Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Resection Margin after Image-Guided Dural Tail Resection in Convexity Meningiomas
Next Article in Special Issue
Explanatory Factors for Disease-Specific Health-Related Quality of Life in Women with Anorexia Nervosa
Previous Article in Journal
Determinants of Outcomes of Acute Kidney Injury: Clinical Predictors and Beyond
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Retrospective Analysis Evaluating the Outcome of Parenteral Nutrition in the Treatment of Anorexia Nervosa in Korea
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparison of Interview to Questionnaire for Assessment of Eating Disorders after Bariatric Surgery

1
School of Public Health, University of Haifa, 199 Aba Khoushy Ave., Mount Carmel, Haifa 3498838, Israel
2
Maccabi Healthcare Services, Hamered 27, Tel-Aviv 6812509, Israel
3
Mount Sinai Morningside Hospital, 1111 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10025, USA
4
Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1 Gustave L. Levy Pl, New York, NY 10029, USA
5
Institute of Human Nutrition, Vagelos College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, 630 W 168th Street #1512, New York, NY 10032, USA
6
Department of Counseling & Clinical Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 W 120th Street, New York, NY 10027, USA
7
University of North Dakota School of Medicine, 1244 Wildwood Way, Chaska, MN 55318, USA
8
Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, 199 Aba Khoushy Avenue, Mount Carmel, Haifa 3498838, Israel
9
Eating Disorders Institution, Rambam Health Care Campus, HaAliya HaShniya St. 8, Haifa 3109601, Israel
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(6), 1174; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10061174
Submission received: 14 January 2021 / Revised: 22 February 2021 / Accepted: 25 February 2021 / Published: 11 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Special Updated Research on Eating Disorders: Medical Perspectives)

Abstract

:
The Eating Disorder Examination Interview Bariatric Surgery Version (EDE-BSV) assesses eating pathology after bariatric surgery but requires significant training and time to administer. Consequently, we developed a questionnaire format called the Eating Disorders After Bariatric Surgery Questionnaire (EDABS-Q). This study evaluates the consistency of responsiveness between the two formats. After surgery, 30 patients completed the EDE-BSV and EDABS-Q in a restricted randomized design. Patient reported behavior for each item which was converted to a score following the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q) scoring scheme. Responses fell into three distributions: (1) dichotomous, (2) ordinal, or (3) unimodal. Distributions of items were not different between the two formats and order did not influence response. Tests of agreement (normal approximation of the binomial test) and association (χ2 analyses on binary data and spearman rank order correlations on ordinal items) were performed. Percent concordance was high across items (63–100%). Agreement was significant in 31 of 41 items (Bonferroni-P < 0.001). Association was significant in 10 of 21 in χ2–appropriate items (Bonferroni-P < 0.002), and the ordinal items had highly significant correlations between formats (Bonferroni-P < 0.0125). The EDABS-Q is an adequate substitute for the EDE-BSV and may be useful for research and clinical evaluation of eating pathology after bariatric surgery.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Bariatric surgery is effective in limiting the ability of patients to continue a pre-operative pattern of eating large quantities in a short period of time, i.e., to engage in binge eating episodes. However, many patients regain weight post-operation through other manifestations of maladaptive eating, some of which may be disordered [1]. Instruments to assess eating pathology (EP) in this population are limited [2] and fail to discriminate between EP and behaviors to relieve discomfort, such as involuntary vomiting, food intake restriction, increased meal frequency, and excessive chewing before swallowing [3,4,5]. A semi-structured interview to assess post-bariatric EP exists in the modified version of the Eating Disorder Examination (EDE) interview [6], the Eating Disorder Examination-Bariatric Surgery Version (EDE-BSV) [7]. Note: The EDE interview is a psychometrically validated instrument but the EDE-BSV is not. To the best of our knowledge, there is no self-report version of the EDE-BSV interview. An experienced interviewer and a significant amount of time is required to conduct the interview. Consequently, it is desirable to develop a self-report instrument based on this interview that is valid for use in a post-bariatric surgery population.

1.2. Objectives

This study describes the development of a self-report questionnaire (from the components of the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q) [8] and EDE-BSV interview) [7] that assesses eating disorders after bariatric surgery (EDABS-Q) that can potentially be used to assess EP in this population without the need of an interview. The interview was developed by experts in the field of eating disorder and bariatric surgery. They were well familiar with the EDE-Q questionnaire, which is a validated, well-known questionnaire used globally by researchers and clinicians concerned with disordered eating [7]. They published in detail the way they developed the questionnaire and how it was administered in a clinical setting. We used the wording described in their paper, but simply read the same words that were used in the questionnaire we developed from it. We hypothesized that responses from the interview and questionnaire will accord, regardless of the order in which they are administered.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Participants

Participant data were collected between August 2018 and June 2019 at several medical centers in Israel. Thirty individuals with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35 kg/m2, scheduled to undergo one anastomoses gastric bypass surgery (n = 8) or sleeve gastrectomy (n = 22), were recruited before their scheduled surgery. Patients were wecruited upon arrival to the bariatric surgery committee Screening eligibility criteria were: (1) age: 18–65 years at the start of the study; (2) Jewish individuals from diverse cultural groups, and both sexes; (3) candidates without diagnosis of psychosis taking any antipsychotic medications, or acutely suicidal. We removed candidates with antipsychotic medications as according to the literature usually they do not get an approval for bariatric surgery.

2.2. Description of Interview and Questionnaire

The EDE-BSV consisted of the items that comprise the four symptom categories (or “subscales”) in the EDE-Q [8]: eating concern, weight concern, shape concern, and restraint, however, was adapted in a few ways. Firstly, items that comprised the original restraint category, which is related to pathological behavior, were also extended to a new and revised restraint category, to avoid physical discomfort. Secondly, items pertaining to compensatory behaviors (such as vomiting, spitting and chewing, rumination, and use of laxatives and diuretics), which we have labelled “purging”, were also included as a category. Furthermore, these items were classified into purging to avoid weight gain and purging to avoid physical discomfort. These items and categories were added because the motivation to avoid or mitigate physical discomfort after bariatric surgery could elucidate the endorsement of restriction and compensatory behaviors (Conceição et al., 2013). A self-report version of the EDE-BSV, called the EDABS-Q, was developed from the adapted EDE-BSV.
The text for all items included in the EDE-BSV and the EDABS-Q (scored and unscored) are in Appendix A (Table A1). Frequencies of behaviors (reported in days, 0–28) were converted into a 7-point ordinal scale according to the following scheme based on EDE-Q [8], which we will refer to as “scaled scores”: 0 days were scored as “0”; 1–5 days were scored as “1”; 6–12 days were scored as “2”; 13–15 days were scored as “3”; 16–22 days were scored as “4”; 23–27 days were scored as “5”; everyday was scored as “6”.

2.3. Study Protocol

The interview and questionnaire were administered in the Hebrew language, at least 1 year after surgery, in a restricted randomized design. Half of the patients received the EDE-BSV interview format first, and the other half, the EDABS-Q questionnaire format first. The EDABS-Q was administered through Qualtrics, and the interview responses were entered into the same Qualtrics program for comparison with the questionnaire. The wording of both the interview and questionnaire was identical. The only difference is that the interviewer read the questions and recorded the answers. The study was carried out in accordance with the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained, and the protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Assuta Medical Center, Israel.

2.4. Data Analyses

All data analyses were performed in SAS9.4 software (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Plots of frequency distributions for responses to each item were examined for uniformity across items. Due to the non-normality of the distribution of item responses, non-parametric analyses were used.

2.4.1. Examination of the Distributions of All Items in the Interview and Questionnaire

Univariate analyses were executed on all items in both formats (EDE-BSV and EDABS-Q). We expected there would be two distinct patterns of response: (1) binary (i.e., only extreme responses, such that predominant response was 0,1 or 5,6) or (2) ordinal, even distribution of responses across the 7-point scale.
In order to determine whether binary or ordinal analysis was appropriate for comparison of formats, we created a plot of the number of participants, out of 30, whose scaled scores (0–6) for each item were in the middle of the range (a score of 2, 3, or 4 out of the 7-point scheme, 0–6). A distribution suitable for ordinal analysis, as opposed to binary, would include roughly the same number of participants across all seven score types (0–6), and because we recruited 30 participants, we considered 4–5 to be the expected count of participants for each of the seven scores   30   p a r t i c i p a n t s 7   s c o r e   t y p e s = 4.5   p a r t i c i p a n t s . Consequently, we would expect, assuming some variability, that the mean number of items in the range of 2–4, would be the mathematical product of the number of participants in each score type (i.e., 4.5) × 3 (2, 3, and 4 are three out of seven possible scores). Due to possible variability, the product could range from 9 ( 3 × 3 ) to 15 ( 5 × 3 ). Items with fewer than nine participants in the intermediate range were classified as dichotomous, while items that had nine or more participants in the intermediate range were considered suitable for ordinal analysis.

2.4.2. Analysis Overview

Two kinds of tests were conducted. “Agreement” (i.e., the proportion of the same responses to an item on the two formats) was assessed by the binomial test. “Association” (i.e., proportion of the same or different response or response pattern in one format compared to the other format) was assessed by means of chi-squared analyses (appropriate for dichotomous or binary data) and Spearman rank-order correlations (appropriate for the ordinal data). Final conclusions from significance tests were determined after the p-values were corrected for multiple comparisons by Bonferroni test (uncorrected p-value divided by k number of items). Both uncorrected and corrected results are presented. Given the relatively small sample size, conclusions should be considered tentative, although corrected p-values are likely to be reproducible.

2.4.3. Binomial Tests

Significance of agreement of responses on the two formats was measured by means of the normal approximation of binomial test on the probability that response classes (presence or absence of a feature) on each format were identical. If significantly more individuals responded the same on both formats, than expected by chance (for a sample of 30, more than 20, i.e., 67.8%, or 76% with Bonferroni correction), then the two formats agree for that item. The critical value (x) was computed from the sampling distribution of number of agreements on the formats, which is approximately normally distributed (z), by means of the formula x = z × N p q , where N = 30 and p and q are the probabilities of agreement and non-agreement (Siegel, 1956). Additionally, a normal approximation of the binomial test was conducted on discordant pairs (i.e., positive response on one format but zero on the other) to determine whether the proportion of responses was greater on the questionnaire than interview and conversely.

2.4.4. Chi-Square Analysis

Frequencies of scaled scores (0–6) were grouped into four classes of pairs of scores for the same item in both formats (See Table 1). Pairs were assigned to individuals by the following rules: If scores of an item were zero (i.e., the behavior rated never occurred) for both formats, the individual’s pair was assigned (“0,0”). If scores for both formats were 1 or greater (i.e., positive), the individual’s pair was assigned (“1,1”). If scores for questionnaire were zero but scores for interview were 1 or greater, then the individual’s pair was assigned (“0,1”). If scores for interview were positive, but scores for questionnaire were zero, the individual’s pair was assigned (“1,0”). Concordant pairs are those in which the responses are the same (“0,0” or “1,1”) for the questionnaire and the interview, whereas discordant pairs are those for which the responses are different (“0,1” or “1,0”) between the versions. Thus a 2 × 2 matrix was constructed and chi-squared tests were conducted on the frequencies of these four pairs for each item in order to test whether frequencies of zero and positive responses were the same or different between the two formats. If the instruments are in agreement, the number of concordant pairs should be greater than the number of discordant pairs. The test of these differences is made by χ2 on the frequencies of the four possibilities, with the null hypothesis that frequencies in all cells would be the same. The χ2 test is the non-parametric equivalent of correlation, and the coefficient of contingency, C ( x 2 N + x 2 ) is analogous to a regression coefficient. A significant p-value for chi-square is equivalent to a significant coefficient of contingency and should be interpreted that the two formats agree. The strength of association is given by the coefficient of contingency, which ranges from 0 to 1. The chi-square test is not valid for expected values with frequencies of less than 1 in any of the four cells (Siegel, 1956). During computation of chi-square, the programming was set to report invalid tests, and these are noted in the results (Table 2). The Cohen’s kappa (κ) coefficient was also calculated as another measure of association of responses among all four categories, ranging from completely negatively correlated (κ =− 1.00) through completely random (κ = 0.00) to completely correlated (κ = 1.00).

2.4.5. Spearman Rank-Order Correlations

For items that met ordinal criteria, Spearman rank order correlations were run on the scaled scores (0–6) from the interview and questionnaire to measure the strength of association between the two formats in a more precise manner than by the Chi-square test.

3. Results

3.1. Demographics

Participants were mostly female post-bariatric patients (80%). The mean age at the interview was 45.7 y ± 8.5 SD and the mean time post-surgery was 1.8 y ± 0.5 SD. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 40.5 kg/m2 ± 4.8 SD before surgery and 28.1 kg/m2 ± 5.2 SD at the time of interview.

3.2. Distributions and Frequency of Response to Items in the Questionnaire and Interview

Distributions of responses were similar for the two formats, but they did not segregate into two distinct types, and none of them were normal. Figure 1 shows a plot of the sum, or number, of participants that reported in the intermediate range (2, 3, or 4) across all scored items in both formats. As per the ordinal criteria in Section 2.4.1, only two items of all items in the interview (Q81: Dissatisfaction with weight; Q82: Dissatisfaction with shape), and four from the questionnaire (Q79: Shape influenced self-judgement; Q81; Q82; Q83: Uncomfortable seeing body) were classified as ordinal (Figure 1).
Conversely, almost all responses to purging-related items were zero. In all thirty participants, there were only eight non-zero responses for the fourteen purging-related items (Figure 1).
Intermediate response frequencies (i.e., responses of 2, 3, or 4), among the remaining dichotomous items, gradually increased across items, with no sharp breaks (Figure 1). Items that comprised the restraint for weight control, restraint to avoid physical discomfort, purging for weight control, and purging to avoid physical discomfort categories were more dichotomous than items that comprise the eating concern, weight concern, and shape concern categories (Figure 1). Furthermore, the items that comprise the eating concern, weight concern, and shape concern categories had higher reported behavior than not, i.e., ten or more patients reported the behavior (Table 1).
The higher the number of intermediate scores, the more likely that rank order correlations should be performed, which can be determined from both Table 1 (for exact responses to each item) and Figure 1 (for sum of response frequencies in the intermediate range). With the numbers of responses in the intermediate range as a gauge of an ordinal responding pattern (Figure 1), the largest number of ordinal responses was only twelve participants, i.e., less than half the sample, for all items.

3.3. Binomial Tests

3.3.1. Tests of Agreement

Before Bonferroni correction (Table 2, binomial on concordant pairs, p < 0.05), agreement of responses on the two formats was significant for all items except Q5: Days excluding liked foods to avoid weight gain (p > 0.05). After Bonferroni correction (k = 41, α = 0.001), the following ten items were not significant, although their percent concordance was still relatively high (73–76%, Table 2): Q1: Days limiting food to avoid weight gain; Q5, Q6: Days excluding liked foods to avoid physical discomfort; Q8: Follow diet rules to avoid weight gain; Q9: Follow diet rules to avoid physical discomfort; Q76: Proportion of times felt guilty; Q78: weight influenced self-judgement; Q80: Upset if asked to weigh self once/wk for 4 wk, Q82; Q84: Uncomfortable having others see body (p > 0.001, Table 2). Given that the confidence interval for the percent concordance is 5.36 ( n = 30 * p = .50 * q = .50 × 1.96 = 5.36 ), these ten items with slightly lower percent concordances are likely not significantly different.

3.3.2. Tests on Discordant Pairs (0,1 and 1,0)

After Bonferroni correction (k = 21, α = 0.002), there were no significant differences between the discordant pairs (p < 0.002, Table 2). Consequently, there was no significant difference between the number of positive responses on the interview compared to the questionnaire for any item.

3.4. Tests of Association

3.4.1. Chi-Squared Tests

Although χ2 tests were invalid for twelve items (see Section 2.4.4 for χ2 test criteria, Table 2), for the remaining twenty-one items, the χ2 was significant for all (C’s: 0.37–0.66, κ’s: 0.39–0.91, p > 0.05, Table 2) but one of them (Q5, p > 0.05, Table 2). After Bonferroni correction (k = 21, α = 0.002), the non-significant items (p > 0.002) from the χ2 tests were the same as those in the first binomial tests of agreement (see Section 3.3.1).

3.4.2. Spearman Rank Order Correlations on Ordinal Items

The four ordinal items (see Section 3.2) were significantly correlated between formats (p < 0.05, Figure 2A–H) even with Bonferroni correction (k = 4, α = 0.0125). These items addressed feelings of dissatisfaction with shape and weight, self-judgment, and being uncomfortable with seeing your body. Neither of the slopes were significantly different from 1, nor were the intercepts significantly different from zero.

4. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that aims to assess the consistency in response between the EDE-BSV in interview and questionnaire formats in post-bariatric surgery patients. In addition, an important and novel feature of this comparison that is different from those in the literature [2,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18] is the careful analysis of every item across the two formats of assessment.
Previous attempts to compare the EDE interview and EDE-Q were conducted among patients with eating disorders [9,10,11,13,15,16,17,18]; in community samples [8,14]; among bariatric candidates and patients [2,12]. The results in these reports did not reveal either the distribution of the responses on individual items, nor the agreement and associations among the items. However, they have combined items in ways that are not fully validated for combinations of non-normally distributed, and particularly, items with a dichotomous distribution. The procedures used in our study relied on distribution-free assumptions. This report, which illustrated consistency of response between the EDE-BSV and EDABS-Q, is the first in a series of planned reports that will further appraise the psychometric quality of the EDABS-Q (reproducibility, construct, criterion, and predictive validity). Thus, further research is needed to complete the findings of the current research.
The current study found that only 2% of all the 30 participants, reported to have any purging-related behavior. These findings are in line with previous studies that found that purging episodes are not a common behavior among this population [2,19]. Most purging-type behaviors after bariatric surgery are related to physical discomfort due to the surgery [20,21]. However, cases of self-induced vomiting related to weight and shape concerns following surgery are rare, and prevalence data have been largely unavailable [7,22]. We might have captured a higher prevalence of purging related to physical discomfort if our sample were closer to the time of the surgery in which this behavior is more likely to occur [20]. On the other hand, perhaps we would have captured a higher prevalence in purging related to weight control (especially those due to “intense exercise”) years after the surgery when weight regain starts and the need to compensate might be higher [19].
It should be noted that we also determined specific purging types that are related to post bariatric patients (chewing and spitting and rumination to avoid weight gain or to avoid physical discomfort). Even with a low prevalence of these behaviors, we found a high and significant agreement (93–97%), but because of the low prevalence, these results should be interpreted with caution.
Overall, there was strong agreement between formats across almost every item. Even for the items that did not significantly agree, with highly restrictive criteria, the percentage of responses that agreed on the two formats was close to 75% (50% would be chance). Given the small sample size, and the standard error (= N p q , where N is the number of observations (30) and p and q are chance probabilities of same and different responses (=0.5), respectively) of any percentage of ± 5.3 30 = 17.67 % , there is virtually perfect agreement within limits of confidence.
Previous studies that compared the EDE to the EDE-Q have not reported either the distribution of the responses on individual items, nor the agreement and associations among the items, but rather the relationship between the mean score of each subscales and total scores, which makes it difficult to compare to our results. In addition, the only study that compared the EDE and EDEQ with post-surgery bariatric patients, and not bariatric surgery candidates (before surgery), was de Zwaan et al. (2004). Even though de Zwaan and colleagues did not report associations and agreement between items, they likewise found a high percentage of agreement between subscales (about 90% agreement in eating, weight and shape concern, and 62% in restraint) and found significant correlations in all the subscales. The authors explain the weaker agreement in the restraint subscale by the possibility that subjects might have included the restraint they experienced due to their gastric surgery rather than only the restriction to avoid weight gain. In our study, restraint questions were separated to into two categories (as in the EDE-BSV) in order to clarify it for the subjects. Items of the restraint category highly agreed for most of the items (73–93% and only one item was 63%), and two items that did not reach significance after highly restricted criteria. These items might still need to be modified or rewritten in a clearer way for this population in order to be suitable as a self-report. However, the rest of the items that did not meet criteria for significant agreement or association do not appear to be systematically different in any clinically meaningful way from the other items, and it is most likely that not reaching statistical significance is simply attributable to variability inherent in a small sample.
There are three major strengths: (1) the convenience of a self-report questionnaire for assessment, research and clinical purposes; (2) its significance to a very specific population, i.e., post-bariatric surgical patients; (3) rigorous data analyses appropriate for specific types of questions applicable for this population, which increase confidence that the self-report questionnaire is an adequate substitute of the interview. Consequently, we can also pinpoint which items should be modified for the next iteration of the EDABS-Q. Another strength is that the study took place in Israel, which has a very diverse population, and comprised a variety of socioeconomic classes, cultures, and religions in a high-quality public health system. However, we suggest replication of this study in other populations and countries.
Potential limitations should be considered because of the small sample size. In addition, the time period chosen was between 1 and 2 years following the surgery. This stage after the operation may be too early to observe specific eating pathologies especially among items that address purging to control weight. We have taken the approach of first validating the questionnaire from the interview, because it is more practical to administer the questionnaire to a sufficiently large sample to determine validity of the various items and whether they coalesce into scales and subscales that are similar to the original EDE or different.

5. Conclusions

The strong agreement and association between the EDABS-Q and the interview demonstrates that the EDABS-Q is a valid representation of the information obtained in the interview and that it could be used as a substitute for the interview without significant loss of information. There was no evidence from either type of analysis that the interview and questionnaire were systematically different in any way. The EDABS-Q should be a useful alternative for time-consuming clinical interviews for research on post-bariatric surgery patients.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.G., M.H., J.E.M. and Y.L.; data curation, I.G.; formal analysis, H.R.K. and J.D.H.; investigation, I.G.; project administration, Y.L.; validation, H.R.K. and J.D.H.; writing—original draft, I.G. and J.D.H.; writing—review and editing, H.R.K., J.E.M. and Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Data analysis, interpretation, and manuscript preparation in the United States were supported by NIH grant R01DK108643 Mechanisms Underlying Predictors of Success from Obesity Surgery (HR Kissileff, PI).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board at Assuta Medical Center, Israel.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request due to restrictions eg privacy or ethical. The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to patients privacy.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish a special thanks to C. Fairburn and his group for his permission to use and adapt his well-known EDEQ for post-bariatric patients.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Questions used in the Eating Disorders after Bariatric Surgery Questionnaire 1.
Table A1. Questions used in the Eating Disorders after Bariatric Surgery Questionnaire 1.
CategoryItem NumberPrompt
Shape concernQ13On how many days have you had a definite desire to have a totally flat stomach?
Shape concernQ15Has thinking about shape or weight made it very difficult to concentrate on things you are interested in (for example, working, following a conversation, or reading)?
Shape concernQ17Have you had a definite fear that you might gain weight?
Shape concernQ18Have you felt fat?
Shape concernQ79Has your shape influenced how you think about (judge) yourself as a person?
Shape concernQ82How dissatisfied have you been with your shape?
Shape concernQ83How uncomfortable have you felt seeing your body (for example, seeing your shape in the mirror, in a shop window reflection, while undressing, or taking a bath or shower)?
Shape concernQ84How uncomfortable have you felt about others seeing your shape or figure (for example, in communal changing rooms, when swimming, or wearing tight clothes)?
Weight concernQ15Has thinking about shape or weight made it very difficult to concentrate on things you are interested in (for example, working, following a conversation, or reading)?
Weight concernQ19Have you had a strong desire to lose weight?
Weight concernQ78Has your weight influenced how you think about (judge) yourself as a person?
Weight concernQ80How much would it have upset you if you had been asked to weigh yourself once a week for the next four weeks?
Weight concernQ81How dissatisfied have you been with your weight?
Eating concernQ14Has thinking about food, eating, or calories made it very difficult to concentrate on things you are interested in (for example, working, following a conversation, or reading)?
Eating concernQ16On how many days have you strongly feared that you would lose control over eating?
Eating concernQ75Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you eaten in secret (i.e., furtively)? [Do not count episodes of binge eating]
Eating concernQ76On what proportion of the times that you have eaten have you felt guilty (felt that you’ve done wrong) because of its effect on your shape or weight? [Do not count episodes of binge eating]
Eating concernQ77How concerned have you been about other people seeing you eat? [Do not count episodes of binge eating]
Restraint for weight controlQ01On how many days have you deliberately tried to limit the amount of food you ate, regardless of whether or not you were successful, for any of the following reasons? (a) To lose weight or avoid gaining weight
Restraint for weight controlQ03Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you gone for long periods of time (8 waking hours or more) without eating anything at all for any of the following reasons? (a) To lose weight or avoid gaining weight
Restraint for weight controlQ05Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you tried to exclude from your diet any foods that you like, regardless of whether or not you were successful, for any of the following reasons? (a) To lose weight or avoid gaining weight
Restraint for weight controlQ08Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you tried to follow definite rules regarding your eating (for example, a calorie limit), regardless of whether or not you were successful, for any of the following reasons? (a) To lose weight or avoid gaining weight
Restraint for weight controlQ11Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you had a definite desire to have an empty stomach for any of the following reasons? (a) To lose weight or avoid gaining weight b) To avoid physical discomfort
Restraint for physical discomfortQ02On how many days have you deliberately tried to limit the amount of food you ate, regardless of whether or not you were successful, for any of the following reasons? (b) To avoid physical discomfort
Restraint for physical discomfortQ04Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you gone for long periods of time (8 waking hours or more) without eating anything at all for any of the following reasons? (b) To avoid physical discomfort
Restraint for physical discomfortQ06Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you tried to exclude from your diet any foods that you like, regardless of whether or not you were successful, for any of the following reasons? (b) To avoid physical discomfort
Restraint for physical discomfortQ09Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you tried to follow definite rules regarding your eating (for example, a calorie limit), regardless of whether or not you were successful, for any of the following reasons? (b) To avoid physical discomfort
Restraint for physical discomfortQ12Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you had a definite desire to have an empty stomach for any of the following reasons? (b) To avoid physical discomfort
Purging to avoid physical discomfortQ47Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you made yourself vomit for any of the following reasons? (b) To avoid physical discomfort
Purging to avoid physical discomfortQ49Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you purposely chewed food and spit it out without swallowing it, for any of the following reasons? (b) To avoid physical discomfort
Purging to avoid physical discomfortQ64Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you ruminated food; that is, on purpose, brought food back up again into your mouth and chewed and swallowed it again, for any of the following reasons? (b) To avoid physical discomfort
Purging to avoid physical discomfortQ67Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you taken laxatives in larger than recommended amounts (including on product labeling) for any of the following reasons? (b) To avoid physical discomfort
Purging to avoid physical discomfortQ69Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you taken diuretics (water pills) in larger than recommended amounts (including recommendations on product labeling), for any of the following reasons? (b) To avoid physical discomfort
Purging for weight controlQ46Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you made yourself vomit for any of the following reasons? (a) To lose weight or avoid gaining weight
Purging for weight controlQ48Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you purposely chewed food and spit it out without swallowing it, for any of the following reasons? (a) To lose weight or avoid gaining weight
Purging for weight controlQ50If you have purposely chewed food and spit it out without swallowing it, how distressed or upset have you usually been about this behavior?
Purging for weight controlQ63Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you ruminated food; that is, on purpose, brought food back up again into your mouth and chewed and swallowed it again, for any of the following reasons? (a) To lose weight or avoid gaining weight
Purging for weight controlQ65If you have ruminated food in the past four weeks, how distressed or upset have you usually been about this behavior?
Purging for weight controlQ66Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you taken laxatives in larger than recommended amounts (including on product labeling) for any of the following reasons? (a) To lose weight or avoid gaining weight
Purging for weight controlQ68Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you taken diuretics (water pills) in larger than recommended amounts (including recommendations on product labeling), for any of the following reasons? (a) To lose weight or avoid gaining weight
Purging for weight controlQ70Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you exercised in a “driven” or “compulsive” way as a means of controlling your weight, shape, or amount of fat or to burn off calories?
Purging for weight controlQ85If you have ever made yourself vomit in the last four weeks, how distressed or upset have you usually been about the vomiting?
Q20Over the past four weeks (28 days), have there been any days when you felt that you have eaten too much (given your current circumstances), even if others might not agree? Please indicate the number of days it occurred and average number of times per day. If this did not occur, enter 0 for both fields. Please enter a number only, with no spaces or text. DAYS
Q22Over the past 28 days, have there been days when you have eaten what other people would regard as an unusually large amount of food (given your current circumstances)? Please indicate the number of days it occurred and average number of times per day, on days when it occurred. If this did not occur, enter 0 for both fields. Please enter a number only, with no spaces or text. DAYS
Q26Of the times that you picked, nibbled, or grazed in the past 4 weeks (28 days), how often was it for any of the following reasons? To lose weight or avoid gaining weight
Q28Please indicate any additional reasons for having picked, nibbled, or grazed in the past 4 weeks (28 days): Sadness, loneliness, anxiety, stress, body image dissatisfaction, or boredom
Q29Over the past four weeks (28 days), did you have a feeling of loss of control when you picked, nibbled or grazed on food between meals and snacks? Please indicate the number of days this occurred and average number of times per day, on days when it occurred. If this did not occur, enter 0 for both fields. Please enter a number only, with no spaces or text. DAYS
Q31During times that you felt a loss of control over your eating, how often have you experienced any of the following? (a) Eat much more quickly than usual
Q32During times that you felt a loss of control over your eating, how often have you experienced any of the following? (b) Eat until you feel uncomfortably full
Q33During times that you felt a loss of control over your eating, how often have you experienced any of the following? (c) Eat large amounts when you do not feel physically hungry
Q34During times that you felt a loss of control over your eating, how often have you experienced any of the following? (d) Eat alone because you feel embarrassed about how much you are eating
Q35During times that you felt a loss of control over your eating, how often have you experienced any of the following? (e) Feel disgusted with yourself, depressed, or very guilty
Q36During times that you felt a loss of control over your eating, how often have you experienced any of the following? f. Felt upset or distressed by your eating
Q07Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you tried to exclude from your diet any foods that you like, regardless of whether or not you were successful, for any of the following reasons? (c) To adhere to recommendations made by a dietitian or other health care professional
Q10Over the past four weeks (28 days), on how many days have you tried to follow definite rules regarding your eating (for example, a calorie limit), regardless of whether or not you were successful, for any of the following reasons? (c) To adhere to recommendations made by a dietitian or other health care professional
Q21Over the past four weeks (28 days), have there been any days when you felt that you have eaten too much (given your current circumstances), even if others might not agree? Please indicate the number of days it occurred and average number of times per day. If this did not occur, enter 0 for both fields. Please enter a number only, with no spaces or text. Times per day
Q23Over the past 28 days, have there been days when you have eaten what other people would regard as an unusually large amount of food (given your current circumstances)? Please indicate the number of days it occurred and average number of times per day, on days when it occurred. If this did not occur, enter 0 for both fields. Please enter a number only, with no spaces or text. Times per day
Q24Over the past four weeks (28 days), have you picked, nibbled or grazed on food between meals and snacks? Please indicate the number of days it occurred and average number of times per day, on days when it occurred. If this did not occur, enter 0 for both fields. Please enter a number only, with no spaces or text. DAYS
Q25Over the past four weeks (28 days), have you picked, nibbled or grazed on food between meals and snacks? Please indicate the number of days it occurred and average number of times per day, on days when it occurred. If this did not occur, enter 0 for both fields. Please enter a number only, with no spaces or text. Times per day
Q27Of the times that you picked, nibbled, or grazed in the past 4 weeks (28 days), how often was it for any of the following reasons? (b) To avoid physical discomfort
Q30Over the past four weeks (28 days), did you have a feeling of loss of control when you picked, nibbled or grazed on food between meals and snacks? Please indicate the number of days this occurred and average number of times per day, on days when it occurred. If this did not occur, enter 0 for both fields. Please enter a number only, with no spaces or text. Times per day
Q37Of the times when you picked, nibbled, or grazed on food AND had a feeling of loss of control, how often did you eat any of the following foods? (a) Ice cream, Jell-O, smoothies, and/or other soft foods or beverages
Q38Of the times when you picked, nibbled, or grazed on food AND had a feeling of loss of control, how often did you eat any of the following foods? (b) Crackers, cookies, donuts, and/or other baked snacks
Q39Of the times when you picked, nibbled, or grazed on food AND had a feeling of loss of control, how often did you eat any of the following foods? (c) Meat and/or cheeses
Q40Over the past four weeks (28 days), what time of the day were you most likely to have experienced loss of control while nibbling or grazing on food between meals and snacks? Select “None of the time” if you did not experience loss of control. (a) Morning
Q41Over the past four weeks (28 days), what time of the day were you most likely to have experienced loss of control while nibbling or grazing on food between meals and snacks? Select “None of the time” if you did not experience loss of control. (b) Around noon
Q42Over the past four weeks (28 days), what time of the day were you most likely to have experienced loss of control while nibbling or grazing on food between meals and snacks? Select “None of the time” if you did not experience loss of control. (c) Afternoon
Q43Over the past four weeks (28 days), what time of the day were you most likely to have experienced loss of control while nibbling or grazing on food between meals and snacks? Select “None of the time” if you did not experience loss of control. (d) Evening
Q44Over the past four weeks (28 days), what time of the day were you most likely to have experienced loss of control while nibbling or grazing on food between meals and snacks? Select “None of the time” if you did not experience loss of control. (e) During the night
Q45Over the past four weeks (28 days), what time of the day were you most likely to have experienced loss of control while nibbling or grazing on food between meals and snacks? Select “None of the time” if you did not experience loss of control. (f) After having slept
Q51Of the times that you purposely chewed food and spit it out without swallowing it, how often have you done this with each of the foods below? Meat
Q52Of the times that you purposely chewed food and spit it out without swallowing it, how often have you done this with each of the foods below? Bread
Q53Of the times that you purposely chewed food and spit it out without swallowing it, how often have you done this with each of the foods below? Pasta
Q54Of the times that you purposely chewed food and spit it out without swallowing it, how often have you done this with each of the foods below? Raw vegetables
Q55Of the times that you purposely chewed food and spit it out without swallowing it, how often have you done this with each of the foods below? Rice
Q56Of the times that you purposely chewed food and spit it out without swallowing it, how often have you done this with each of the foods below? Sweets/Candy
Q57Of the times that you purposely chewed food and spit it out without swallowing it, how often have you done this with each of the foods below? Ice cream
Q58Of the times that you purposely chewed food and spit it out without swallowing it, how often have you done this with each of the foods below? Other dairy
Q59Of the times that you purposely chewed food and spit it out without swallowing it, how often have you done this with each of the foods below? Syrup
Q60Of the times that you purposely chewed food and spit it out without swallowing it, how often have you done this with each of the foods below? Cakes/bars/cookies
Q61Of the times that you purposely chewed food and spit it out without swallowing it, how often have you done this with each of the foods below? Fried foods
Q62Of the times that you purposely chewed food and spit it out without swallowing it, how often have you done this with each of the foods below? Other (specify below)
Q71Over the past 28 days, on how many days have you skipped regular meals for any of the following reasons? (a) To lose weight or avoid gaining weight
Q72Over the past 28 days, on how many days have you skipped regular meals for any of the following reasons? (b) To avoid physical discomfort
Q73Over the past 28 days, on how many days have you skipped regular meals for any of the following reasons? (c) You felt full or weren’t hungry
Q74Over the past 28 days, on how many days have you skipped regular meals for any of the following reasons? (d) I was grazing or nibbling
Q86Over the past four weeks (28 days), on average, how long have your episodes of loss of control while nibbling or grazing been (in minutes)? For example, enter 25 for 25 min, or 60 for an hour. Please enter a number only, with no spaces or text.
Q87What has been the longest duration of an episode of losing control while picking, nibbling, or grazing (in minutes)? Please enter a number only, with no spaces or text.
Q88What has been the shortest duration of an episode of losing control while picking, nibbling, or grazing (in minutes)? Please enter a number only, with no spaces or text.
Q89What was your weight in pounds prior to surgery? Please enter a number only, with no spaces or text.
Q90What is your current weight in pounds? Please enter a number only, with no spaces or text.
Q91What is your current height? Please enter a number only, with no spaces or text.
1 Questions without a prescribed category may be of clinical use but are not currently used in any distinct scoring or symptom category.

References

  1. Opolski, M.; Chur-Hansen, A.; Wittert, G. The eating-related behaviours, disorders and expectations of candidates for bariatric surgery. Clin. Obes. 2015, 5, 165–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. de Zwaan, M.; Mitchell, J.E.; Swan-Kremeier, L.; McGregor, T.; Howell, M.L.; Roerig, J.L.; Crosby, R.D. A comparison of different methods of assessing the features of eating disorders in post-gastric bypass patients: A pilot study. Eur. Eat. Disord. Rev. 2004, 12, 380–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Busetto, L.; Segato, G.; De Luca, M.; De Marchi, F.; Foletto, M.; Vianello, M.; Valeri, M.; Favretti, F.; Enzi, G. Weight loss and postoperative complications in morbidly obese patients with binge eating disorder treated by laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding. Obes. Surg. 2005, 15, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Colles, S.L.; Dixon, J.B.; O’Brien, P.E. Grazing and loss of control related to eating: Two high-risk factors following bariatric surgery. Obesity 2008, 16, 615–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Conceição, E.M.; Mitchell, J.E.; Engel, S.G.; Machado, P.P.P.; Lancaster, K.; Wonderlich, S.A. What is “grazing”? Reviewing its definition, frequency, clinical characteristics, and impact on bariatric surgery outcomes, and proposing a standardized definition. Surg. Obes. Relat. Dis. 2014, 10, 973–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cooper, Z.; Fairburn, C. The eating disorder examination: A semi-structured interview for the assessment of the specific psychopathology of eating disorders. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 1987, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. de Zwaan, M.; Hilbert, A.; Swan-Kremeier, L.; Simonich, H.; Lancaster, K.; Howell, L.M.; Monson, T.; Crosby, R.D.; Mitchell, J.E. Comprehensive interview assessment of eating behavior 18-35 months after gastric bypass surgery for morbid obesity. Surg. Obes. Relat. Dis. 2010, 6, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fairburn, C.G.; Beglin, S.J. Assessment of eating disorders: Interview or self-report questionnaire? Int. J. Eat. Disord. 1994, 16, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Goldfein, J.A.; Devlin, M.J.; Kamenetz, C. Eating disorder examination-questionnaire with and without instruction to assess binge eating in patients with binge eating disorder. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2005, 37, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Grilo, C.M.; Masheb, R.M.; Wilson, G.T. A comparison of different methods for assessing the features of eating disorders in patients with binge eating disorder. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2001, 69, 317–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Binford, R.B.; Le Grange, D.; Jellar, C.C. Eating Disorders Examination versus Eating Disorders Examination- Questionnaire in adolescents with full and partial-syndrome bulimia nervosa and anorexia nervosa. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2005, 37, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kalarchian, M.A.; Terence Wilson, G.; Brolin, R.E.; Bradley, L. Assessment of eating disorders in bariatric surgery candidates: Self-report questionnaire versus interview. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2000, 28, 465–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wilfley, D.E.; Schwartz, M.B.; Spurrell, E.B.; Fairburn, C.G. Assessing the specific psychopathology of binge eating disorder patients: Interview or self-report? Behav. Res. Ther. 1997, 35, 1151–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mond, J.M.; Hay, P.J.; Rodgers, B.; Owen, C.; Beumont, P.J.V. Validity of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) in screening for eating disorders in community samples. Behav. Res. Ther. 2004, 42, 551–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wolk, S.L.; Loeb, K.L.; Walsh, B.T. Assessment of patients with anorexia nervosa: Interview versus self-report. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2005, 37, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Sysko, R.; Walsh, B.T.; Fairburn, C.G. Eating disorder examination-questionnaire as a measure of change in patients with bulimia nervosa. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2005, 37, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Carter, J.C.; Aime, A.A.; Mills, J.S. Assessment of bulimia nervosa: A comparison of interview and self-report questionnaire methods. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2000, 30, 187–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Barnes, R.D.; Masheb, R.M.; White, M.A.; Grilo, C.M. Comparison of Methods for Identifying and Assessing Obese Patients with Binge Eating Disorder in Primary Care Settings. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2011, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Williams-Kerver, G.A.; Steffen, K.J.; Mitchell, J.E. Eating Pathology After Bariatric Surgery: An Updated Review of the Recent Literature. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 2019, 21, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Halliday, T.A.; Sundqvist, J.; Hultin, M.; Walldén, J. Post-operative nausea and vomiting in bariatric surgery patients: An observational study. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2017, 61, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kalarchian, M.A.; King, W.C.; Devlin, M.J.; White, G.E.; Marcus, M.D.; Garcia, L.; Yanovski, S.Z.; Mitchell, J.E. Surgery-related gastrointestinal symptoms in a prospective study of bariatric surgery patients: 3-year follow-up. Surg. Obes. Relat. Dis. 2017, 13, 1562–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Conceição, E.; Orcutt, M.; Mitchell, J.; Engel, S.; Lahaise, K.; Jorgensen, M.; Woodbury, K.; Hass, N.; Garcia, L.; Wonderlich, S. Eating disorders after bariatric surgery: A case series. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2013, 46, 274–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Graphical illustration of intermediate scores across items in the interview and questionnaire. Graph showing the number of participants (n = 30) intermediate scores (between 2 and 4) in the interview and questionnaire. The bold horizontal lines (at the 8 tick on the ordinate axis) are the cut offs between ordinal and not ordinal, with any items with bars breaching this line being considered ordinal. Items on the abscissa are in ascending order, for each format. The first three letters of each item correspond with a behavior/symptom category—RED, restraint for weight control; RPH, restraint to avoid physical discomfort; BPH, purging to avoid physical discomfort; PUR, purging for weight control; EAT, eating concern; WGT, weight concern; SHP, shape concern. See Appendix A for the full text of each item.
Figure 1. Graphical illustration of intermediate scores across items in the interview and questionnaire. Graph showing the number of participants (n = 30) intermediate scores (between 2 and 4) in the interview and questionnaire. The bold horizontal lines (at the 8 tick on the ordinate axis) are the cut offs between ordinal and not ordinal, with any items with bars breaching this line being considered ordinal. Items on the abscissa are in ascending order, for each format. The first three letters of each item correspond with a behavior/symptom category—RED, restraint for weight control; RPH, restraint to avoid physical discomfort; BPH, purging to avoid physical discomfort; PUR, purging for weight control; EAT, eating concern; WGT, weight concern; SHP, shape concern. See Appendix A for the full text of each item.
Jcm 10 01174 g001
Figure 2. Panel of Pearson linear regression and Spearman rank order correlations plots. (A,C,E,G) are Pearson linear regression plots with scaled score response (0–6) from questionnaire (ordinate) regressed from interview (abscissa). Note: Since the distributions of response for these items are not normal, Pearson linear regression is not appropriate, and the presentation of these plots are for visual aid. (B) (R2 = 0.72, p < 0.001), (D) (R2 = 0.69, p < 0.001), (F) (R2 = 0.54, p < 0.002), and (H) (R2 = 0.70, p < 0.001) are Spearman rank order correlation plots with the rank of questionnaire response (ordinate) and the rank of interview response (abscissa). Item number for (AH) noted below the title of each plot. All items significant after Bonferroni correction (k = 4, α = 0.0125). See Appendix A for the full text of each item.
Figure 2. Panel of Pearson linear regression and Spearman rank order correlations plots. (A,C,E,G) are Pearson linear regression plots with scaled score response (0–6) from questionnaire (ordinate) regressed from interview (abscissa). Note: Since the distributions of response for these items are not normal, Pearson linear regression is not appropriate, and the presentation of these plots are for visual aid. (B) (R2 = 0.72, p < 0.001), (D) (R2 = 0.69, p < 0.001), (F) (R2 = 0.54, p < 0.002), and (H) (R2 = 0.70, p < 0.001) are Spearman rank order correlation plots with the rank of questionnaire response (ordinate) and the rank of interview response (abscissa). Item number for (AH) noted below the title of each plot. All items significant after Bonferroni correction (k = 4, α = 0.0125). See Appendix A for the full text of each item.
Jcm 10 01174 g002
Table 1. Frequency of ordinal responses to the interview and questionnaire a.
Table 1. Frequency of ordinal responses to the interview and questionnaire a.
InterviewQuestionnaire
CategoryItem01234560123456
Shape concern13. Days desiring flat stomach1360210816300119
Shape concern15. Difficulty concentrating due to shape or weight concern2430000324121101
Shape concern17. Fear of weight gain4742201145402114
Shape concern18. Feeling fat1830300614351016
Shape concern79. Shape influenced self-judgement1425121516161213
Shape concern82. Dissatisfaction with shape69342159424506
Shape concern83. Uncomfortable seeing body1164122410660413
Shape concern84. Uncomfortable having others see body1442410513450224
Weight concern15. Difficulty concentrating due to shape or weight concern2430000324121101
Weight concern19. Strong weight loss desire8441101266120015
Weight concern78. Weight influenced self-judgement1243231515351024
Weight concern80. Upset if asked to weigh self once/wk for 4 wk941412913531314
Weight concern81. Dissatisfaction with weight92155176353445
Eating concern14. Difficulty concentrating due to food intake3000000030000000
Eating concern16. Days fearing out of control eating13530117105201111
Eating concern75. Days eaten in secret2630100025310001
Eating concern76. Proportion of times felt guilty1462300512921222
Eating concern77. Concern over other people seeing you eat2711100025211100
Restraint for weight control1. Days limiting food to avoid weight gain2042201118422103
Restraint for weight control3. Days w/o eating to avoid weight gain2910000027300000
Restraint for weight control5. Days excluded liked foods to avoid weight gain2131001418422022
Restraint for weight control8. Follow diet rules to avoid weight gain2020011613400049
Restraint for weight control11. Days desiring empty stomach to avoid weight gain2331100221401112
Restraint to avoid physical discomfort2. Days limiting food to avoid physical discomfort2070000316720302
Restraint to avoid physical discomfort4. Days w/o eating to avoid physical discomfort2910000028200000
Restraint to avoid physical discomfort6. Days excluded liked foods to avoid physical discomfort1961100319613001
Restraint to avoid physical discomfort9. Follow diet rules to avoid physical discomfort2400000618300036
Restraint to avoid physical discomfort12. Days desiring empty stomach to avoid physical discomfort2340000322310013
Purging for weight control46. Vomit to lose weight or avoid weight gain2910000029001000
Purging for weight control48. Chewed food/spit wo swallow to lose weight/avoid weight gain2810100029100000
Purging for weight control50. Upset after chewing food or spit out w/o swallow3000000029010000
Purging for weight control63. Days ruminated food to lose weight or avoid gaining weight3000000030000000
Purging for weight control65. Upset when ruminated food2900000130000000
Purging for weight control66. Take laxatives to lose weight or avoid gaining weight3000000029010000
Purging for weight control68. Take diuretics to lose weight or avoid gaining weight3000000030000000
Purging for weight control70. Driven or compulsive exercise to lose weight2910000026210001
Purging for weight control85. Vomited in last 4 wks, how upset about it3000000030000000
Purging to avoid physical discomfort47. Vomit to avoid physical discomfort2531010027201000
Purging to avoid physical discomfort49. Chewed food/spit w/o swallow to avoid physical discomfort2530200026301000
Purging to avoid physical discomfort64. Days ruminated food to avoid physical discomfort2710010129000100
Purging to avoid physical discomfort67. Take laxatives to avoid physical discomfort2720010027210000
Purging to avoid physical discomfort69. Take diuretics to avoid physical discomfort3000000030000000
a Table of frequencies for each item, format, and response. N = 30. See Appendix A for full text of questions.
Table 2. Comparison of responses to items in the interview and questionnaire.
Table 2. Comparison of responses to items in the interview and questionnaire.
Category dItem0,00,11,01,1Concordant a
(%)
Binomial b
Con p
Binomial c
Dis p
χ2χ2 pCκ
Shape concern13. Days desiring flat stomach13 (43%)3 (10%)0 (0%)14 (47%)90%<0.00010.0820.07<0.00010.630.80
Shape concern15. Diff conc due to shape or wt concern23 (77%)1 (3%)1 (3%)5 (17%)94%<0.00011.0018.80<0.00010.620.79
Shape concern17. Fear of wt gain3 (10%)1 (3%)1 (3%)25 (83%)93%<0.00011.0015.19<0.00010.580.71
Shape concern18. Feeling fat14 (47%)0 (0%)4 (13%)12 (40%)87%<0.00010.0517.50<0.00010.610.74
Shape concern79. Shape influenced self-judgement12 (40%)4 (13%)2 (7%)12 (40%)80%0.0010.4111.060.0010.520.60
Shape concern82. Dissat with shape4 (13%)5 (17%)2 (7%)19 (63%)76%0.0040.264.800.0280.370.39
Shape concern83. Uncomf seeing body9 (30%)1 (3%)2 (7%)18 (60%)90%<0.00010.5618.37<0.00010.620.78
Shape concern84. Uncomf having others see body10 (33%)3 (10%)4 (13%)13 (43%)76%0.0040.718.440.0040.470.53
Weight concern15. Diff conc due to shape or wt concern23 (77%)1 (3%)1 (3%)5 (17%)94%<0.00011.0018.80<0.00010.620.79
Weight concern19. Strong wt loss desire6 (20%)0 (0%)2 (7%)22 (73%)93%<0.00010.1620.63<0.00010.640.81
Weight concern78. wt influenced self-judgement10 (33%)5 (17%)2 (7%)13 (43%)76%0.0040.268.890.0030.480.53
Weight concern80. Upset to weigh self once/7 (23%)6 (20%)2 (7%)15 (50%)73%0.0110.166.210.0130.410.44
Weight concern81. Dissat with wt5 (17%)1 (3%)4 (13%)20 (67%)83%<0.0010.1810.160.0010.500.56
Eating concern14. Diff conc due to food intake30 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)100%<0.0001NANANANANA
Eating concern16. Days fearing OOC eating10 (33%)0 (0%)3 (10%)17 (57%)90%<0.00010.0819.62<0.00010.630.79
Eating concern75. Days eaten in secret24 (80%)1 (3%)2 (7%)3 (10%)90%<0.00010.5611.31<0.0010.520.61
Eating concern76. Proportion of times felt guilty9 (30%)3 (10%)5 (17%)13 (43%)73%0.0110.486.450.0110.420.46
Eating concern77. Concern—other people seeing you e25 (83%)0 (0%)2 (7%)3 (10%)93%<0.00010.1617.00<0.00010.600.71
Restr wt control1. Days limiting food to avoid wt gain15 (50%)3 (10%)5 (17%)7 (23%)73%0.0110.485.630.0180.400.43
Restr wt control3. Days w/o eating to avoid wt gain27 (90%)0 (0%)2 (7%)1 (3%)93%<0.00010.169.310.0020.490.47
Restr wt control5. Days excl liked foods to avoid gain14 (47%)4 (13%)7 (23%)5 (17%)63%0.1440.371.300.2500.200.20
Restr wt control8. Follow diet rules to avoid wt gain12 (40%)1 (3%)8 (27%)9 (30%)70%0.0290.026.790.0090.430.43
Restr wt control11. Days empty stomach to avoid gain21 (70%)0 (0%)2 (7%)7 (23%)93%<0.00010.1621.30<0.00010.640.83
Restr discomfort2. Days limiting food avoid discomf15 (50%)1 (3%)5 (17%)9 (30%)80%0.0010.1011.32<0.0010.520.59
Restr discomfort4. Days w/o eating to avoid discomf27 (90%)1 (3%)2 (7%)0 (0%)90%<0.00010.560.070.7860.05-0.05
Restr discomfort6. Days excl lik foods avoid discomf15 (50%)4 (13%)4 (13%)7 (23%)73%0.0111.005.440.0200.390.43
Restr discomfort9. Follow diet rules to avoid discomf17 (57%)1 (3%)7 (23%)5 (17%)73%0.0110.035.870.0150.400.39
Restr discomfort12. Days empty stom avoid discomf22 (73%)0 (0%)1 (3%)7 (23%)97%<0.00010.3725.11<0.00010.660.91
Purge wt control46. Vomit to lose wt or avoid wt gain29 (97%)0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (3%)100%<0.0001NA30.00<0.00010.711.00
Purge wt control48. Chewed food/spit wo swallow 28 (93%)1 (3%)0 (0%)1 (3%)97%<0.00010.3214.480.00010.570.65
Purge wt control50. Upset after chewing food or spit out 29 (97%)0 (0%)1 (3%)0 (0%)97%<0.0001NANANANANA
Purge wt control63. Days ruminated food to lose wt 30 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)100%<0.0001NANANANANA
Purge wt control65. Upset when ruminated food29 (97%)1 (3%)0 (0%)0 (0%)97%<0.0001NANANANANA
Purge wt control66. Take laxatives to lose/avoid gaining 29 (97%)0 (0%)1 (3%)0 (0%)97%<0.0001NANANANANA
Purge wt control68. Take diuretics to lose/avoid gaining 30 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)100%<0.0001NANANANANA
Purge wt control70. Driven exercise to lose wt26 (87%)0 (0%)3 (10%)1(3%)90%<0.00010.086.720.0100.430.36
Purge wt control85. Vomited in last 4 wks, upset about 30 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)100%<0.0001NANANANANA
Purge avoi discomf47. Vomit to avoid phys discomf25 (83%)2 (7%)0 (0%)3 (10%)93%<0.00010.1617.00<0.00010.600.71
Purge avoi discomf49. Chewed /spit avoid phys discomf25 (83%)1 (3%)0 (0%)4(13%)96%<0.00010.3223.08<0.00010.660.87
Purge avoi discomf64. Days ruminated food 27 (90%)2 (7%)0 (0%)1 (3%)93%<0.00010.169.310.0020.490.47
Purge avoi discomf67. Take laxatives avoid phys discomf27 (90%)0 (0%)0 (0%)3 (10%)100%<0.0001NA30.00<0.00010.711.00
Purge avoi discomf69. Take diuretics avoid phys discomf30 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)100%<0.0001NANANANANA
Table of within-subjects comparisons of binary responses between interview and questionnaire formats in bariatric surgery patients (N = 30) for the thirty dichotomous items. Items that are bolded are those in which χ2 tests are appropriate. χ2 p-values were held to Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons (k = 21, α = 0.002). C, coefficient of contingency; κ, Cohen’s kappa statistic. a Concordant is the sum of percentages of concordant pairs (0,0 and 1,1) from the columns to the left. b Normal approximation of binomial tests were conducted on frequency of pairs by combining concordant pairs (0,0 and 1,1) to determine if the proportion of observed concordant pairs are due to chance (50%). p-values were held to Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons (k = 41, α = 0.001). Con, concordant pairs. c Separate normal approximation of binomial tests were conducted on the discordant pairs (0,1, positive on interview and zero on questionnaire vs. 1,0, positive on questionnaire and zero on interview) to determine if participants were more likely to answer higher on the interview or questionnaire. p-values were held to Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons (k = 21, α = 0.002). Dis, discordant pairs. d Category and item are abbreviated. Full text can be found in Table 1 and Appendix A.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Globus, I.; Kissileff, H.R.; Hamm, J.D.; Herzog, M.; Mitchell, J.E.; Latzer, Y. Comparison of Interview to Questionnaire for Assessment of Eating Disorders after Bariatric Surgery. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 1174. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10061174

AMA Style

Globus I, Kissileff HR, Hamm JD, Herzog M, Mitchell JE, Latzer Y. Comparison of Interview to Questionnaire for Assessment of Eating Disorders after Bariatric Surgery. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(6):1174. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10061174

Chicago/Turabian Style

Globus, Inbal, Harry R. Kissileff, Jeon D. Hamm, Musya Herzog, James E. Mitchell, and Yael Latzer. 2021. "Comparison of Interview to Questionnaire for Assessment of Eating Disorders after Bariatric Surgery" Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 6: 1174. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10061174

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop