From: Psychometric properties of self-report measures of eating disorder cognitions: a systematic review
Measure/study | Development Study | Factor analysis | Study population(s) and sample size(s) | Mean age (SD) | Sex ratio (% female) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Beliefs About Appearance Questionnaire (BAAS) | |||||
Spangler and Stice [82] | No | PCA and CFA indicated a one-factor model | University Sample 1 = 462 University Sample 2 = 117 | 64% aged 18–21 Age range 17–29 | 53% 100% |
Bulimic Automatic Thoughts Test (BATT) | |||||
Franko and Zuroff [31] | No | No factor analysis performed | BN = 64 Depressed college = 20 Non-binge obese = 20 Control college = 20 | 25.20 (?) 20.60 (?) 20.60 (?) 20.60 (?) | ? ? ? ? |
Body Checking Cognitions Scale (BCCS) | |||||
Mountford et al. [60] | Yes | PCA and CFA indicated a four-factor model: 1. Objective verification beliefs 2. Reassurance beliefs 3. Safety beliefs 4. Body control beliefs | Non-clinical = 180 Clinical ED = 84 | 22.40 (6.64) 28.30 (8.69) | 100% 100% |
Bulimia Cognitive Distortions Scale (BCDS) | |||||
Bonifazi et al. [7] | No | No factor analysis performed | BN = 15 Restrained eaters = 15 Control = 15 | 20.10 (2.20) 19.50 (2.60) 19.40 (1.30) | 100% 100% 100% |
Schulman et al. [80] | Yes | EFA indicated two-factor model: 1. Cognitive distortions associated with automatic eating behaviours 2. Cognitive distortions associated with physical appearance | BN = 55 Control = 55 | 24.50 (?) 22.60 (?) | 100% 100% |
Bulimic Thoughts Questionnaire (BTQ) | |||||
Phelan [68] | Yes | CFA indicated a three-factor model: 1. Self-schema 2. Self-efficacy 3. Salient beliefs | BN = 31 Obese = 20 Control = 22 | N/A (‘college’) | 100% |
Eating Beliefs Questionnaire (EBQ) | |||||
Burton et al. [12] | No | CFA indicated a two-factor model: 1. Positive beliefs about eating 2. Negative Beliefs about eating | Community = 290 University = 283 BE = 76 Obese = 120 | 27.54 (9.57) 20.23 (4.80) 35.97 (17.68) 42.32 (9.51) | 67.9% 52.3% 100% 58% |
Burton et al. [14] | No | No factor analysis performed | BN = 38 BED = 36 Control = 114 | 23.08 (4.45) 49.72 (16.35) 29.12 (10.34) | 100% 100% 70.2% |
Eating Beliefs Questionnaire 18 (EBQ-18) | |||||
Burton and Abbott [10] | No | EFA indicated and CFA supported a three-factor model: 1. Positive beliefs about eating 2. Negative beliefs about eating 3. Permissive beliefs about eating | University = 907 | 20.38 (4.88) | 72% |
Burton et al. [13] | No | CFA supported a three-factor model as in Burton and Abbott [10] | Total sample = 688 | 25.38 (11.82) | 63.1% |
Eating Disorder Beliefs Questionnaire (EDBQ) | |||||
Cooper et al. [18] | Yes | PCA indicated a four-factor model: 1. Negative self-beliefs 2. Weight and shape as a means of acceptance by others 3. Weight and shape as a means to self-acceptance 4. Control over eating | Study 1: Non-clinical = 249 | 20.90 (?) | 100% |
Bergin and Wade [6] | No | CFA supported four-factor model as in Cooper et al. [18] | Non-clinical = 298 BN = 44 | 24.00 (9.65) 27.00 (7.76) | 100% 97.7% |
Eating Disorder Core Beliefs Questionnaire (ED-CBQ) | |||||
Fairchild and Cooper [28] | Yes | EFA indicated five-factor model: 1. Self-loathing 2. Unassertive/inhibited 3. High standards for self 4. Demanding/in need of help and support 5. Abandoned/deprived | Non-clinical = 500 | 26.25 (8.70) | 100% |
Eating Disorder Core Beliefs Questionnaire Revised (ED-CBQ-R) | |||||
Hatoum et al. [40] | No | CFA indicated four-factor model: 1. Self-loathing 2. Unassertive/inhibited 3. Demanding/in need of help and support 4. Abandoned/deprived | Non-clinical = 763 | 19.21 (3.21) | 71% |
Hatoum et al. [41] | No | CFA supported four-factor model as in Hatoum et al. [40] | Non-clinical = 283 | 20.23 (4.80) | 52.3% |
Eating Disorder Inventory—Body Dissatisfaction Subscale (EDI [BD]) | |||||
Garner et al. [36] | Yes | No factor analysis performed | AN Restrictors = 48 AN Bulimics = 65 Non-clinical 1 = 577 Non-clinical 2 = 166 Normal weight bulimic = 195 Obese = 44 Formerly obese = 52 Recovered anorexic = 17 | 21.00 (?) 22.40 (?) 19.90 (?) 20.30 (?) 20.80 (?) 32.50 (?) 36.70 (?) 23.90 (?) | 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% ? |
Cooper et al. [19] | No | No factor analysis performed | Psychiatric outpatients = 27 | N/A (Range 17–39) | 100% |
Gross et al. [38] | No | No factor analysis performed | Bulimia = 82 | 24.30 (?) | 100% |
Raciti and Norcross [71] | No | PCA supported the hypothesised eight-factor model (including the body dissatisfaction subscale) | Non-clinical = 268 | 18.00 (0.78) | 100% |
Wear and Pratz [95] | No | No factor analysis performed | University = 70 | N/A (‘University’) | 75.7% |
Welch et al. [96] | No | PCA indicated a three-factor model, not supporting the eight original EDI subscales (body dissatisfaction subscale not indicated as a separate factor/subscale) | University 1 =  University 2 =  Aerobic dancers = 142 | 20.00 (?) 21.00 (?) 26.00 (?) | ? ? ? |
tt et al. (1990) | No | No factor analysis performed | AN = 65 General psychiatric = 69 Bulimia = 66 | 23.00 (7.00) 31.00 (6.30) 26.10 (5.70) | 100% 100% 100% |
Klemchuk et al. [47] | No | PCA indicated a six-factor model, not supporting the eight original EDI subscales (body dissatisfaction subscale not indicated as a separate factor/subscale) | University 1 = 621 University 2 = 636 University 3 = 249 | 18.30 (1.00) 18.80 (0.70) 20.60 (0.80) | 100% 100% 100% |
Schaefer et al. [79] | No | EFA indicated a five-factor model, not supporting the eight original EDI subscales (including the body dissatisfaction subscale) | BN subsample = 48 EDNOS subsample = 17 Total ED sample = 79 | 24.40 (4.00) 29.00 (7.77) ? (?) | 100% 100% 100% |
Eating Disorder Inventory II—Body Dissatisfaction Subscale (EDI-II [BD]) | |||||
Tasca et al. [86] | No | CFAs supported a second-order two factor structure for the original EDI scales in the BED sample but not the BN sample CFAs did not support the hypothesised two-factor structure in either sample | BED = 144 BN Purging = 152 | 41.97 (12.35) 29.39 (8.80) | 100% 100% |
Spillane et al. [83] | No | CFA supported the hypothesised eight-factor structure, and provided evidence for invariance of body dissatisfaction subscale across gender | University 1 = 215 University 2 = 214 | 18.48 (1.07) 18.83 (1.15) | 100% 0% |
Reilly et al. [72] | No | No factor analysis performed | University = 529 | N/A (‘University’) | 55.4% |
Eating Disorder Inventory III—Body Dissatisfaction Subscale (EDI-III [BD]) | |||||
Kashubeck-West et al. [46] | No | CFA did not support one-factor structure hypothesised for the body dissatisfaction subscale EFA suggested a two-factor model: 1. Stomach sizes 2. Thighs, hips, butt | University = 278 | 29.04 (9.35) | 100% |
Cordero et al. [22] | No | EFA using the ‘eating disorder risk composite’ subscales supported the hypothesised three-factor model: 1. Drive for thinness 2. Bulimia 3. Body dissatisfaction* | University = 248 | 20.30 (4.50) | 97.6% |
Stein et al. [85] | No | No factor analysis performed | University = 477 | 19.80 (2.40) | 100% |
Belon et al. [4] | No | CFA using the ‘eating disorder risk composite’ subscales supported the hypothesised three-factor model in the full sample: 1. Drive for thinness 2. Bulimia 3. Body dissatisfaction* Measurement invariance not supported in subsamples for the body dissatisfaction subscale (Caucasian and Hispanic subsamples) | University = 688 | 20.40 (3.50) | 100% |
Rothstein et al. [74] | No | CFA using the ‘eating disorder risk composite’ subscales supported the hypothesised three-factor model in European American subsample 1. Drive for thinness 2. Bulimia 3. Body dissatisfaction* A follow-up EFA using the ‘eating disorder risk composite’ subscales indicated a four-factor model in African American subsample: 1. Drive for thinness 2. Bulimia 3. Body dissatisfaction* 4. Body satisfaction | African American = 104 European American = 197 | 29.03 (11.37) 27.30 (9.82) | 100% |
Forbush et al. [30] | No | No factor analysis performed | University = 227 | 19.80 (3.00) | 58.2% |
Eating Expectancy Inventory (EEI) | |||||
Williams-Kerver et al. [99] | No | CFA supported the hypothesised five-factor model: 1. Eating helps manage negative affect 2. Eating is pleasurable and useful as a reward 3. Eating leads to feeling out of control 4. Eating enhances cognitive competence 5. Eating alleviates boredom | Bariatric = 262 | 45.30 (12.80) | 100% |
Functions of Binge Eating Scale (FBES) | |||||
O’Loghlen et al. [62] | Yes | EFA and CFA indicated an eight-factor model: 1. Self-protection 2. Compensatory eating 3. Hedonic hunger 4. Emotional regulation 5. Control 6. Self-punishment 7. Emotion expression 8. Numbness/dissociation | Non-clinical = 882 | 28.52 (9.55) | 76.6% |
Irrational Food Beliefs Scale (IFBS) | |||||
Osberg et al. [64] | Yes | EFA indicated a two-factor model: 1. Irrational beliefs about food and eating 2. Rational beliefs about food and eating | University sample 1 = 139 University sample 2 = 58 University sample 3 = 301 Obese = 96 | 19.25 (2.56) N/A (‘college’) 19.54 (2.93) 49.50 (11.90) | 81.3% 79.3% 68.1% 80.2% |
Interpersonal Outcome Expectancy for Thinness Scale (IOET) | |||||
Li et al. [49] | Yes | EFA indicated a one-factor model: 1. Positive interpersonal outcome expectancies for being thin | University sample 1 = 361 University sample 2 = 184 | 19.37 (1.56) 19.10 (1.55) | 100% 100% |
Mizes Anorectic Cognitions Questionnaire (MACQ) | |||||
Mizes and Klesges [58] | Yes | PCA indicated a three-factor model: 1. Rigid weight and eating regulation 2. Weight and eating behaviour as the basis of approval from others 3. Self-esteem based off excessive self-control | Non-clinical = 205 | N/A (‘college’) | 48.8% |
Mizes [54] | No | No factor analysis performed | Non-clinical = 205 | N/A (‘college’) | 48.8% |
Mizes [55] | No | PCA supported three-factor model as in Mizes and Klesges [58] | Non-clinical = 100 | 18.50 (1.70) | 100% |
Mizes [56] | No | No factor analysis performed | BN = 15 AN = 8 Psychiatric Control = 11 | ‘18 + ’ (N/A) | 86.7% 87.5% 90.9% |
Bonifazi et al. [7]a | No | No factor analysis performed | BN = 15 Restrained eaters = 15 Control = 15 | 20.10 (2.20) 19.50 (2.60) 19.40 (1.30) | 100% |
Mizes Anorectic Cognitions Questionnaire Brief (MACQ-B) | |||||
Osman et al. [65] | No | CFA indicated a three-factor model as in Mizes et al. [57] | Non-clinical = 290 | 20.63 (1.98) | 66.6% |
Mizes Anorectic Cognitions Questionnaire Revised (MACQ-R) | |||||
Mizes et al. [57] | No | PCA supported three-factor model: 1. Self-control and self esteem 2. Weight and approval 3. Rigid weight regulation and fear of weight gain | AN = 44 BN = 97 AN (B/P) = 7 EDNOS = 57 | 25.90 (9.20) | 97.1% |
Muscle Dysmorphia Inventory—Drive for Size Subscale (MDDI [DS]) | |||||
Hildebrandt et al. [43] | Yes | PCA indicated a three-factor model: 1. Drive for size* 2. Appearance intolerance 3. Functional impairment | Weightlifters = 42 Weightlifters = 237 | 28.23 (8.07) 32.64 (12.37) | 0% 0% |
Compte et al. [16] | No | EFA and CFA supported the three-factor model as in Hildebrandt et al. [43] | Gay men = 715 Lesbian women = 404 | 35.40 (10.10) 31.60 (8.40) | 0% 100% |
Nagata et al. [61] | No | EFA and CFA supported the three-factor model as in Hildebrandt et al. [43] | Transgender men = 330 | 30.90 (9.80) | 0% |
Perceived Benefits of Thinness Scale (PBTS) | |||||
Flatt et al. [29] | Yes | EFA and CFA indicated a one-factor model | Non-clinical = 3246 | 22.18 (5.31) | 100% |
Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire 4—Internalisation Thin/Low Body Fat subscale (SATAQ-4 [IT]) | |||||
Schaefer et al. [75] | No | EFA and CFA indicated a five-factor model: 1. Internalisation—Thin/low body fat* 2. Internalization—Muscular/athletic 3. Pressures—Family 4. Pressures—Peers 5. Pressures—Media | Non-clinical = 859 Non-clinical = 440 Non-clinical = 304 Non-clinical = 349 Non-clinical = 362 Non-clinical = 271 | 20.17 (2.41) 18.71(1.01) 19.99 (1.69) 18.87 (1.61) 22.73 (2.82) 20.31 (1.75) | 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% |
Schaefer et al. [76] | No | No factor analysis performed | Non-clinical = 787 | 20.17 (2.41) | 100% |
Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire 4 Revised-Internalisation Thin/Low Body Fat subscale (SATAQ-4R [IT]) | |||||
Schaefer et al. [78] | No | EFA and CFA indicated a seven-factor model: 1. Internalisation—Thin/low body fat* 2. Internalization—Muscular/athletic 3. Internalisation: General attractiveness 4. Pressures—Family 5. Pressures—Peers 6. Pressures—significant others 7. Pressures—Media | Non-clinical = 566 Non-clinical = 548 Non-clinical = 133 Non-clinical = 290 | 20.53 (2.52) 20.55 (4.43) 19.59 (2.35) 20.84 (2.70) | 100% 100% 100% 0% |
Thompson et al. [88] | No | CFA indicated a bifactor model (indicating shared and unique constructs) for the 1. SATAQ-4R -Internalisation—Thin/low body fat subscale* 2. IBSS-R | University = 1114 | 20.54 (2.48) | 100% |
Convertino et al. [17] | No | CFA supported seven-factor model as in Schaefer et al. [78] | Non-clinical = 479 Non-clinical = 482 | 24.03 (3.76) 23.33 (3.69) | 0% 100% |
Stirling Eating Disorders Scales Anorexic Dietary Cognitions subscale (SEDS [ADC]) Bulimic Dietary Cognitions subscale (SEDS [BDC]) Low Self-esteem subscale (SEDS [LSE]) | |||||
Williams et al. [98]1 | Yes | No factor analysis performed | AN = 38 BN = 36 Non-clinical control = 68 | 24.70 (5.30) 20.50 (6.10) 23.80 (4.90) | ? ? ? |
Openshaw and Waller [63]1 | No | No factor analysis performed | BN = 40 | 28.40 (6.60) | 100% |
Gamble et al. [33]1 | No | CFA did not support the original eight-factor model PCA indicated a five-factor solution, not matching the original eight SEDS subscales | Clinical ED = 241 | 26.8 (7.8) | ? |
Testable Assumptions Questionnaire for Eating Disorders (TAQ-ED) | |||||
Hinrichsen et al. [44] | Yes | EFA indicated a three-factor model: 1. Dysfunctional assumptions about the world 2. Dysfunctional assumptions about the body 3. Dysfunctional assumptions about feelings | AN = 17 BN = 34 EDNOS = 28 | 28.59 (8.31) | 100% |
Testable Assumptions Questionnaire for Eating Disorders Revised (TAQ-ED-R) | |||||
Dhokia et al. [25] | No | No factor analysis performed | Non-clinical = 128 AN = 25 BN = 47 | 25.60 (6.07) 27.10 (6.94) 28.30 (7.17) | 100% 100% 100% |
Thoughts Questionnaire (TQ) | |||||
Cooper et al. [20] | Yes | PCA indicated a three-factor model: 1. Negative thoughts about eating 2. Positive thoughts about eating 3. Permissive thoughts | Study 1: Non-clinical = 258 Study 1: AN = 14 Study 1: Dieters = 17 Study 1: Control = 18 Study 2: BN = 12 Study 2: Dieters = 17 Study 2: Control = 20 | 25.70 (8.10) 31.10 (10.30) 29.30 (5.70) 29.80 (8.30) 27.50 (6.30) 28.10 (5.10) 28.00 (4.90) | 100% |
Weight Influenced Self-Esteem Questionnaire (WISE-Q) | |||||
Trottier et al. [89] | Yes | EFA indicated a two-factor model: 1. ‘Generalised’ aspects of self-esteem 2. ‘Expected’ aspects of self-esteem | Study 1 Clinical ED = 184 Study 1 University = 248 Study 2 Clinical ED = 96 | 27.40 (8.60) 22.10 (4.04) 27.40 (8.40) | 100% 100% 100% |