Table 2 Methodology and results of the validation process of the studies

Tong [29]

Discriminant validity: Anorexia Nervosa (AN)

Bulimia Nervosa (BN)

Individuals without Eating Disorders (EDs)

Method:

Two-tailed independent sample t-test (Mean, Standard Deviation, SD) Diagnostic performance: Anorexia Nervosa (AN) Bulimia Nervosa (BN) Method: Sensitivity Specificity Positive Predictive Values (PPV) Negative Predictive Values (NPV)

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient Test–retest: Method:

Spearman coefficient

Discriminant validity: AN: Mean: 3.66; SD: 1.30

BN: Mean: 3.60; SD: 1.30 Individuals without EDs: Mean: 0.43; SD: 0.45

P < 0.01

Diagnostic performance: AN

Sensitivity: 94% Specificity: 100% PPV: 100% NPV: 96% BN

Sensitivity: 96% Specificity 100% PPV: 100% NPV: 94%

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.89 Test–retest:

Spearman coefficient r: 0.88; p < 0.01

Penelo [35]

Convergent validity: Presented by group: Women Men Questionnaire on Influences of Aesthetic Body Ideal Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (EDI-2) Children Eating Attitudes Test (ChEAT) Method:

Pearson correlation coefficient Construct validity: Confirmatory factor analysis: Method:

Maximum likelihood estimation Chi-square statistic/degrees of freedom (χ2/df) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) Confidence Interval (CI) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Factor Loading

Measurement Invariance

Model across

Sex

Area of residence

Method:

Equal factor loadings

Item intercepts

Multiple-Indicator Multiple-Cause (MIMC)

Chi-square statistic/degrees of freedom (χ2/df) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) Confidence Interval (CI) Comparative Fit Index (CFI)

Internal consistency: Method:

Omega coefficient Test–retest: Method:

Intraclass correlation coefficient Cohen’s Kappa coefficient

Convergent validity: Women: Questionnaire on Influences of Aesthetic Body Ideal: r: 0.75

EDI-2: r: 0.71

ChEAT: r: 0.53

p < 0.01 Men: Questionnaire on Influences of Aesthetic Body Ideal: r: 0.43

EDI-2: r: 0.18

ChEAT: r: 0.28

p < 0.01 Construct validity: Confirmatory factor analysis: χ2/df: 1945.85; 205 RMSEA: 0.05 CI 90%: 0.052; 0.056 CFI: 0.89 Factor loadings: All items with factor loadings > 0.30; p < 0.01

Measurement Invariance:

Model equal factor loading:

χ2/df: 2887.616; 880

RMSEA: 0.056 CI90%: 0.054; .058

CFI: 0.875

Model equal intercepts

χ2/df: 3065.523; 940

RMSEA: 0.056 CI 90%: 0.053; 0.058

CFI: 0.867

Internal consistency: Omega coefficient: 0.94 Test–retest: Intraclass correlation coefficients: 0.84 Cohen’s Kappa: 0.56

Becker [32]

Convergent validity: Fijian Body Shape Concern and Dissatisfaction Questionnaire (FBSQ) Questions on Tradition and Change Global School-Based Student Health Survey (GSHS) Method:

Pearson correlation coefficients Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Method: Extraction: Principal axis factoring Rotation: Oblique ProMax Total Variance

Factor Loading

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficients Test–retest: Method:

Intraclass correlation coefficients

Cohen’s kappa coefficient

Convergent validity: FBSQ:

r: 0.53 Questions on Tradition and Change: r: 0.11–0.23

GSHS: r: 0.27–0.41

p < 0.001 Construct validity Exploratory factor analysis: Total Variance: Four factors represent 42% of the total variance

Factor loadings: All items with factor loadings > 0.50, range: 0.7–0.8

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: Range: 0.66 to 0.81 Test–retest: Intraclass correlation coefficients: 0.50–0.70 Cohen’s kappa coefficient: k: 0.13 to 0.81

Mahmoodi [34]

Convergent validity: Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA) Binge Eating Scale (BES) Method:

Pearson correlation coefficient Discriminant validity: Underweight students Overweight student Healthy weight student Method:

Univariate Analysis of Variance (Mean, Standard Deviation (SD)

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficients

Convergent validity: CIA: r: 0.34 BES: r: 0.60

p < 0.01 Discriminant validity: Underweight students: Mean: 0.46; SD: 0.65

Overweight student: Mean: 2.35; SD: 1.27 Healthy weight student: Mean: 1.19; SD: 1.06

p < 0.0001

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.91

Lewis-Smith [28]

Convergent validity: Presented by group: Boys Girls Body Esteem Scale for Adolescents and Adult (BESAA) Method:

Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (rho) Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Method: Rotation: Oblique Guttman-Kaiser Criterion Parallel analysis criterion Factor Loadings Relative Chi-Square (Relative χ2) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMSR) Confirmatory factor analysis: Method: Relative Chi-Square (Relative χ2) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMSR)

Measurement Invariance

Boys

Girls

Method:

Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes Models (MIMIC)

Internal consistency:

Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficients Test–retest: Method: Boys Girls Cohen’s kappa coefficient

Convergent validity: Boys BESAA: rho: 0.61

p < 0.01

Girls BESAA: rho: 0.64

p < 0.01 Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Boys: Guttman-Kaiser Criterion: Two factors with eigenvalues > 1; range: 1.92 and 8.98 Parallel Analysis Criterion: Two factors for the solution Factor Loadings: All items with factor loadings > 0.5 Relative χ2: 2.53 RMSEA: 0.06 CFI: 0.95 TLI: 0.93 SRMR: 0.05 Girls: Guttman-Kaiser Criterion: Three factors eigenvalues with > 1; range: 1.4, 2.4 and 9.96 Parallel Analysis Criterion: Two factors for retention Factor Loadings: All items with factor loadings > 0.5 Relative χ2: 2.16 RMSEA: 0.06 CFI: 0.93 TLI: 0.90 SRMR: 0.04 Confirmatory factor analysis: Relative χ2: 5.547⁵

RMSEA: 0.06 CFI: 0.95 TLI: 0.94 SRMR: 0.03

Measurement Invariance

Boys and girls

MIMIC: 0.244 to 0.317

Internal consistency:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.91 Test–retest: Cohen’s kappa coefficient: Range: 0.25–0.74

Unikel Santoncini [30]

Construct validity: Confirmatory factor analysis: Method:

Maximum likelihood Chi-square statistic/degrees of freedom (χ2/df) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR) Factor Loading

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient

Construct validity: Confirmatory factor analysis: χ2/df: 39; 11; p < 0.001 RMSEA: 0.07; 90% CI: 0.05, 0.10 CFI: 0.99 TLI: 0.98 SRMR: 0.02 Factor Loadings: All items with factor loadings > 0.60; range: 0.66–0.91

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.9

He [26]

Convergent validity: Eating Attitude Test‑26 (EAT-26) Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) Method:

Pearson correlation coefficients

Construct validity: Confirmatory factor analysis: Method: Chi-square statistic/degrees of freedom (χ2/ df) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) Root Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) with (Confidence Interval 90% CI) Factor Loadings Item response theory: Rasch modeling: Method: Unidimensionality: Principal components analysis: Variance Explained Unexplained Variance Eigenvalue Item calibration: Information weighted ft statistic (inft) Outlier-sensitive ft statistic (outfit) Person separation index Person separation reliability Differential Item Functioning (DIF)

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient

Test–retest: Method:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

Convergent validity: EAT-26: r: 0.56

K10: r: 0.44

p < 0.01

Construct validity: Confirmatory factor analysis: χ2/df: 1060.34; 54, p < 0.01 CFI: 0.93 TLI: 0.91 RMSEA: 0.14; 90% CI: 0.13–0.14 Factor Loadings: All items with factor loadings > 0.6 Item response theory: Rasch modeling: Unidimensionality: Principal components analysis Variance Explained: 48.9% Unexplained Variance: 9.6% Eigenvalue: 2.25 Item calibration Inft: Range: 0.89 to 1.28 Outfit: Range: 0.84 to 1.31 Person separation index: 2.17 Person separation reliability: 8.13 DIF: Contrast value for item 6 0.67, the rest of the items < 0.55 logits

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.89

Test–retest: Intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.82

Yucel [31]

Convergent validity: Eating Attitudes Test (EAT) Turkish version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) Body Image Satisfaction Method:

Pearson correlation coefficient

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficients Test-rest: Method:

Pearson correlation coefficient

Convergent validity: EAT: r: 0.49 Turkish version of the GHQ: r: 0.41

BIS: r: −0.25

p < 0.001

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.93 Test–retest: Pearson correlation coefficient: r: 0.91; p < 0.001

Ramli [36]

Construct validity: Confirmatory factor analysis: Method: Rotation: Varimax Keiser value Eigenvalues Total Variance Factor loading

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficients

Construct validity: Confirmatory factor analysis: Keiser value: 0.89 Eigenvalues: Four factors with eigenvalues > 1 Total Variance: Four factors explained 59% of the total variance Factor loading: 21 of the 26 items with factor loadings < 0.3; range: 0.3–0.8

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.87

Mohd Taib [27]

Convergent validity: Eating Attitudes Test (EAT)

World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief (WHOQL) Method:

Pearson correlation coefficient

Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Method: Extraction: principal axis factoring Rotation: Oblique Eigenvalue Total variance Factor loadings

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient Test–retest: Method:

Pearson

correlations coefficient

Convergent validity: EAT: r: 0.53

WHOQL: r: 0.27

p < 0.01 Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Eigenvalue: Four factors with eigenvalue > 1; range 1.1–9.4 Total variance: Four factors explained 63% of the total variance Factor loadings: 27 of the 28 items with factor loadings in all factors < 0.3; range: 0.3–0.9

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.93 Test–retest: Pearson correlation:

coefficient: r: 0.83

p < 0.01

Compte [33]

Construct validity: Confirmatory factor analysis: Presented by group: College students Weightlifter Cross-fit Rugby players Method:

Robust maximum likelihood estimation Chi-square statistic/degrees of freedom (χ2/df) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMSR) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA); (Confidence Interval 90% (CI)

Measurement Invariance

Configural invariance

Metric invariance

Scalar invariance

Method:

Δ Comparative Fit Index (CFI)

Δ Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)

Δ Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR)

Internal consistency: Presented by group: College students Weightlifter Cross-fit Rugby players Method:

Omega coefficients (Confidence Interval 95% (CI)

Construct validity: Confirmatory factor analysis: College students: χ2/df: 2.17 CFI: 0.96 TLI: 0.94 SRMSR: 0.04 RMSEA: 0.07; CI 90%: 0.05, 0.09 Weightlifters: χ2/df: 2.55 CFI: 0.94 TLI: 0.92 SRMSR: 0.04 RMSEA: 0.08; CI 90%: 0.05, 0.10 Cross fit: χ2/df: 1.82 CFI: 0.95 TLI: 0.93 SRMSR: 0.05 RMSEA: 0.06; CI 90%: 0.04, 0.10 Rugby: χ2/df: 2.57 CFI: 0.91 TLI: 0.87 SRMSR: 0.05 RMSEA: 0.09; CI 90%: 0.06, 0.11

Measurement Invariance

Configural vs Metric:

ΔCFI: 0.003

ΔRMSEA: 0.008

ΔSRMR: 0.024

Metric vs Scalar:

ΔCFI: 0.003

ΔRMSEA: 0.005

ΔSRMR: 0.002

Internal consistency: Omega coefficients: College students: 0.91; CI 95%: 0.88, 0.93 Weightlifter: 0.86; CI 95%: 0.82, 0.89 Cross-fit: 0.86; CI 95%: 0.82, 0.91 Rugby players: 0.86; CI 95%: 0.82, 0.90

Unikel Santoncini [37]

Convergent validity: Symptom checklist Coopersmith Self Esteem Inventory (CSEI) Method:

Pearson correlation coefficient Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Method: Extraction: Principal components analysis Rotation: Varimax Eigenvalues Total Variance Factor Loadings

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficients

Convergent validity: Symptom check list: r: 0.45–0.71 CSEI: r: −0.63

p < 0.01 Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Eigenvalue: Six factors with eigenvalues > 1; range: 1.2–9.9 Total Variance: Six factor explained 56% of the total variance Factor Loadings: All items with factor loadings > 0.50; range: 0.51–0.80

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.93

García-García [38]

Diagnostic performance: Method: Sensitive cut-off point Sensitivity (Confidence Interval 95% CI) Specificity (Confidence Interval 95% CI) Positive Predictive Value (PPV) Negative Predictive Value (NPV) Specific cut-off point

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient

Diagnostic performance: Sensitive cutoff point: 80% Sensitivity: 91%; CI 95%: 69 a 98 Specificity: 80%; CI 95%: 58 to 92 PPV: 82% NPV: 87% Specific cutoff point: 105% Sensitivity: 81%; CI 95%: 59 to 94 Specificity: 89%; CI 95%: 70 to 97 PPV: 85% NPV: 84%

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.85

Dadgostar [40]

Content validity: Method: Content Validity Index Validity index for clarity Validity index for relevancy Comprehensiveness of the survey

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient Test–Retest: Method:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

Content validity: Validity index for clarity: 0.91; 89 items out of 91 Validity index for relevancy: 0.89; 87 items out of 91 Comprehensiveness of the survey: 100%

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients: Range: 0. 6–0.8

Test–retest: Intraclass correlation coefficient: Range: 0.69–0.71

Rutsztein [39]

Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Eating Disorder Risk Scale Scales of psychological characteristics Method: Extraction: Maximum likelihood Rotation: Promax Bartlett's test Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin coefficient (KMO) Eigenvalues Total Variance

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient

Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Eating Disorder Risk Scale: Bartlett's test: χ²: 902.567 g.l.: 300; p < 0.01 KMO: 0.93 Eigenvalue: Three factors with eigenvalue > 1; range: 1.6–9.047 Total Variance: Three factor explained 53% of the total variance Scales of psychological characteristics: Bartlett's test: χ²: 16,851.928; g.l.: 208; p < 0.01 KMO: 0.91. Eigenvalues: Eight factors with eigenvalue > 1; range: 1.5–12.39 Total Variance: Eight factor explained 44% of the total variance

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: Range: 0.63–0.97

Savaşır [25]

Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Method: Extraction: principal component analysis Total variance Factor loadings

Internal Consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient

Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Total variance: Four factors explained 59% of the total variance Factor loadings: 13 of the 40 items with factor loadings > 0.30; range: 0.35–0.73

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.70

Nasser [41]

Construct validity: Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Method:

Orthogonal structure

Rotation: Varimax

Screen Test with eigenvalues Total Variance Factor Loadings

Internal consistency: Internal validity of each factor: Factor dieting Factor bulimia and food preoccupation Factor oral control Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient

Construct Validity: Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Scree plot with eigenvalues: Three factors with eigenvalues > 1; range:1.01–3.54 Total variance: Three factors explained 54,2% of the total variance Factor loadings: 15 of the 26 items presented factor loadings > 0.40; range: 0.40–0.99

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: Range: 0.2–0.8

Alvarez-Rayón [44]

Discriminant validity: Individuals with Eating Disorders (EDs) Control Group Method:

Mean, Standard Deviation SD Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Method: Rotation: Varimax Criterion of Eigenvalue Total Variance Factor Loadings Diagnostic performance: Method: Cut-off Sensitivity Specificity

Positive Predictive Value (PPV)

Negative Predictive Value (NPV)

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient

Discriminant validity: Individuals with EDs: Mean: 49.1; SD: 11.3 Control Group: Mean: 15.5; SD: 5.0

p ≤ 0.0001 Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Criterion of Eigenvalue: Five factors with eigenvalue > 1; range: 1.5–9.4 Total Variance: Five factors explained 46% of the total variance Factor Loadings: 25 of the 40 items with factor loadings > 0.30; range: 0.41–0.84 Diagnostic performance: Cut-off: 26 Sensitivity: 83% Specificity: 91%

PPV: 16.3%

NPV: 9.3%

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.93

Nunes [45]

Diagnostic performance: Method: Cut-off point Sensitivity Specificity Positive Predictive Value (PPV) Negative Predictive Value (NPV)

Internal consistency:

Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient

Diagnostic performance: Cut-off point ≥ 21 Sensitivity: 40% Specificity: 84% PPV: 14% NPV: 95%

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.75

Fortes [46]

Convergent validity: Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ) Method:

Spearman Rank correlation Discriminant validity: Anthropometric data: Low weight

Normal weight

Overweight

Obese Method:

ANOVA one-way (Mean; Standard Deviation, (SD) Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis Method: Extraction: Principal components analysis Rotation: Oblimin Bartlett's Test Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin coefficient (KMO) Total Variance Factor Loadings

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient Test–retest: Method:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

Convergent Validation: BSQ: r-spearman: 0.50

p < 0.01 Discriminant validaty: Low weight: Mean: 10.5; SD: 3.9

Normal weight: Mean: 13.4; SD: 1.2

Overweight: Mean: 14.8; SD: 2.6

Obese: Mean: 21.1; SD: 4.2

p < 0.05 Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Bartlett's Test: 3567; p < 0.01 KMO: 0.92 Total Variance: A single factor was responsible for explaining 32.8% of the total variance. Factor Loadings: 24 of the 26 items with factor loadings > 0.30-range: 0.34–0.73

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.88 Test–retest: Intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.93; p < 0.01

Kang [48]

Convergent validity Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI) Method:

Pearson correlation coefficient Diagnostic performance: Method: A receiver operating characteristic Area under the curve (AUC) Sensitivity Specificity Youden Index (YI)

Internal consistency:

Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient Test–retest: Method:

Interclass correlation coefficient

Convergent validity: EDI: r: 0.45–0.75

p < 0.001 Diagnostic performance: Cut-off: 15 AUC: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.80–0.81 Sensitivity: Range: 0.66 to 0.68 Specificity: Range: 0.85–0.86 YI: 0.52

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: Range: 0.82–0.92 Test–retest: Interclass correlation coefficient: 0.81

Constaín [49]

Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Method: Extraction: Principal components analysis Rotation: Varimax Correlation matrix Bartlett's test Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin coefficient (KMO) Eigenvalue Total variance Factorial loadings Diagnostic performance: Method:

ROC Curves (receiver operating characteristic)

Area under the curve (AUC) Sensitivity Specificity Positive Predictive Value (PPV) Negative Predictive Value (NPV) + Likelihood Ratio (+ LR)—Likelihood Ration (-LR) (Confidence Interval 95% CI)

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient

Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Correlation matrix: 0.000000291 Bartlett's test: 2.46.48; p < 0.0001 KMO: 0.90 Eigenvalue: Four factors with > 1 Total Variance: Four factors represent 66% of the total variance. Factorial loadings: All items with factorial loadings > 0.50; range: 0.55 to 0.85 Diagnostic performance: Cut-off value ≥ 11

AUC: 97.3% (z = 20.7, p < 0,0001) Sensitivity: 100%; CI 95%: 86.3–100% Specificity: 85.6%; CI 95%: 77.6–91.5% PPV: 61%; CI 95%: 44.5–75.8 NPV: 100%; CI 95%: 96.2–100.0% + LR: 6.9%; CI 95%: 4.4–10.9%-LR: 0.0%

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.92

Constaín [50]

Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Method: Extraction: Principal components analysis Rotation: Varimax Bartlett's test Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin coefficient (KMO) Eigenvalue Total variance Factor loadings Diagnostic performance: Method:

ROC Curves (receiver operating characteristic)

Area under the curve (AUC Sensitivity Specificity Positive Predictive Value (PPV) Negative Predictive Value (NPV) + Likelihood Ratio (+ LR)—Likelihood Ration (-LR) (Confidence Interval 95% CI)

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient

Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Bartlett's test: 325; p < 0.0001 KMO: 0.78 Eigenvalue: Four factors with eigenvalue > 1 Total variance: Four factors represent 56.4% of the total variance. Factor loadings: All items with factor loadings > 0.50; range: 0.44–0.79

Diagnostic performance: Cut-off value ≥ 21

AUC: 99.9% (z = 142.3; p < 0,0001) Sensitivity: 100%; CI 95%: 86.3–100% Specificity: 85.6%; CI 95%: 79.3–100% PPV: 93%; CI 95%: 72.0 -98.9% NPV: 100%; CI 95%: 96.0–100.0% + LR: 46.5%; CI 95%: 45.1–47.9% -LR: 0.0%

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.89

Erguney-Okumus [51]

Convergent validity: Eating Attitude Test-40 (EAT-40) Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) Eating Disorder Rating Scale Method:

Pearson correlation coefficient

Construct validity: Exploratory Factor Analysis: Method: Rotation: Oblique Bartlett's test Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin coefficient (KMO) Eigenvalue Total variance Factor loadings Confirmatory factor analysis: Method:

Robust maximum likelihood estimation Chi-square statistic/degrees of freedom (χ2/df) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMSR) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient Test–retest: Method:

Pearson correlation coefficient

Convergent validity: EAT-40: r: 0.48

BSI: r: 0.22

Eating Disorder Rating Scale: r: 0.65

p < 0.001 Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Bartlett's test: 325; p < 0.001 KMO: 0.88 Eigenvalue: Three factors with eigenvalues > 1 Total variance: Three factors explained 38.5% of the total variance Factor loadings: All items with factor loadings > 0.30; range: 0.31 to 0.80 Confirmatory factor analysis: χ2/df: 2.92 CFI: 0.84 GFI: 0.89 SRMR: 0.08 RMSEA: 0.07

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: Range: 0.62–0.85 Test–retest: Pearson correlation coefficient: r: 0.78; p < 0.001

Kaewporndawan [47]

Content validity: Method:

Content validity index Item total correlation coefficient

Discriminant validity: Individuals with Eating Disorders (EDs) Control group Method: (Independent sample test-t); Mean, Standard Deviation, SD Diagnostic performance: Method: Area Under the Curve (AUC) Cut-off Sensitivity Specificity Positive Predictive Value (PPV) Negative Predictive Value (NPV)

Positive Likelihood Ratio (+ LR) Negative Likelihood Ratio

(-LR)

Not Applicable

Content validity: Item total correlation coefficient: 25 of the 26 items were > 0.5, except for question 26 of 0.82

Discriminant validity: Individuals with EDs: Mean: 30.4; SD: 15.7

Control group: Mean: 6.5; SD: 5.9

p < 0.001 Diagnostic performance: AUC: 0.93 Cut-off point: 12 Sensitivity: 71% Specificity: 94% PPV: 92% NPV: 76% + LR: 11.8 -LR: 0.31

Not Applicable

Haddad [42]

Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Method: Extraction: principal component analysis Rotation: Promax Bartlett's test of sphericity Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin coefficient (KMO) Eigenvalue Total Variance Confirmatory factor analysis: Method: Maximum likelihood Relative chi-square (χ2/df) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)

Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI)

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient

Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Bartlett's test of sphericity: p < 0·001 KMO: 0·91 Eigenvalue: Six factors with eigenvalues > 1 Total variance: Six factors explained 60% of the total variance

Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Method: Maximum likelihood χ2/df: 2.4 RMSEA: 0.13 GFI: 0.76 AGFI: 0.71

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.89

Ahmadi [43]

Convergent validity: Binge Eating Scale (BES)

Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) Method: Bonferroni correction Discriminant validity: Method:

Individuals who are currently on a diet Individuals who have never been on a diet Method:

Multivariate analysis of variance (Mean; Standard Deviation; SD)

Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Method: Extraction: Principal component analysis Rotation: Varimax Bartlett's test Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin coefficient (KMO) Eigenvalue Total Variance Factor Loadings

Internal consistency: Method:

Polychoric ordinal alpha Test–retest: Method:

Pearson correlation

coefficient

Convergent validity: BES: r: 0.46

BDI-II: r: 0.19

BAI: r: 0.26

p < 0.001 Discriminant validity:

Individuals who are currently on a diet: Mean: 20.4; SD: 1.1 Individuals who have never been on a diet: Mean: 8.8; SD: 0.5

p < 0.001 Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Bartlett's test: 3.977.12; p < 0.0001 KMO: 0.82 Eigenvalue: Five factors with eigenvalue > 1; range 1.26–5.7 Total Variance: Five factors represent 50% of the total variance. Factor Loadings: All items with factor loadings > 0.30; range: 0.33–0.87

Internal consistency: Polychoric ordinal alpha: Range: 0.76–0.92 Test–retest: Pearson correlation coefficient: Range: 0.26–0.64

Pinhero [52]

Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Method: Extraction: Principal components analysis Rotation: Varimax Bartlett’s test Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin coefficient (KMO) Scree plot with eigenvalues Total Variance Factor Loadings

Internal consistency: Method:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient

Construct validity: Exploratory factor analysis: Bartlett’s test: 0.003 KMO: 0.70 Scree plot with eigenvalues: Three factors with eigenvalues > 1 Total Variance: Three factors explained 33% of the total variance Factorial Loadings: All items with factor loadings > 0.30; range: 0.35–0.81

Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.69