Skip to main content

Table 6 Comparisons of eating attitudes and disordered eating behaviors in a subsample of gender-expansive individuals 18–26 years old (N = 483) and 18–25 years old (N = 434) in The PRIDE Study to age-matched cisgendera men from the Lavender et al. (2010) [21] sample (N = 404) and cisgendera women from the Luce et al. (2008) [22] sample (N = 723)

From: Community norms for the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) among gender-expansive populations

  Gender-expansiveindividuals fromThe PRIDE Study
18–26 years
Cisgendera menfrom Lavenderet al. (2010) [21]   Gender-expansiveindividuals fromThe PRIDE Study
18–25 years
Cisgendera womenfrom Luce et al.(2008) [22]  
Eating Attitudes Mean (standard deviation) T-test p Mean (standard deviation) T-test p
 EDE-Q Restraint 1.15 (1.46) 1.04 (1.19) 1.21 .227 1.15 (1.45) 1.62 (1.54) −5.14 < .001*
 EDE-Q EC 1.07 (1.27) 0.43 (0.77) 9.86 < .001* 1.10 (1.27) 1.11 (1.11) −0.14 .889
 EDE-Q WC 2.18 (1.66) 1.29 (1.27) 8.83 < .001* 2.20 (1.66) 1.97 (1.56) 2.37 .018
 EDE-Q SC 2.56 (1.68) 1.59 (1.38) 9.23 < .001* 2.59 (1.69) 2.27 (1.54) 3.30 < .001*
 EDE-Q Global 1.74 (1.36) 1.09 (1.00) 7.97 < .001* 1.76 (1.36) 1.74 (1.30) 0.25 .803
Disordered eating behaviors Any occurrence (%) Z-test p Any occurrence (%) Z-test p
 Dietary restraint 27.1 24.0 0.80 .423 27.4 25.9 0.581 .562
 Objective binge episodes 14.3 25.0 4.04 < .001* 15.0 21.3 2.66 .008
 Self-induced vomiting 1.4 3.2 1.77 .077 1.4 8.8 5.16 < .001*
 Laxative misuse 1.2 2.7 1.60 .109 1.2 8.3 5.11 < .001*
 Excessive exercise 8.1 31.4 8.88 < .001* 8.1 30.8 9.01 < .001*
  1. Any occurrence was defined as ≥1 episode in the past 28 days. EDE-Q scores were compared using independent samples t-tests. Proportions of disordered eating behaviors were compared with Z-tests or Fisher’s exact tests
  2. EDE-Q Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire, EDE-Q EC Eating Concern subscale, EDE-Q WC Weight Concern subscale, EDE-Q SC Shape Concern subscale, EDE-Q Global Global score
  3. * p < .005 (after Bonferroni correction)
  4. a Cisgender is presumed here as comprehensive gender assessment was not performed in Lavender et al. (2010) [21] or Luce et al. (2008) [22]