Do DSM-5 Eating Disorder Criteria Overpathologize Normative Eating Patterns among Individuals with Obesity?

• Main Authors: Jennifer J. Thomas (Author), Katherine A. Koh (Author), Kamryn T. Eddy (Author), Andrea S. Hartmann (Author), Helen B. Murray (Author), Mark J. Gorman (Author), Stephanie Sogg (Author), Anne E. Becker (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: Hindawi Limited, 2014-01-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.

Summary

Background. DSM-5 revisions have been criticized in the popular press for overpathologizing normative eating patterns-particularly among individuals with obesity. To evaluate the evidence for this and other DSM-5 critiques, we compared the point prevalence and interrater reliability of DSM-IV versus DSM-5 eating disorders (EDs) among adults seeking weight-loss treatment. Method. Clinicians (n=2) assigned DSM-IV and DSM-5 ED diagnoses to 100 participants via routine clinical interview. Research assessors (n=3) independently conferred ED diagnoses via Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV and a DSM-5 checklist. Results. Research assessors diagnosed a similar proportion of participants with EDs under DSM-IV (29%) versus DSM-5 (32%). DSM-5 research diagnoses included binge eating disorder (9%), bulimia nervosa (2%), subthreshold binge eating disorder (5%), subthreshold bulimia nervosa (2%), purging disorder (1%), night eating syndrome (6%), and other (7%). Interrater reliability between clinicians and research assessors was "substantial" for both DSM-IV (κ = 0.64, 84% agreement) and DSM-5 (κ = 0.63, 83% agreement). Conclusion. DSM-5 ED criteria can be reliably applied in an obesity treatment setting and appear to yield an overall ED point prevalence comparable to DSM-IV.

Item Description

2090-0708
2090-0716
10.1155/2014/320803