Aims The prevention and early recognition of eating disorders (EDs) are important topics in publichealth. This study aims to compare the efficacy of the Eating Disorder Inventory 2 (EDI-2) with thenew version, EDI-3 in recognising patients and identifying subjects at risk for EDs.Methods The EDI-2 and EDI-3 were administered to 92 female patients with ED and 265 femalesfrom a population at risk for EDs. Experienced psychiatrists in this field held blind interviews withparticipants by means of the SCID-I to determine the diagnosis.Results According to the cut-offs suggested by the authors, the EDI-3 correctly identified nearly allof the ED patients (99%), while the EDI-2 divulged less than half (48%). Both versions of the testshowed comparable capability to identify participants at risk for EDs but the EDI-3 seemed slightlymore reliable than the EDI-2.Conclusions The EDI-2 remains a valid and very specific test. However, the new EDI-3 seems to beexperimentally superior, because it typifies nearly all patients across the ED span, including thosewith Binge Eating Disorder and Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. In addition, it appears tobe more reliable.
Ability of EDI-2 and EDI-3 to correctly identify patients and subjects at risk for eating disorders
Segura Garcia C
Conceptualization
;Aloi M;Rania M;Ciambrone P;Palmieri A;Pugliese V;De Fazio P
2015-01-01
Abstract
Aims The prevention and early recognition of eating disorders (EDs) are important topics in publichealth. This study aims to compare the efficacy of the Eating Disorder Inventory 2 (EDI-2) with thenew version, EDI-3 in recognising patients and identifying subjects at risk for EDs.Methods The EDI-2 and EDI-3 were administered to 92 female patients with ED and 265 femalesfrom a population at risk for EDs. Experienced psychiatrists in this field held blind interviews withparticipants by means of the SCID-I to determine the diagnosis.Results According to the cut-offs suggested by the authors, the EDI-3 correctly identified nearly allof the ED patients (99%), while the EDI-2 divulged less than half (48%). Both versions of the testshowed comparable capability to identify participants at risk for EDs but the EDI-3 seemed slightlymore reliable than the EDI-2.Conclusions The EDI-2 remains a valid and very specific test. However, the new EDI-3 seems to beexperimentally superior, because it typifies nearly all patients across the ED span, including thosewith Binge Eating Disorder and Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. In addition, it appears tobe more reliable.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.