Validation of the nine item ARFID screen (NIAS) subscales for distinguishing ARFID presentations and screening for ARFID. Issue 10 (22nd April 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Burton Murray, Helen; Dreier, Melissa J.; Zickgraf, Hana F.; Becker, Kendra R.; Breithaupt, Lauren; Eddy, Kamryn T.; Thomas, Jennifer J.
• Is Part Of: International journal of eating disorders. Volume 54:Issue 10(2021)
• Page Start: 1782
• Page End: 1792
• Publication Date: 2021-04-22
• Subjects: avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder -- diagnosis -- feeding and eating disorders -- surveys and questionnaires; Appetite disorders -- Periodicals; Ingestion disorders -- Periodicals; Eating disorders -- Periodicals; 616.8526
• DOI: 10.1002/eat.23520
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0276-3478

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: The Nine Item Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) Screen (NIAS) has three subscales aligned with ARFID presentations but clinically validated cutoff scores have not been identified. We aimed to examine NIAS subscale (picky eating, appetite, fear) validity to: (1) capture clinically‐diagnosed ARFID presentations; (2) differentiate ARFID from other eating disorders (other‐ED); and (3) capture ARFID symptoms among individuals with ARFID, individuals with other‐ED, and nonclinical participants. Method: Participants included outpatients (ages 10–76 years; 75% female) diagnosed with ARFID ( n = 49) or other‐ED ( n = 77), and nonclinical participants (ages 22–68 years; 38% female, n = 40). We evaluated criterion‐related concurrent validity by conducting receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses to identify potential subscale cutoffs and by testing if cutoffs could capture ARFID with and without use of the Eating Disorder Examination‐Questionnaire (EDE‐Q). Results: Each NIAS subscale had high AUC for capturing those who fit versus do not fit each ARFID presentation, resulting in proposed cutoffs of ≥10 (sensitivity = .97, specificity = .63), ≥9 (sensitivity = .86, specificity = .70), and ≥ 10 (sensitivity = .68, specificity = .89) on the NIAS‐picky eating, NIAS‐appetite, and NIAS‐fear subscales, respectively. ARFID versus other‐ED had high AUC on the NIAS‐picky eating (≥10 proposed cutoff), but not NIAS‐appetite or NIAS‐fear subscales. NIAS subscale cutoffs had a high association with ARFID diagnosis, but only correctly classified other‐ED in combination with EDE‐Q Global <2.3. Discussion: To screen for ARFID, we recommend using a screening tool for other‐ED (e.g., EDE‐Q) in combination with a positive score on any NIAS subscale (i.e., ≥10, ≥9, and/or ≥10 on the NIAS‐picky eating, NIAS‐appetite, and NIAS‐fear subscales, respectively).