International Journal of Eating Disorders· 2026Q1
Validation of Parent‐Report Questionnaires for Large‐Scale Online Screening of Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder in Children and Adolescents
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
A combined algorithm using three parent-reported online questionnaires (PARDI-AR-Q, NIAS, PEDE-Q) achieved perfect sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for diagnosing Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) in children aged 6-14.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- A combined algorithm of PARDI-AR-Q, NIAS, and PEDE-Q showed perfect sensitivity and NPV for ARFID diagnosis in children (n=65).
- Specificity was 0.83, and PPVs ranged from 0.91 to 0.95.
- The screening algorithm's performance varied by ARFID criteria, with high PPV for psychosocial impairment (Criterion A4).
- Correlations between questionnaires and interview dimensions supported convergent validity.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective Studies assessing the validity of screening measures for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) remain scarce. We evaluated the diagnostic performance and validity of an online, parent‐reported screening approach for ARFID in a population‐based sample of children. Methods Participants were drawn from the ARFID Initiative Sweden (ARIES) cohort and included 65 children aged 6–14 years. Parents completed three screening questionnaires—Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview–ARFID Questionnaire (PARDI‐AR‐Q), Nine‐Item ARFID Screen (NIAS), and Parent Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (PEDE‐Q)—followed by a diagnostic interview (PARDI). Diagnostic performance indices (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]) were calculated. Convergent validity was assessed via correlations between questionnaire and interview dimensions. Results The combined screening algorithm demonstrated perfect sensitivity and NPV for ARFID diagnosis, indicating accurate detection of all ARFID cases and exclusion of non‐cases. Specificity was high (0.83), and PPVs ranged from 0.91 to 0.95, decreasing to 0.78 under a more conservative operationalization of ARFID Criterion A4 (psychosocial impairment). Diagnostic performance varied across single ARFID criteria: PPVs were low for the medically anchored Criteria A1–A3 but high for Criterion A4 (psychosocial impairment; PPV = 0.95), which was also the most commonly met criterion. Correlations between screening measures and corresponding interview dimensions were generally moderate to strong, supporting convergent validity. Children meeting threshold ARFID criteria showed significantly greater symptom severity than subthreshold cases at screening. Discussion These findings support the use of a multi‐instrument, parent‐reported screening approach for ARFID in large‐scale pediatric research and highlight the centrality of psychosocial impairment, underscoring the need for standardized operationalization of this criterion.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Clinical Psychology
Clinical PsychologyPsychology