia

P. A. D.

Irigaray

T. Q.

Cañon-Montañez

Mattiello

(2022). Assessing eating disorder symptoms in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review of psychometric studies of commonly used instruments. Journal of Eating Disorders, 10(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-022-00649-z

12.

Bachner-Melman

Lev-Ari

Zohar

A. H.

Lev

S. L.

(2018). Can recovery from an eating disorder be measured? Toward a standardized questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2456. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02456

13.

Bankoff

S. M.

Richards

L. K.

Bartlett

Wolf

E. J.

Mitchell

K. S.

(2016). Examining weight and eating behavior by sexual orientation in a sample of male veterans. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 68, 134–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2016.03.007

14.

Bardone-Cone

A. M.

Wonderlich

S. A.

Frost

R. O.

Bulik

C. M.

Mitchell

J. E.

Uppala

Simonich

(2007). Perfectionism and eating disorders: Current status and future directions. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(3), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.12.005

15.

Bauer

Winn

Schmidt

Kordy

(2005). Construction, scoring and validation of the Short Evaluation of Eating Disorders (SEED). European Eating Disorders Review, 13(3), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.637

16.

Berg

K. C.

Peterson

C. B.

Frazier

(2012). Assessment and diagnosis of eating disorders: A guide for professional counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 90(3), 262–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2012.00033.x

17.

Berg

K. C.

Peterson

C. B.

Frazier

Crow

S. J.

(2012). Psychometric evaluation of the Eating Disorder Examination and Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 45(3), 428–438. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.20931

18.

Blomquist

K. K.

Roberto

C. A.

Barnes

R. D.

White

M. A.

Masheb

R. M.

Grilo

C. M.

(2014). Development and validation of the eating loss of control scale. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034729

19.

Bohn

Fairburn

C. G.

(2008). The Clinical Impairment Assessment questionnaire (CIA). In Fairburn

C. G.

(Ed.), Cognitive behaviour therapy and eating disorders (pp. 315–317). The Guilford Press.

20.

Brockmeyer

Burdenski

Anderle

Voges

M. M.

Vocks

Schmidt

Wunsch-Leuterits

Leiteritz

Friederich

(2020). Approach and avoidance bias for thin-ideal and normal-weight body shapes in anorexia nervosa. European Eating Disorder Review, 28(5), 536–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2744

21.

Calugi

Milanese

Sartirana

El Ghoch

Sartori

Geccherle

Coppini

Franchini

Dalle Grave

(2017). The Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire: Reliability and validity of the Italian version. Eating and Weight Disorders-Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity, 22(3), 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-016-0276-6

22.

Carey

Kupeli

Knight

Troop

N. A.

Jenkinson

P. M.

Preston

(2019). Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q): Norms and psychometric properties in UK females and males. Psychological Assessment, 31(7), 839–850. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000703

23.

Carter

J. C.

Mercer-Lynn

K. B.

Norwood

S. J.

Bewell-Weiss

C. V.

Crosby

R. D.

Woodside

D. B.

Olmsted

M. P.

(2012). A prospective study of predictors of relapse in anorexia nervosa: Implications for relapse prevention. Psychiatry Research, 200(2–3), 518–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2012.04.037

24.

Carrard

Kruseman

Chappuis

Schmutz

Volery

(2016). A tool for assessing eating behaviors: ESSCA. Revue Medicale Suisse, 12(511), 591–596.

25.

Catalan-Matamoros

Helvik-Skjaerven

Labajos-Manzanares

M. T.

Martínez-de-Salazar-Arboleas

Sánchez-Guerrero

(2011). A pilot study on the effect of Basic Body Awareness Therapy in patients with eating disorders: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 25(7), 617–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155103942

26.

Chesney

Goodwin

G. M.

Fazel

(2014). Risks of all-cause and suicide mortality in mental disorders: A meta-review. World Psychiatry, 13(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20128

27.

Ciotti

Christian

Vanzhula

I. A.

Levinson

C. A.

(2022, November). Adapting the fear approach and avoidance measure to fears of food and gaining weight [Poster presentation]. Eating Disorder and Eating Behavior Special Interest Group at the 56th annual convention of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, New York, NY, United States.

28.

Clausen

Rosenvinge

J. H.

Friborg

Rokkedal

(2011). Validating the Eating Disorder Inventory-3 (EDI-3): A comparison between 561 female eating disorders patients and 878 females from the general population. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 33(1), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-010-9207-4

29.

Cole

D. A.

Martin

N. C.

Steiger

J. H.

(2005). Empirical and conceptual problems with longitudinal trait-state models: Introducing a trait-state-occasion model. Psychological Methods, 10(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.3

30.

Cooper

Cohen-Tovée

Todd

Wells

Tovée

(1997). The eating disorder belief questionnaire: Preliminary development. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(4), 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(96)00115-5

31.

Cooper

Fairburn

(1987). The eating disorder examination: A semi-structured interview for the assessment of the specific psychopathology of eating disorders. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 6, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-108X(198701)

32.

Cramer

A. O.

Waldorp

L. J.

Van Der Maas

H. L.

Borsboom

(2010). Comorbidity: A network perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09991567

33.

Cumella

E. J.

(2006). Review of the Eating Disorder Inventory-3. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 116–117. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_11

34.

Currin

Waller

Schmidt

(2009). Primary care physicians’ knowledge of and attitudes toward the eating disorders: Do they affect clinical actions? International Journal of Eating Disorders, 42(5), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.20636

35.

Cusack

C.E.

Vanzhula

I.A.

Levinson

C.A.

(2022). The structure of eating disorder and somatic symptoms. Journal of Affective Disorders, 319, 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.09.106

36.

Dalle Grave

. (2011). Eating disorders: Progress and challenges. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 22(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2010.12.010

37.

Deloitte Access Economics. (2020). The social and economic cost of eating disorders in the United States of America: A report for the strategic training initiative for the prevention of eating disorders and the academy for eating disorders. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/striped/report-economic-costs-of-eating-disorders/

38.

Dingemans

Danner

Parks

(2017). Emotion regulation in binge eating disorder: A review. Nutrients, 9(11), 1274. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9111274

39.

Dooley-Hash

Banker

J. D.

Walton

M. A.

Ginsburg

Cunningham

R. M.

(2012). The prevalence and correlates of eating disorders among emergency department patients aged 14–20 years. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 45(7), 883–890. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22026

40.

de Young

K. P.

Anderson

D. A

. (2017). An interactive, graphical tool for retrospectively assessing symptom frequency and severity: An illustration with eating disorder behaviors, body weight, and stress. Assessment, 24(7), 835–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116668629

41.

Ebner-Priemer

U. W.

Kuo

Welch

S. S.

Thielgen

Witte

Bohus

Linehan

M. M.

(2006). A valence-dependent group-specific recall bias of retrospective self-reports: A study of borderline personality disorder in everyday life. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194(10), 774–779. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nmd.0000239900.46595.72

42.

Engel

S. G.

Crosby

R. D.

Thomas

Bond

Lavender

J. M.

Mason

Steffen

K. J.

Green

D. D.

Wonderlich

S. A.

(2016). Ecological Momentary assessment in eating disorder and obesity research: A review of the recent literature. Current Psychiatry Reports, 18(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-016-0672-7

43.

Engel

S. G.

Wonderlich

S. A.

Crosby

R. D.

Mitchell

J. E.

Crow

Peterson

C. B.

le Grange Simonich

H. K.

Cao

Gordon

K. H.

(2013). The role of affect in the maintenance of anorexia nervosa: Evidence from a naturalistic assessment of momentary behaviors and emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(3), 709–719. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034010

44.

Fairburn

C. G.

Beglin

S. J.

(1994). Assessment of eating disorders: Interview or self-report questionnaire? International Journal of Eating Disorders, 16(4), 363–370. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-108X(199412)16:4<363::AID-EAT2260160405>3.0.CO;2-%23

45.

Fairburn

C. G.

Beglin

S. J.

(2008). Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q 6.0). In Fairburn

C. G.

(Ed.), Cognitive behavior therapy and eating disorders (pp. 309–313). The Guilford Press.

46.

Fairburn

C. G.

Cooper

Doll

H. A.

O’Connor

M. E.

Bohn

Hawker

D. M.

Wales

J. A.

Palmer

R. L.

(2009). Transdiagnostic Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for patients with eating disorders: A two-site trial with 60-week follow-up. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166(3), 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08040608

47.

Fairburn

C. G.

Cooper

O’Connor

(2014). Eating disorder examination version 17. CREDO.

48.

Fairburn

C. G.

Cooper

Shafran

(2003). Cognitive behaviour therapy for eating disorders: A “transdiagnostic” theory and treatment. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(5), 509–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00088-8

49.

Feltner

Peat

Reddy

Riley

Berkman

Middleton

J. C.

Bailo

Coker-Schwimmer

Jonas

D. E.

(2022). Screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults: Evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA, 327(11), 1068–1082. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.1807

50.

Fichter

M. M.

Elton

Engel

Meyer

A. E.

Mall

Poustka

(1991). Structured Interview for Anorexia and Bulimia Nervosa (SIAB): Development of a new instrument for the assessment of eating disorders. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 10(5), 571–592. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-108X(199109)10:5<571::AID-EAT2260100510>3.0.CO;2-J

51.

Fichter

M. M.

Herpertz

Quadflieg

Herpertz-Dahlmann

(1998). Structured interview for anorexic and bulimic disorders for DSM-IV and ICD-10: Updated (third) revision. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 24(3), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-108X(199811)24:3<227::AID-EAT1>3.0.CO;2-O

52.

Fichter

M. M.

Quadflieg

Crosby

R. D.

Koch

(2017). Long-term outcome of anorexia nervosa: Results from a large clinical longitudinal study. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 50(9), 1018–1030. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22736

53.

Fichter

M. M.

Quadflieg

Gierk

Voderholzer

Heuser

(2015). The Munich eating and feeding disorder questionnaire (Munich ED-Quest) DSM-5/ICD-10: Validity, reliability, sensitivity to change and norms. European Eating Disorders Review, 23(3), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2348

54.

First

M. B.

Williams

J. B. W.

Karg

R. S.

Spitzer

R. L.

(2015). Structured clinical interview for DSM-5: Research version (SCID-5 for DSM-5, Research version; SCID-5-RV). American Psychiatric Association.

55.

Fitzsimmons-Craft

E. E.

Bardone-Cone

A. M.

Wonderlich

S. A.

Crosby

R. D.

Engel

S. G.

Bulik

C. M.

(2015). The relationships among social comparisons, body surveillance, and body dissatisfaction in the natural environment. Behavior Therapy, 46(2), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2014.09.006

56.

Fitzsimmons-Craft

E. E.

Karam

A. M.

Monterubio

G. E.

Taylor

C. B.

Wilfley

D. E.

(2019). Screening for eating disorders on college campuses: A review of the recent literature. Current Psychiatry Reports, 21(10), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-019-1093-1C

57.

Forbush

K. T.

Bohrer

B. K.

Hagan

K. E.

Chapa

D. A. N.

Perko

Richson

Christian

Christensen

K. A.

Wildes

J. E.

(2020). Development and initial validation of the Eating Pathology Symptoms Inventory–Clinician-Rated Version (EPSI-CRV). Psychological Assessment, 32(10), 943–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000820

58.

Forbush

K. T.

Siew

C. S. Q.

Vitevitch

M. S.

(2016). Application of network analysis to identify interactive systems of eating disorder psychopathology. Psychological Medicine, 46(12), 2667–2677. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329171600012X

59.

Forbush

K. T.

Wildes

J. E.

Hunt

T. K.

(2014). Gender norms, psychometric properties, and validity for the Eating Pathology Symptoms Inventory. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 47(1), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22180

60.

Forbush

K. T.

Wildes

J. E.

Pollack

L. O.

Dunbar

Luo

Patterson

Petruzzi

Pollpeter

Miller

Stone

Bright

Watson

(2013). Development and validation of the Eating Pathology Symptoms Inventory (EPSI). Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 859–878. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032639

61.

Garcia

S. C.

Mikhail

M. E.

Keel

P. K.

Burt

S. A.

Neale

M. C.

Boker

Klump

K. L.

(2020). Increased rates of eating disorders and their symptoms in women with major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 53(11), 1844–1854. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23366

62.

Garfinkel

P. E.

Newman

(2001). The Eating Attitudes Test: Twenty-five years later. Eating and Weight Disorders-Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity, 6(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03339747

63.

Garner

D. M.

(2004). Eating disorder inventory-3 professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

64.

Garner

D. M.

Garfinkel

P. E.

(1979). The Eating Attitudes Test: An index of the symptoms of anorexia nervosa. Psychological Medicine, 9(2), 273–279. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291700030762

65.

Garner

D. M.

Olmstead

M. P.

Polivy

(1983). Development and validation of a multidimensional eating disorder inventory for anorexia nervosa and bulimia. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2(2), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-108X(198321)2:2<15::AID-EAT2260020203>3.0.CO;2-6

66.

Gideon

Hawkes

Mond

Saunders

Tchanturia

Serpell

(2016). Development and psychometric validation of the EDE-QS, a 12 item short form of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q). PLOS ONE, 11(5), e0152744. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152744

67.

Goodwin

M. S.

Mazefsky

C. A.

Ioannidis

Erdogmus

Siegel

(2019). Predicting aggression to others in youth with autism using a wearable biosensor. Autism Research, 12(8), 1286–1296. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2151

68.

Gormally

J. I. M.

Black

Daston

Rardin

(1982). The assessment of binge eating severity among obese persons. Addictive Behaviors, 7(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(82)90024-7

69.

Grillot

C. L.

Keel

P. K.

(2018). Barriers to seeking treatment for eating disorders: The role of self-recognition in understanding gender disparities in who seeks help. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 51(11), 1285–1289. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22965

70.

Grilo

C. M.

Henderson

K. E.

Bell

R. L.

Crosby

R. D.

(2013). Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire factor structure and construct validity in bariatric surgery candidates. Obesity Surgery, 23(5), 657–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-012-0840-8

71.

Harrington

B. C.

Jimerson

Haxton

Jimerson

D. C.

(2015). Initial evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. American Family Physician, 91(1), 46–52.

72.

Hay

Hart

L. M.

Wade

T. D.

(2022). Beyond screening in primary practice settings: Time to stop fiddling while Rome is burning. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 55(9), 1194–1209. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23735

73.

Hepworth

N. S.

(2010). A mindful eating group as an adjunct to individual treatment for eating disorders: A pilot study. Eating Disorders, 19(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10640266.2011.533601

74.

Hertzog

Nesselroade

J. R.

(1987). Beyond autoregressive models: Some implications of the trait-state distinction for the structural modeling of developmental change. Child Development, 58(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130294

75.

Hill

L. S.

Reid

Morgan

J. F.

Lacey

J. H.

(2010). SCOFF, the development of an eating disorder screening questionnaire. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 43(4), 344–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.20679

76.

Hornberger

L. L.

Lane

M. A.

Lane

Breuner

C. C.

Alderman

E. M.

Grubb

L. K.

Powers

Upadhya

Wallace

S. B.

Hornberger

L. L.

Lane

Loveless

Memon

Zapatista

Hua

Smith

Baumberger

(2021). Identification and management of eating disorders in children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 147(1), e2020040279. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-040279

77.

House

E. T.

Lister

N. B.

Seidler

A. L.

Ong

W. Y.

McMaster

C. M.

Paxton

Jebeile

(2022). Identifying eating disorders in adolescents and adults with overweight or obesity: A systematic review of screening questionnaires. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 55(9), 1171–1193. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23769

78.

Jenkins

P. E.

Rienecke

R. D.

(2022). Structural validity of the eating disorder examination—Questionnaire: A systematic review. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 55(8), 1012–1030. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23721

79.

Johns

Taylor

John

Tan

(2019). Current eating disorder healthcare services–the perspectives and experiences of individuals with eating disorders, their families and health professionals: Systematic review and thematic synthesis. BJPsych Open, 5(4), e59. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2019.48

80.

Johnston

Fornai

Cabrini

Kendrick

(2007). Feasibility and acceptability of screening for eating disorders in primary care. Family Practice, 24(5), 511–517. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmm029

81.

Jones-Chesters

M. H.

Monsell

Cooper

P. J.

(1998). The disorder-salient stroop effect as a measure of psychopathology in eating disorders. The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 24(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-108X(199807)24:1<65::AID-EAT6>3.0.CO;2-Z

82.

Juarascio

A. S.

Goldstein

S. P.

Manasse

S. M.

Forman

E. M.

Butryn

M. L.

(2015). Perceptions of the feasibility and acceptability of a smartphone application for the treatment of binge eating disorders: Qualitative feedback from a user population and clinicians. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 84(10), 808–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.06.004

83.

Kang

Chan

R. C.

Arcelus

Yue

Huang

Qing

Haiyin

Xiao

Chen

(2017). Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the eating attitudes test in young female patients with eating disorders in mainland China. European Eating Disorders Review, 25(6), 613–617. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2560

84.

Keel

P. K.

Brown

T. A.

Holland

L. A.

Bodell

L. P.

(2012). Empirical classification of eating disorders. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8(1), 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143111

85.

Keel

P. K.

Dorer

D. J.

Franko

D. L.

Jackson

S. C.

Herzog

D. B.

(2005). Postremission predictors of relapse in women with eating disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(12), 2263–2268. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.12.2263

86.

Kelly

N. R.

Mitchell

K. S.

Gow

R. W.

Trace

S. E.

Lydecker

J. A.

Bair

C. E.

Mazzeo

(2012). An evaluation of the reliability and construct validity of eating disorder measures in white and black women. Psychological Assessment, 24(3), 608–617. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026457

87.

Keshen

Helson

Ali

Dixon

Tregarthen

Town

(2020). Efficacy and acceptability of self-monitoring via a smartphone application versus traditional paper records in an intensive outpatient eating disorder treatment setting. European Eating Disorders Review, 28(4), 473–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2727

88.

Kliem

Mößle

Zenger

Strauß

Brähler

Hilbert

(2016). The eating disorder examination-questionnaire 8: A brief measure of eating disorder psychopathology (EDE-Q8). International Journal of Eating Disorders, 49(6), 613–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22487

89.

Kotov

Cicero

D. C.

Conway

C. C.

DeYoung

C. G.

Dombrovski

Eaton

N. R.

First

M. B.

Forbes

M. K.

Hyman

S. E.

Jonas

K. G.

Krueger

R. F.

Latzman

R. D.

J. J.

Nelson

B. D.

Regier

D. A.

Rodriguez-Seijas

Ruggero

C. J.

Simms

L. J.

Skodol

A. E.

Wright

(2022). The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) in psychiatric practice and research. Psychological Medicine, 52(9), 1666–1678. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291722001301

90.

Kristeller

Wolever

R. Q.

Sheets

(2014). Mindfulness-based eating awareness training (MB-EAT) for binge eating: A randomized clinical trial. Mindfulness, 5(3), 282–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0179-1

91.

Kutz

A. M.

Marsh

A. G.

Gunderson

C. G.

Maguen

Masheb

R. M.

(2020). Eating disorder screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test characteristics of the SCOFF. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 35(3), 885–893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05478-6

92.

Latner

J. D.

Mond

J. M.

Kelly

M. C.

Haynes

S. N.

Hay

P. J.

(2014). The Loss of Control Over Eating Scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 47(6), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22296

93.

Leehr

E. J.

Krohmer

Schag

Dresler

Zipfel

Giel

K. E.

(2015). Emotion regulation model in binge eating disorder and obesity-a systematic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 49, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.12.008

94.

Le Grange

Crosby

R. D.

Rathouz

P. J.

Leventhal

B. L

. (2007). A randomized controlled comparison of family-based treatment and supportive psychotherapy for adolescent bulimia nervosa. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64(9), 1049–1056. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.64.9.1049

95.

Lender

Meule

Rinck

Brockmeyer

Blechert

(2018). Measurement of food-related approach–avoidance biases: Larger biases when food stimuli are task relevant. Appetite, 125, 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.01.032

96.

Levinson

C. A.

Hunt

R. A.

Christian

Williams

B. M.

Keshishian

A. C.

Vanzhula

I. A.

Ralph-Nearman

(2022). Longitudinal group and individual networks of eating disorder symptoms in individuals diagnosed with an eating disorder. Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science, 131(1), 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000727

97.

Levinson

C. A.

Hunt

R. A.

Keshishian

A. C.

Brown

M. L.

Vanzhula

Christian

Brosof

Williams

B. M.

(2021). Using individual networks to identify treatment targets for eating disorder treatment: A proof-of-concept study and initial data. Journal of Eating Disorders, 9(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-021-00504-7

98.

Lewis

C. C.

Boyd

Puspitasari

Navarro

Howard

Kassah

Hoffman

Scott

Lyon

Douglas

Simon

Kroenke

(2019). Implementing measurement-based care in behavioral health: A review. JAMA Psychiatry, 76(3), 324–335. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.3329

99.

Linardon

Shatte

Rosato

Fuller-Tyszkiewicz

(2022). Efficacy of a transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioral intervention for eating disorder psychopathology delivered through a smartphone app: A randomized controlled trial. Psychological Medicine, 52(9), 1679–1690. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291720003426

100.

Lindgreen

Lomborg

Clausen

(2018). Patient experiences using a self-monitoring app in eating disorder treatment: Qualitative study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6(6), e10253.

101.

Linville

Aoyama

Knoble

N. B.

Gau

(2013). The effectiveness of a brief eating disorder training programme in medical settings. Journal of Research in Nursing, 18(6), 544–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987112452182

102.

Lobbestael

Leurgans

Arntz

(2011). Inter-rater reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID I) and Axis II Disorders (SCID II). Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 18(1), 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.693

103.

Machado

P. P.

Grilo

C. M.

Rodrigues

T. F.

Vaz

A. R.

Crosby

R. D.

(2020). Eating disorder Examination–Questionnaire short forms: A comparison. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 53(6), 937–944. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23275

104.

MacLeod

Mathews

Tata

(1986). Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.95.1.15

105.

Maguen

Hebenstreit

Dinh

J. V.

Donalson

Dalton

Rubin

Masheb

(2018). Screen for disordered eating: Improving the accuracy of eating disorder screening in primary care. General Hospital Psychiatry, 50, 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2017.09.004

106.

McEnery

Fitzgerald

McNicholas

Dooley

(2016). Fit for purpose, psychometric assessment of the eating attitudes test-26 in an Irish adolescent sample. Eating Behaviors, 23, 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2016.07.006

107.

Meritam

Ryvlin

Beniczky

(2018). User-based evaluation of applicability and usability of a wearable accelerometer device for detecting bilateral tonic–clonic seizures: A field study. Epilepsia, 59, 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.14051

108.

Metral

Guardia

Bauwens

Guerraz

Lafargue

Cottencin

Luyat

(2014). Painfully thin but locked inside a fatter body: Abnormalities in both anticipation and execution of action in anorexia nervosa. BMC Research Notes, 7(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-7-707

109.

Mintz

L. B.

O’Halloran

M. S.

Mulholland

A. M.

Schneider

P. A.

(1997). Questionnaire for Eating Disorder Diagnoses: Reliability and validity of operationalizing DSM-IV criteria into a self-report format. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.44.1.63

110.

Moessner

Fassnacht

D. B.

Bauer

(2015). Online assessment of eating disorders: The clinical and research inventory for eating disorders (CR-EAT). Mental Health & Prevention, 3(4), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2015.08.001

111.

Mond

J. M.

Hay

P. J.

Rodgers

Owen

(2006). Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q): Norms for young adult women. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2004.12.003

112.

Mond

J. M.

Hay

P. J.

Rodgers

Owen

Beumont

P. J. V.

(2004). Validity of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) in screening for eating disorders in community samples. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42(5), 551–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00161-X

113.

Mond

J. M.

Myers

T. C.

Crosby

R. D.

Hay

P. J.

Rodgers

Morgan

J. F.

Lucey

J. H.

Mitchell

J. E.

(2008). Screening for eating disorders in primary care: EDE-Q versus SCOFF. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46(5), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.02.003

114.

Morgan

J. F.

Reid

Lacey

J. H.

(1999). The SCOFF questionnaire: Assessment of a new screening tool for eating disorders. BMJ, 319(7223), 1467–1468. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7223.1467

115.

Nagata

J. M.

Golden

N. H.

(2022). New US preventive services task force recommendations on screening for eating disorders. JAMA Internal Medicine, 182(5), 471–473. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.0121

116.

Neimeijer

R. A. M.

Roefs

Glashouwer

K. A.

Jonker

N. C.

de Jong

P. J.

(2019). Reduced automatic approach tendencies towards task-relevant and task-irrelevant food pictures in Anorexia Nervosa. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 65, 101496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2019.101496

117.

Pallister

Waller

(2008). Anxiety in the eating disorders: Understanding the overlap. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(3), 366–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.07.001

118.

Payne

B. K.

Cheng

C. M.

Govorun

Stewart

B. D.

(2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277

119.

Pearlstein

(2002). Eating disorders and comorbidity. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 4(3), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007370200002

120.

Peat

C. M.

Feltner

(2022). Addressing eating disorders in primary care: Understanding screening recommendations and opportunities to improve care. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 55(9), 1202–1207. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23786

121.

Peis

López-Moríñigo

J. D.

Pérez-Rodríguez

M. M.

Barrigón

M. L.

Ruiz-Gómez

Artés-Rodríguez

Baca-García

(2020). Actigraphic recording of motor activity in depressed inpatients: A novel computational approach to prediction of clinical course and hospital discharge. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 17286. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74425-x

122.

Peterson

C. B.

Crosby

R. D.

Wonderlich

S. A.

Joiner

Crow

S. J.

Mitchell

J. E.

Bardone-Cone

A. M.

Klein

Le Grange

(2007). Psychometric properties of the eating disorder examination-questionnaire: Factor structure and internal consistency. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 40(4), 386–389. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.20373

123.

Piotrowski

(2018). Assessment measures in research on eating disorders: Most prominent evaluation methods spanning the scholarly literature. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health, 25(2), 120–127.

124.

Piya

M. K.

Chimoriya

Grudzinskas

Myint

K. P.

Skelsey

Kormas

Hay

(2021). Improvement in eating disorder risk and psychological health in people with class 3 obesity: Effects of a multidisciplinary weight management program. Nutrients, 13(5), 1425. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13051425

125.

Poston

J. M.

Hanson

W. E.

(2010). Meta-analysis of psychological assessment as a therapeutic intervention. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018679

126.

Raffoul

Vitagliano

J. A.

Sarda

Chan

Chwa

Ferreira

K. B.

Gooding

H. C.

Forman

S. F.

Austin

S. B.

(2022). Evaluation of a one-hour asynchronous video training for eating disorder screening and referral in U.S. pediatric primary care: A pilot study. The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 55(9), 1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23766

127.

Ralph-Nearman

Achee

Lapidus

Stewart

J. L.

Filik

(2019). A systematic and methodological review of attentional biases in eating disorders: Food, body, and perfectionism. Brain and Behavior, 9(12), e01458. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1458

128.

Ralph-Nearman

Arevian

A. C.

Karem

Llano-Rios

T. F.

Sinick

Moseman

S. E.

Feusner

Khalsa

S. S.

(2023). Test-retest reliability of a 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional visual assessment of body image disturbance in anorexia nervosa. medRxiv Preprint.

129.

Ralph-Nearman

Arevian

A. C.

Moseman

Sinik

Chappelle

Feusner

J. D.

Khalsa

S. S.

(2021). Visual mapping of body image disturbance in anorexia nervosa reveals objective markers of illness severity. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-90739-w

130.

Ralph-Nearman

Arevian

A. C.

Puhl

Kumar

Villaroman

Suthana

Feusner

J. D.

Khalsa

S. S.

(2019). A novel mobile tool (Somatomap) to assess body image perception pilot tested with fashion models and nonmodels: Cross-sectional study. JMIR Mental Health, 6(10), e14115. https://doi.org/10.2196/14115

131.

Ralph-Nearman

Sandoval-Araujo

L. E.

Karem

Cusack

C. E.

Glatt

Hooper

M. A.

Rodriguez Pena

Cohen

Allen

Cash

E. D.

Welch

Levinson

C. A.

(in press). Using machine learning with passive wearable sensors to pilot the detection of eating disorder behaviors in everyday life. Psychological Medicine. Advance online publication.

132.

Reas

D. L.

Grilo

C. M.

Masheb

R. M.

(2006). Reliability of the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire in patients with binge eating disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.01.004

133.

Reas

D. L.

Wisting

Kapstad

Lask

(2011). Convergent validity of the eating disorder examination and the eating disorder examination-questionnaire among university women in Norway. European Eating Disorders Review, 19(4), 357–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.1068

134.

Redekopp

Dimitropoulos

Patten

Kassam

(2022). Considering a risk profile based on emergency department utilization in young people with eating disorders: Implications for early detection. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 55(9), 1219–1228. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23588

135.

Rivas

Bersabé

Jiménez

Berrocal

(2010). The eating attitudes test (EAT-26): Reliability and validity in Spanish female samples. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(2), 1044–1056. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600002687

136.

Rodrigues

Vaz

A. R.

Silva

Conceição

Machado

P. P.

(2019). Eating Disorder-15 (ED-15): Factor structure, psychometric properties, and clinical validation. European Eating Disorders Review, 27(6), 682–691. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2694

137.

Rohde

Stice

Marti

C. N.

(2015). Development and predictive effects of eating disorder risk factors during adolescence: Implications for prevention efforts. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 48(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22270

138.

Rom

Miskovic-Wheatley

Barakat

Aouad

Fuller-Tyszkiewicz

Maguire

(2022). Evaluating the feasibility and potential efficacy of a brief etherapy for binge-eating disorder: A pilot study. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 55(11), 1614–1620. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23803

139.

Schaefer

L. M.

Crosby

R. D.

Machado

P. P.

(2021). A systematic review of instruments for the assessment of eating disorders among adults. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 34(6), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000746

140.

Shah

DePietro

D’Adamo

Firebaugh

M. L.

Laing

Fowler

L. A.

Smolar

Sadeh-Sharvit

Taylor

Wilfley

Fitzsimmons-Craft

E. E.

(2022). Development and usability testing of a chatbot to promote mental health services use among individuals with eating disorders following screening. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 55(9), 1229–1244. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23798

141.

Sheehan

D. V.

Lecrubier

Sheehan

K. H.

Amorim

Janavs

Weiller

Hergueta

Baker

Dunbar

G. C.

(1998). The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): The development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59(20), 22–33.

142.

Simon

Lambert

M. J.

Busath

Vazquez

Berkeljon

Hyer

Granley

Berrett

(2013). Effects of providing patient progress feedback and clinical support tools to psychotherapists in an inpatient eating disorders treatment program: A randomized controlled study. Psychotherapy Research, 23(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2013.787497

143.

Smith

A. R.

Forrest

L. N.

Velkoff

E. A.

Ribeiro

J. D.

Franklin

(2018). Implicit attitudes toward eating stimuli differentiate eating disorder and non-eating disorder groups and predict eating disorder behaviors. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 51(4), 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22843

144.

Smith

K. E.

Mason

T. B.

Juarascio

Schaefer

L. M.

Crosby

R. D.

Engel

S. G.

Wonderlich

S. A.

(2019). Moving beyond self-report data collection in the natural environment: A review of the past and future directions for ambulatory assessment in eating disorders. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 52(10), 1157–1175. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23124

145.

Solmi

Hatch

S. L.

Hotopf

Treasure

Micali

(2015). Validation of the SCOFF questionnaire for eating disorders in a multiethnic general population sample. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 48(3), 312–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22373

146.

Spangler

D. L.

(2010). The change in Eating Disorder Symptoms Scale: Scale development and psychometric properties. Eating Behaviors, 11(3), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2009.12.003

147.

Spivak-Lavi

Peleg

Tzischinsky

Stein

Latzer

(2021). Differences in the factor structure of the Eating Attitude Test-26 (EAT-26) in different cultures in Israel: Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Nutrients, 13(6), 1899. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13061899

148.

Spring

V. L.

Bulik

C. M.

(2014). Implicit and explicit affect toward food and weight stimuli in anorexia nervosa. Eating Behaviors, 15(1), 91–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2013.10.017

149.

Stanford

S. C.

Lemberg

(2012). Measuring eating disorders in men: Development of the eating disorder assessment for men (EDAM). Eating Disorders, 20(5), 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/10640266.2012.715522

150.

Stice

(2002). Risk and maintenance factors for eating pathology: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 825–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.825

151.

Stice

Marti

C. N.

Durant

(2011). Risk factors for onset of eating disorders: Evidence of multiple risk pathways from an 8-year prospective study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49(10), 622–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2011.06.009

152.

Stice

Marti

C. N.

Spoor

Presnell

Shaw

(2008). Dissonance and healthy weight eating disorder prevention programs: Long-term effects from a randomized efficacy trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(2), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.2.329

153.

Stice

Nathan Marti

Rohde

(2013). Prevalence, incidence, impairment, and course of the proposed DSM-5 eating disorder diagnoses in an 8-year prospective community study of young women. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(2), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030679

154.

Stice

Telch

C. F.

Rizvi

S. L.

(2000). Development and validation of the Eating Disorder Diagnostic Scale: A brief self-report measure of anorexia, bulimia, and binge-eating disorder. Psychological Assessment, 12(2), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.12.2.123

155.

Stone

Shiffman

(1994). Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) in behavioral medicine. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 199–202.

156.

Striegel-Moore

R. H.

De Bar

Wilson

G. T.

Dickerson

Rosselli

Perrin

Lynch

Kraemer

H. C.

(2008). Health services use in eating disorders. Psychological Medicine, 38, 1465–1474. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291707001833

157.

Sunday

S. R.

Halmi

K. A.

Einhorn

(1995). The Yale-Brown-Cornell Eating Disorder Scale: A new scale to assess eating disorder symptomatology. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 18, 3237–3245. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-108X(199511)18:3<237::AID-EAT2260180305>3.0.CO;2-1

158.

Sysko

Glasofer

D. R.

Hildebrandt

Klimek

Mitchell

J. E.

Berg

K. C.

Peterson

C. B.

Wonderlich

S. A.

Walsh

B. T.

(2015). The Eating Disorder Assessment for DSM-5 (EDA-5): Development and validation of a structured interview for feeding and eating disorders. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 48(5), 452–463. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22388

159.

Tatham

Turner

Mountford

V. A.

Tritt

Dyas

Waller

(2015). Development, psychometric properties and preliminary clinical validation of a brief, session-by-session measure of eating disorder cognitions and behaviors: The ED-15. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 48(7), 1005–1015. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22430

160.

ter Huurne

E. D.

de Haan

H. A.

ten Napel-Schutz

M. C.

Postel

M. G.

Menting

van der Palen

Vroling

M. S.

DeJong

C. A

. (2015). Is the Eating Disorder Questionnaire-Online (EDQ-O) a valid diagnostic instrument for the DSM-IV-TR classification of eating disorders? Comprehensive Psychiatry, 57, 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.10.019

161.

Thomas

J. J.

Delinsky

S. S.

St Germain

S. A.

Weigel

T. J.

Tangren

C. M.

Levendusky

P. G.

Becker

A. E.

(2010). How do eating disorder specialist clinicians apply DSM-IV diagnostic criteria in routine clinical practice? Implications for enhancing clinical utility in DSM-5. Psychiatry Research, 178(3), 511–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2010.05.021

162.

Thompson-Brenner

Satir

D. A.

Franko

D. L.

Herzog

D. B.

(2012). Clinician reactions to patients with eating disorders: A review of the literature. Psychiatric Services, 63(1), 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201100050

163.

Torous

Bucci

Bell

I. H.

Kessing

L. V.

Faurholt-Jepsen

Whelan

Carvalho

A. F.

Keshaven

Linardon

Firth

(2021). The growing field of digital psychiatry: Current evidence and the future of apps, social media, chatbots, and virtual reality. World Psychiatry, 20(3), 318–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20883

164.

Treasure

Stein

Maguire

(2015). Has the time come for a staging model to map the course of eating disorders from high risk to severe enduring illness? An examination of the evidence. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 9(3), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/eip.12170

165.

Tregarthen

J. P.

Lock

Darcy

A. M.

(2015). Development of a smartphone application for eating disorder self-monitoring. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 48(7), 972–982. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22386

166.

Trull

T. J.

Ebner-Priemer

U. W.

(2009). Using experience sampling methods/ecological momentary assessment (ESM/EMA) in clinical assessment and clinical research: Introduction to the special section [Editorial]. Psychological Assessment, 21(4), 457–462. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017653

167.

US Preventive Services Task Force. (2022). Screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 327(11), 1061–1067. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.1806

168.

Vagg

P. R.

Spielberger

C. D.

O’Hearn

T. P.

Jr. (1980). Is the state-trait anxiety inventory multidimensional? Personality and Individual Differences, 1(3), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(80)90052-5

169.

Van Alsten

S. C.

Duncan

A. E

. (2020). Lifetime patterns of comorbidity in eating disorders: An approach using sequence analysis. European Eating Disorders Review, 28(6), 709–723. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2767

170.

Van Strien

Frijters

J. E.

Bergers

G. P.

Defares

P. B

. (1986). The Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ) for assessment of restrained, emotional, and external eating behavior. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 5(2), 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-108X(198602)5:2<295::AID-EAT2260050209>3.0.CO;2-T

171.

von Ranson

K. M.

Klump

K. L.

Iacono

W. G.

McGue

. (2005). The Minnesota Eating Behavior Survey: A brief measure of disordered eating attitudes and behaviors. Eating Behaviors, 6(4), 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2004.12.002

172.

Wade

T. D.

Johnson

Cadman

Cook

(2022). Turning eating disorders screening in primary practice into treatment: A clinical practice approach. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 55(9), 1259–1263. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23732

173.

Wagner

Nagl

Dölemeyer

Klinitzke

Steinig

Hilbert

Kersting

(2016). Randomized controlled trial of an internet-based cognitive-behavioral treatment program for binge-eating disorder. Behavior Therapy, 47(4), 500–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2016.01.006

174.

Walsh

B. T.

Glasofer

D. R.

Attia

Sysko

(2015). Handbook of assessment and treatment of eating disorders. American Psychiatric Association.

175.

Walz

L. C.

Nauta

M. H.

aan het Rot

(2014). Experience sampling and ecological momentary assessment for studying the daily lives of patients with anxiety disorders: A systematic review. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28(8), 925–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.09.022

176.

Ward

Z. J.

Rodriguez

Wright

D. R.

Austin

S. B.

Long

M. W.

(2019). Estimation of eating disorders prevalence by age and associations with mortality in a simulated nationally representative US cohort. JAMA Network Open, 2(10), e1912925.

177.

Wasil

A. R.

Gillespie

Schell

Lorenzo-Luaces

DeRubeis

R. J.

(2021). Estimating the real-world usage of mobile apps for mental health: Development and application of two novel metrics. World Psychiatry, 20(1), 137–138. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wps.20827

178.

Wilson

J. M. G.

Jungner

(1968). Principles and practice of screening for disease. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/37650/WHO_PHP_34.pdf

179.

Yanovski

S. Z.

Marcus

M. D.

Wadden

T. A.

Walsh

B. T.

(2015). The questionnaire on eating and weight patterns-5 (QEWP-5): An updated screening instrument for binge eating disorder. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 48(3), 259–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22372

180.

Zanarini

M. C.

Skodol

A. E.

Bender

Dolan

Sanislow

Schaefer

Morey

L. C.

Grilo

C. M.

Shea

M. T.

McGlashan

T. H.

Gunderson

J. G.

(2000). The collaborative longitudinal personality disorders study: Reliability of axis I and II diagnoses. Journal of Personality Disorders, 14(4), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2000.14.4.291

Evidence-Based Assessments for Transdiagnostic Eating Disorder Symptoms: Guidelines for Current Use and Future Directions

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

ED Diagnoses

Broad Overview of Current Assessment in EDs

Current Eating Disorder Assessments

Structured and Semi-Structured Clinical Interviews

Self-Report in Clinical Practice and Research

Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire Version 6

Short Versions of the EDE-Q

Eating Attitudes Test 26

Eating Disorder Inventory Version 3

State ED Assessments

Recommendations for Self-Report Assessments

Screening Assessments for Use in Primary Care and Other Health Care Settings

SCOFF

Screening for Disordered Eating

Recommendations for Screenings in Primary Care

Assessment of Comorbidities

Ecological Momentary Assessment

Current EMA Assessments for ED

Research

Clinical

Recommendations for EMA

Behavioral Tasks

Laboratory Tasks

Assessment in the Natural Environment

Behavioral Avoidance Assessments

Visual Body Image Disturbance and Concerns Assessments

Physiological Indices

Recommendations for Objective Assessments

Summary of Existing Assessments

ED Assessments in Research and Clinical Practice

Assessment Goals Based on Setting (e.g., Emergency Room vs. Specialized ED Services)

Assessments for ED Diagnosis and Treatment Planning

Diagnoses and Implications for Treatment Planning

Limitations of Categorical Diagnosis for Assessment

Inclusion of ED Measures in Anxiety and Depression Assessments

Measurement-Based Care for EDs

Future Directions for ED Assessment Research

Ecological Momentary Assessment

Network Theory

Timescale

Summary

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References