The factor structure and validity of a diagnostic interview for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder in a sample of children, adolescents, and young adults.

OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of validated diagnostic interviews for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) to aid identification and classification of cases for both clinical and research purposes. To evaluate the factor structure, construct validity, and criterion validity of the Pica ARFID and Rumination Disorder Interview (PARDI; ARFID module), we administered the PARDI to 129 children and adolescents ages 9-23 years (M = 16.1) with ARFID (n = 84), subclinical ARFID (n = 11), and healthy controls (n = 34). METHOD: We used exploratory factor analysis to examine the factor structure of the PARDI in children, adolescents, and young adults with an ARFID diagnosis, the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance and Spearman correlations to test the construct validity of the measure, and non-parametric receiver operating characteristic curves to evaluate the criterion validity of the PARDI. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis yielded a 3-factor structure: (1) concern about aversive consequences of eating, (2) low appetite/low interest in food, and (3) sensory sensitivity. Participants with ARFID demonstrated significantly higher levels of sensory sensitivity, low appetite/low-food interest, and concern about aversive consequences of eating symptoms relative to control participants. The construct validity for each PARDI subscale was supported and clinical cutoffs for the low appetite/low interest in food (1.1) and sensory sensitivity subscales (0.6) were established. DISCUSSION: These data present evidence for the factor structure and validity of the PARDI diagnostic interview for diagnosing ARFID in children, adolescents, and young adults, supporting the use of this tool to facilitate ARFID clinical assessment and research. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Due to the paucity of validated diagnostic interviews for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), we evaluated the factor structure and validity of the Pica ARFID and Rumination Disorder Interview (ARFID module). Findings suggest that the interview assesses 3 components of ARFID: concern about aversive consequences of eating, low-appetite, and sensory sensitivity, and that clinical threshold scores on the latter two subscales can be used to advance ARFID assessment.

Frequency of concealment, fabrication and falsification of study data by deceptive subjects.

PURPOSE: Many studies have found evidence that research subjects engage in deceptive practices while participating in health-related studies. Little is known, however, about how often subjects use deception and the percentage of studies a typical subject will contaminate with false data. This study examined the frequency of use of different types of deception among a sample of subjects who admit to using deception. METHODS: A sample of 59 subjects who had participated in at least two health-related studies in the past 12 months and admitted to using deception in at least one were interviewed. Subjects were asked a series of questions about concealing information and fabricating information to gain entry into studies. Subjects were also asked about falsifying data after being enrolled in a health-related study. All study data reported pertains to only subjects who reported using deception in health-related studies and is based on subjects' study participation only within the last 12 months from the date of the interview. RESULTS: Subjects who conceal information in order to enroll in trials reported using concealment in about two thirds (67%) of the trials they participated in over the past 12 months. On average, these subjects' use of concealment was highest for mental health information (58% of studies) and physical health information (57% of studies). The average frequency of fabricating information in order to enroll in trials was 53% with exaggerating health symptoms (45% of studies) and pretending to have a health condition (39% of studies) as the two most widely used strategies. Subjects who falsify study data after enrollment reported doing so 40% of the time. These subjects falsely reported improvement in the health condition being studied in 38% of the trials they took part in. Subjects who admitted to throwing away study medication to create the appearance of compliance reported doing so 32% of the time. LIMITATIONS: Although this study provides evidence that subjects who admit to using deception contaminate a high percentage of studies, larger and more geographically diverse samples are needed to understand the full extent of the problem of deceptive subjects in research. Regional economic, cultural, or organizational factors may be related to the rate of subjects using deception. It is also possible that this sample underrepresents the use of deception as there are likely subjects who use deception that would be unwilling to admit the extent of this behavior. CONCLUSION: Deceptive subject's behavior poses a threat to the integrity of research findings. Given that deceptive subjects contaminate a high percentage of studies they take part in by concealing information, fabricating information, and falsifying study data after enrollment, efforts to identify and exclude these subjects is important to the integrity of research findings. Strategies to exclude deceptive subjects from health research should be used to inform study designs. Widespread adoption of research subject identity registries could greatly reduce the scope of studies that a single deceptive subject could contaminate. Technological solutions that provide an objective measure of medication compliance may be valuable tools for limiting fraudulent reports of compliance.