Back

Validation of parent-report questionnaires for large-scale online screening of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder in children and adolescents

Friskson, D.; Dahlback, F.; Myrberg, L. L.; Hog, L.; Micali, N.; Bulik, C.; Dinkler, L.

2026-07-04 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.06.25.26356338 medRxiv
Show 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, 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 ARFID criteria: PPVs were low for medically anchored Criteria A1-A3 but high for Criterion A4 (psychosocial impairment; PPV=0.95). 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.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Appetite
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.7%
2
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
96 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.8%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 24%
6.8%
4
Journal of Affective Disorders
92 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
5.6%
5
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
6
Psychological Medicine
88 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.1%
50% of probability mass above
7
JCPP Advances
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
8
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 7%
3.2%
9
Journal of Psychiatric Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.8%
10
Translational Psychiatry
260 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
11
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.8%
12
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
13
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
14
BMJ Paediatrics Open
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
15
Obesity
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
16
Psychiatry Research
41 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
17
European Psychiatry
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
18
Frontiers in Psychology
56 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
19
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
20
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
21
BMC Psychiatry
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
22
Twin Research and Human Genetics
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
23
Frontiers in Nutrition
24 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
24
Acta Neuropsychiatrica
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
25
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
26
Physiology & Behavior
31 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
27
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
28
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
29
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%