Evidence That the Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA) Subscales Should Not Be Scored: Bifactor Modelling, Reliability, and Validity in Clinical and Community Samples
Aim: The Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA 3.0) is the most widely used instrument assessing psychosocial impairment secondary to eating disorder symptoms. However, there is conflicting advice regarding the dimensionality and optimal method of scoring the CIA. We sought to resolve this confusion b...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Published: |
SAGE Publications
2017
|
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/66978 |
| _version_ | 1848761443074179072 |
|---|---|
| author | Raykos, B. Erceg-Hurn, D. McEvoy, Peter Byrne, S. |
| author_facet | Raykos, B. Erceg-Hurn, D. McEvoy, Peter Byrne, S. |
| author_sort | Raykos, B. |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Aim: The Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA 3.0) is the most widely used instrument assessing psychosocial impairment secondary to eating disorder symptoms. However, there is conflicting advice regarding the dimensionality and optimal method of scoring the CIA. We sought to resolve this confusion by conducting a comprehensive factor analytic study of the CIA in a community sample (N = 301) and clinical sample comprising patients with a diagnosed eating disorder (N = 209). Convergent and discriminant validity were also assessed. Method: The CIA and measures of eating disorder symptoms were administered to both samples. Results: Factor analyses indicated there is a general impairment factor underlying all items on the CIA that is reliably measured by the CIA Global score. CIA Global demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity. Conclusions: CIA Global is a reliable and valid measure of psychosocial impairment secondary to eating disorder symptoms; however, subscale scores should not be computed. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T10:31:45Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-66978 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T10:31:45Z |
| publishDate | 2017 |
| publisher | SAGE Publications |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-669782024-05-21T03:38:45Z Evidence That the Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA) Subscales Should Not Be Scored: Bifactor Modelling, Reliability, and Validity in Clinical and Community Samples Raykos, B. Erceg-Hurn, D. McEvoy, Peter Byrne, S. Aim: The Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA 3.0) is the most widely used instrument assessing psychosocial impairment secondary to eating disorder symptoms. However, there is conflicting advice regarding the dimensionality and optimal method of scoring the CIA. We sought to resolve this confusion by conducting a comprehensive factor analytic study of the CIA in a community sample (N = 301) and clinical sample comprising patients with a diagnosed eating disorder (N = 209). Convergent and discriminant validity were also assessed. Method: The CIA and measures of eating disorder symptoms were administered to both samples. Results: Factor analyses indicated there is a general impairment factor underlying all items on the CIA that is reliably measured by the CIA Global score. CIA Global demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity. Conclusions: CIA Global is a reliable and valid measure of psychosocial impairment secondary to eating disorder symptoms; however, subscale scores should not be computed. 2017 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/66978 10.1177/1073191117733546 SAGE Publications fulltext |
| spellingShingle | Raykos, B. Erceg-Hurn, D. McEvoy, Peter Byrne, S. Evidence That the Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA) Subscales Should Not Be Scored: Bifactor Modelling, Reliability, and Validity in Clinical and Community Samples |
| title | Evidence That the Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA) Subscales Should Not Be Scored: Bifactor Modelling, Reliability, and Validity in Clinical and Community Samples |
| title_full | Evidence That the Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA) Subscales Should Not Be Scored: Bifactor Modelling, Reliability, and Validity in Clinical and Community Samples |
| title_fullStr | Evidence That the Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA) Subscales Should Not Be Scored: Bifactor Modelling, Reliability, and Validity in Clinical and Community Samples |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evidence That the Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA) Subscales Should Not Be Scored: Bifactor Modelling, Reliability, and Validity in Clinical and Community Samples |
| title_short | Evidence That the Clinical Impairment Assessment (CIA) Subscales Should Not Be Scored: Bifactor Modelling, Reliability, and Validity in Clinical and Community Samples |
| title_sort | evidence that the clinical impairment assessment (cia) subscales should not be scored: bifactor modelling, reliability, and validity in clinical and community samples |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/66978 |