Assessment of bulimia nervosa: A comparison of interview and self-report questionnaire methods

Authors

  • Jacqueline C. Carter,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Psychiatry, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    • Department of Psychiatry, Toronto General Hospital, 200 Elizabeth Street EN8-231, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2C4, Canada.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Annie A. Aimé,

    1. Department of Psychiatry, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    2. Department of Psychology, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Jennifer S. Mills

    1. Department of Psychiatry, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    2. Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Objective

The main aim of this study was to assess the level of agreement between the Eating Disorders Examination (EDE) and its self-report version (EDE-Q) on key items in a clinic sample of patients with bulimia nervosa. A second objective was to assess the concordance between self-reported and objective body weight in the sample.

Method

Sixty females who met DSM-IV criteria for bulimia nervosa (purging type) participated. Fifty-seven of them completed both the EDE and the EDE-Q. Self-reported weight was obtained during a telephone screening interview. Objective weight was subsequently measured at an assessment about a week later.

Results

The EDE generated higher scores than the EDE-Q for the frequency of objective binge and vomiting episodes. The two methods produced equivalent results for subjective binge episodes, laxative and diuretic misuse, and concerns about shape and weight. The self-report method underestimated body weight.

Discussion

These findings suggest that some core features of eating disorders are more accurately assessed using the EDE interview. © 2001 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Int J Eat Disord 30: 187–192, 2001.

Ancillary