ASSESSMENT ARTICLEet al.

/ MEN AND WOMEN ON THE EDI-2

10.1177/1073191103260623
Spillane

Comparability of the Eating Disorder

Inventory-2 Between Women and Men

Nichea S. Spillane
Laura M. Boerner
University of Kentucky

Kristen G. Anderson
University of California, San Diego

Gregory T. Smith
University of Kentucky

Researchers studying eating disorders in men often use eating-disorder risk and symptom
measures that have been validated only on women. Using a sample of 215 college women
and 214 college men, this article reports on the validity the Eating Disorder Inventory–2
(EDI-2), one of the best-validated among women and the most widely used risk and symptom
measure for women. The EDI-2 had the same, standard eight-factor structure for both gen-
ders, and tests of invariance showed that factor loadings, factor variances, and factor
intercorrelations were equivalent across gender. The EDI-2 scales correlated with question-
naire measures of bulimic and anorexic symptomatology equivalently across gender. How-
ever, the EDI-2 scales were generally less reliable for men, leading to slightly lower
Pearson-based estimates of correlations among the measures for men.

Keywords: male eating disorders; gender equivalence; invariance

In recent years, researchers have begun to focus on eat-
ing disorders in men. Estimates suggest that men experi-
ence these disorders less often than women; men comprise
approximately 5% to 10% of the anorexia population
(Lucas, Beard, Kurland, & O’Fallon, 1991) and perhaps
10% to 15% of the bulimia population (Carlat & Carmago,
1991). To date, it appears that the most common forms of
symptom expression in men are the classic eating dis-
orders of anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge-
eating disorder. There has been some recent attention to
uniquely male eating and body dysfunction, such as an ex-
aggerated focus on body-building and muscle mass. How-
ever, of the 113 published studies in the last 4 years on
eating disorders in men, 92 focused on the classic eating
disorders of anorexia, bulimia, and binge-eating disorder,
and only 21 concerned the newer, uniquely male disorders.
Despite this interest in eating disorders among men, we
found no studies examining the psychometric properties
of eating-disorder risk and symptom measures in men and
Assessment, Volume 11, No. 1, March 2004 85-93
DOI: 10.1177/1073191103260623
© 2004 Sage Publications
only 1 study that addressed psychometric issues among
adolescent males (Lewinsohn, Seeley, Moerk, & Striegel-
Moore, 2002). Frequently, measures developed and vali-
dated on women are employed in studies of men, despite
the absence of appropriate validity information (Carlat &
Carmago, 1991). This problem involves two related is-
sues. One is whether existing, validated measures need to
be modified for use with men to reflect uniquely male con-
cerns and to avoid reflecting uniquely female concerns. At
present, researchers usually use unmodified measures, ap-
parently because the symptom pictures appear to be com-
parable across gender (Carlat, Carmago, & Herzog, 1997).
Given that, the second concern is whether the reliability
and the validity of the measures for men are comparable to
that for women. The aim of this study is to begin to address
this second concern.
We did so by comparing men and women’s responses to
the Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (EDI-2; Garner, 1991), a
well-standardized and widely used measure for assessing

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

86 ASSESSMENT
eating-disorder risk and symptomatology in women. We
found 29 studies to date applying the EDI-2 to men, even
though there are no studies investigating its psychometric
properties in men. It has eight scales, seven of which mea-
sure risk factors (e.g., Drive for Thinness, Body Dissatis-
faction, and Perfectionism) and one measuring symptom
level (Bulimia; Garner, Olmstead, & Polivy, 1983).
A few studies have compared men and women on the
EDI or EDI-2, but they have typically reported only sex
differences in mean scores. They often conclude that men
have lower mean scores than women on Bulimia, Drive for
Thinness, and Body Dissatisfaction (Cantrell & Ellis,
1991; Gupta, Schork, & Dhaliwal, 1993; Oates-Johnson &
DeCourville, 1999; Szekely, Raffeld, & Snodgrass, 1989),
but this is not always the case (Braun, Sunday, Huang, &
Halmi, 1999; Cantrell & Ellis, 1991; Schneider & Agras,
1987). A few actually find higher scores for men on Inter-
personal Distrust (Joiner, Katz, & Heatherton, 2000;
Szekely et al., 1989) and Perfectionism (Szekely et al.,
1989). We found only two studies comparing the utility of
the EDI-2 in women and men. A German EDI version
demonstrated less satisfactory convergent and discrimi-
nant validity for male than for female respondents (Rathner
& Rumpold, 1994), but a U.S. investigation of college-age
men with eating disorders demonstrated the EDI’s efficacy
in discriminating between men with and without eating
disorders (Olivardia, Pope, Mangweth, & Hudson, 1995).
The present study adds to this literature in several ways.
First, we compared the factor structure of the EDI-2 be-
tween female and male samples. A prerequisite for using
the EDI-2 with men is that it has the same factor structure
with men as with women; otherwise, the meaning of men’s
scores is unclear. Because the measure was developed on a
female sample and included male responses only for
discriminant validity purposes (Garner et al., 1983), a
comparison of factor structures is necessary to determine
the suitability of its use with men.
Second, we compared the intercorrelations of the EDI-2
scales, and their correlations with two other symptom
measures. Because it is possible that the EDI-2 will be less
reliable with men (Lee, Lee, Leung, & Yu, 1997), it is im-
portant to determine whether any gender differences in
correlations are substantive or simply the result of differ-
ences in reliability. We compared correlations derived
from structural equation modeling, which removes ran-
dom error variance from the measures (Hoyle & Smith,
1994), to traditional Pearson correlation coefficients,
which do not remove random error. If correlation differ-
ences are only the result of reliability differences, they will
not be present when error variance is removed, but they
will be present using Pearson correlations. If there are sub-
stantive differences in the correlations as a function of
gender, differences will be present with random error re-
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
moved. Third, we examined mean differences between
men and women on the EDI-2. If the measure has the same
factor structure and same pattern of intercorrelations, mean
differences may reflect lower risk and symptom status for
men.
METHOD
Participants
Four hundred and twenty-nine undergraduate students
at a large midwestern university (214 men and 215
women) served as participants. The mean age for the male
sample was 18.83 (SD = 1.15); the mean age for the female
sample was 18.48 (SD = 1.07). The two samples did not
differ on parental occupations or ethnic background. More
than 90% of the participants in the two samples identified
themselves as Caucasian. All other ethnic backgrounds
were represented in very small numbers.
Measures
Bulimia Test–Revised. The Bulimia Test–Revised
(BULIT–R; Thelen, Farmer, Wonderlich, & Smith, 1991)
is a 36-item self-report measure that was designed to as-
sess a broad range of eating-disordered behavior, includ-
ing bingeing, purging, and other forms of compensatory
behavior. This instrument is commonly used in the eating-
disorder literature to assess bulimic symptomatology and
has been shown to discriminate bulimics from normal
controls (Thelen et al., 1991).
Structured Interview for the DSM-IV-Research Form.
A modified questionnaire version of the Structured Inter-
view for the DSM-IV-Research form (SCID-III; First,
Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams, 1997) was used to assess re-
stricting and purging behavior associated with weight loss.
Participants were presented with 11 structured interview
questions for eating disorders in a mixed, forced-choice
(true-false) and open-ended format. Coefficient alpha for
this modified form has been reported to be .73 (Anderson,
Smith, Fischer, & Fister, 2003).
Eating Disorder Inventory–2. The Eating Disorder In-
ventory–2 (EDI-2) is a 64-item self-report measure of the
cognitive and behavioral characteristics commonly asso-
ciated with anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa (Garner,
1991). Responses are made on a 6-point Likert-type scale
ranging from never to always.
Garner describes the eight scales as follows. The Drive
for Thinness scale appears to measure excessive concern
with dieting, preoccupation with weight, and fear of
weight gain. The Bulimia scale measures the tendency to

think about bingeing and to engage in bingeing behavior.
The presence of bingeing is characteristic of bulimia
nervosa and differentiates the restrictor and nonrestrictor
subtypes of anorexia nervosa (Garner, 1991; Garner et al.,
1983). Items on the Body Dissatisfaction scale measure
dissatisfaction with the overall shape and size of particular
body regions. The Ineffectiveness scale measures feelings
of inadequacy, insecurity, worthlessness, and lack of con-
trol over one’s life. The Perfectionism scale measures the
extent to which the individual believes that only superior
personal achievements are acceptable and that outstanding
achievements are expected by others. Items on the Inter-
personal Distrust scale assess an individual’s feeling of
alienation and the reluctance to form close relationships
with others. The Interoceptive Awareness scale measures
the individual’s lack of confidence in recognizing emo-
tional states and feelings of hunger and satiety. Items on
the Maturity Fears scale measure the desire to stop grow-
ing older and return to the safety of preadolescent years.
Internal consistency reliability for the scales ranges
from .83 to .93 in a female eating-disorder sample (Garner
et al., 1983). Within nonpatient female college-student
samples, internal consistency reliability ranges from .77 to
.93 (Raciti & Norcross, 1987; Vandereycken, Fekken, &
Boland, 1988), with the exception of Perfectionism (alpha
= .69) in one sample. Each EDI subscale correlates signifi-
cantly with physicians’ ratings, and all EDI items are able
to discriminate eating disorder and nonpatient samples
(Garner et al., 1983). The scales correlate in predicted
manners with other commonly used eating-disorder mea-
sures, such as the Eating Attitudes Test (EAT; Garner &
Garfinkel, 1979; Garner et al., 1983; Raciti & Norcross,
1987), the Restraint Scale (RS; Herman & Polivy, 1980;
see also Garner et al., 1983), the Eating Expectancy Inven-
tory, and the Thinness and Restricting Expectancy
Inventory (Simmons, Smith, & Hill, 2002).
Procedure
Participants were introduced to the study as an investi-
gation into gender and eating behaviors. On completion of
consent procedures, each participant received a packet of
materials that contained a demographic questionnaire, the
BULIT-R, a modified version of the SCID, and the EDI-2.
Administration of the measures was counterbalanced. Par-
ticipants were debriefed following completion of the study.
Data Analysis
Structural equation modeling. Structural equation
modeling (SEM) was used as a data analytic tool in this in-
vestigation. The method allows for the estimation of latent
variables that represent the common variance among dif-
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Spillane et al. / MEN AND WOMEN ON THE EDI-2 87
ferent indicators (such as items or subscales) of the same
construct. Because the latent variables reflect only com-
mon variance, random error variance has been removed
(Hoyle & Smith, 1994). In addition, SEM provides quanti-
tative indices of the degree to which a factor model or
correlational model represents the obtained covariances
among the measures. We chose two fit indices for these
analyses—the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990)
and the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA; Marsh, Balla, & Hau, 1996). Convention holds
that a CFI exceeding .90 indicates good fit between a
model and the data, but values lower than .90 are often ob-
tained with well-fitting but complex models. For the
RMSEA, using the convention provided by Browne and
Cudeck (1993), close fit is identified by a value of .05, fair
fit by a value of .08, and marginal fit by a value of .10.
There are a number of estimation methods; we chose max-
imum likelihood because of its relatively robust
performance in a variety of situations (Hu, Bentler, &
Kano, 1992).
SEM also provides a means for testing the comparabil-
ity of factor structures and correlational models across
groups. The term for statistical comparability of structure
is invariance, and Hoyle and Smith (1994) have described
the steps required to assess measurement invariance. First,
one specifies that a scale has the same factor structure for
each group. At the second step, one adds the constraint that
the factor loadings are identical. At the third step, one
specifies that, in addition, factors will have the same vari-
ances across groups. At the fourth step, one further speci-
fies that factors will have the same intercorrelations for
each group. One can then go on to test whether the factors
have the same correlations with criterion variables for
each group. There is a chi-square test of whether each ad-
ditional set of constraints reduces how well the model fits
the data. That test is overly sensitive (Bentler, 1990), so
one also examines whether the overall fit indices change
markedly.
Data analytic plan. Data analyses proceeded in a series
of steps. We first used SEM to conduct a confirmatory fac-
tor analysis of the EDI-2, evaluating whether the standard,
eight-factor structure fit both the male and the female data.
We then conducted the series of tests to determine the de-
gree to which the EDI-2 factor structure was invariant
across gender. We then examined whether the EDI-2 fac-
tors correlations with measures of bulimic and anorexic
symptomatology were invariant across gender. We next
used traditional Pearson correlation-based data analysis to
estimate the internal consistency reliabilities of the EDI-2
and symptom measures, their intercorrelations, and their
correlations with symptom measures. Because Pearson
correlations do not remove random error variance, these
88 ASSESSMENT
analyses enabled us to see whether there was greater error
in the mens responses to the measures and, if so, whether
the error led to attenuated correlations for men. Finally, via
t tests, we compared mean levels of endorsement of risk
and symptom measures by gender.
RESULTS
Factor Structure of the EDI-2
as a Function of Gender
We first tested the overall, eight-factor EDI-2 model as
specified in the measures manual (Garner, 1991). Each of
the eight EDI-2 scales has eight items. Specifying this
model in each of two samples requires 296 degrees of free-
dom, making stable estimates of all covariances unlikely
except with extraordinarily large samples. To make the
model testable, we grouped items into item parcels (sets of
items) for data analytic purposes. For each of the eight
EDI-2 factors, we collapsed the eight items into three item
parcels. The latent variables for each of those scales reflect
the common variance among the scales item parcels.1 The
fit of this complex model was solid (CFI = .86; RMSEQ =
.06; Confidence Interval (CI) = .06–.07), suggesting that
the same general factor structure represents the data for
both genders. We then tested the specific invariance of
each EDI-2 scale by comparing models with invariant con-
straints to this baseline model in the step-by-step way
described above.
Drive for Thinness Scale
Constraining factor loadings to be equivalent across
gender for the Drive for Thinness scale did significantly
alter the chi-square value (χ2(2) = 13.32, p < .01), as did
constraining factor variances to be equal at the next step
(χ2(1) = 68.37, p < .01). However, there was no change in
the fit indices from the baseline model to the model requir-
ing equal factor loadings, and the change in the fit indices
was negligible when factor variances were constrained to
be equal (from CFI = .86, RMSEA = .06, CI = .06–.07; to
CFI = .85, RMSEA = .07, CI = .06–.07). Thus, the Drive
for Thinness scale appears invariant across gender.
Bulimia Scale
There was invariance between groups for factor load-
ings on the Bulimia scale. However, the constraint of equal
variances did not hold (χ2(1) = 19.9, p < .01) across
groups. Despite that inequality, the fit indices did not drop
to the first two decimals (CFI = .86; RMSEA = .06; CI =
.06–.07). The Bulimia scale was invariant across gender.
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Body Dissatisfaction Scale
The assumption of equal factor loadings for men and
women was not supported using the chi-square difference
test (χ2(2) = 29,13, p < .01), but there was virtually no
change in fit indices with this constraint imposed (Step 1:
CFI = .86, RMSEA = .06, CI = .06–.07; Step 2: CFI = .86,
RMSEA = .07, CI = .06–.07). When factor variances were
equated, there was again a significant chi-square (χ2(1) =
51.63, p < .01) without real change in the fit indices (Step
2: CFI = .86, RMSEA = .07, CI = .06–.07; Step 3: CFI =
.85, RMSEA = .07, CI = .06–.07). These findings are con-
sistent with invariance of the Body Dissatisfaction scale
across gender.
Ineffectiveness Scale
Constraining the factor loadings and factor variances to
equality did not result in a significant change in chi-square
nor in model fit (fit indices at all steps: CFI = .86; RMSEA
= .06; CI = .06–.07). These findings support the invariance
of the Ineffectiveness scale across groups.
Perfectionism Scale
Like the Ineffectiveness scale, invariance tests sup-
ported the invariance of factor loadings and factor vari-
ances for the Perfectionism scale. The fit indices were the
same at all three steps (CFI = .86; RMSEA = .06; CI = .06–
.07) without significant changes in chi-square.
Interpersonal Distrust Scale
Invariance tests supported the same pattern of factor
loadings and factor variances for the Interpersonal Dis-
trust scale. There were no significant changes in chi-
square at any step, nor were there changes in fit indices
(CFI = .86; RMSEA = .07; CI = .06–.07).
Interoceptive Awareness Scale
Constraining factor loadings to equivalence resulted in
a significant chi-square (χ2(2) = 9.77, p < .01). However,
the fit indices did not show any change (CFI = .86;
RMSEA = .06; CI = .06–.07). The constraint of equal fac-
tor variances also resulted in a significant chi-square
(χ2(1) = 18.92, p < .01), but there was no change in fit indi-
ces at this step either. The scale is invariant across gender.
Maturity Fears Scale
Invariance tests supported the same pattern of factor
loadings and factor variance for the Maturity Fears scale.
 Spillane et al. / MEN AND WOMEN ON THE EDI-2 89

FIGURE 1 added the additional model constraint that factor inter-

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the EDI-2 for correlations were also equal.
Men and Women Combined
Intercorrelations Among
EDI-2 Scales by Gender
DFT PERF
As noted above, the fit of the overall model was good
(CFI = .86; RMSEA = .06; CI = .06–.07). Equating the fac-
.86 .87 .89 .55 .85 .63 tor loadings for all factors resulted in a significant chi-
square of 79.76 (df = 1) but a negligible change in fit indi-
P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 ces (to CFI = .85; RMSEA = .07; CI = .06–.07). The con-
straint of equal factor variances across men and women
was significant (χ2 (8) = 96.79, p < .01) with a negligible
BUL ID change in fit indices (to CFI = .84; RMSEA = .07; CI =
.06–.07). The final constraint of equal covariances be-
tween scales also resulted in a significant chi-square value
.73 .61 .68 .91 .60 .48 of 158.1 (df = 8). For this constraint, there was a small
change in the CFI (.81) but not in the RMSEA (.07; CI =
P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 .06–.07). Overall, EDI-2 scale intercorrelations appear
comparable for the two sexes; the EDI-2 appears largely
invariant across gender. The invariant intercorrelations
BD IA among the eight EDI-2 factors are presented in Table 1.

.91 .85 .94 .85 .65 .69

Correlations Between EDI-2 Scales
and External Criteria by Gender
P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3
To evaluate the EDI-2 scales correlations with bulimic
and anorexic symptomatology by gender, we added the
BULIT-R and the SCID-based questionnaire to the model,
INEFF MF
resulting in a 10-factor model. We then used the same hier-
archical strategy for testing invariance between men and
.91 .51 .60 .83 .88 .67 women because the logic of invariance testing requires ex-
amining correlation invariance after examining factor
P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 loading and factor variance comparability. The fit of the
10-factor model was good (CFI = .86; RMSEA = .06; CI =
NOTE: Each circle represents one factor of the EDI-2, and each factor re- .05–.06). In the first step, factor loadings for all 10 factors
flects the common variance among three parcels of items. Coefficients
are analogous to the factor loadings of each parcel. For simplicity of pre- were constrained to equivalence, resulting in a significant
sentation, neither intercorrelations among the factors nor error terms are chi-square value of 89.23 (df = 22). However, the differ-
presented. Factor intercorrelations are presented in Table 1. EDI-2 = Eat- ence in fit indices at this stage was minor (to CFI = .85;
ing Disorder Inventory–2; DFT = Drive for Thinness; BUL = Bulimia;
BD = Body Dissatisfaction; INEFF = Ineffectiveness; PERF = Perfec- RMSEA = .06; CI = .05–.06). Equating factor variances
tionism; ID = Interpersonal Distrust; IA = Interoceptive Awareness; MF = also resulted in a significant chi-square (χ2(10) = 95.75,
Maturity Fears. p < .01) without a major change in fit indices (to CFI = .84;
RMSEA = .06; CI = .06–.06). The final step tests correla-
There were no significant changes in chi-squares at any tion invariance. Given that this final model includes 10
step. factors, we imposed the constraint that correlations among
In sum, there was good evidence in this sample that the all 10 scales were equal across gender. This set of 45 corre-
standard, eight-factor EDI-2 structure applied to both men lations includes eight EDI-2 correlations with the BULIT-
and women and that factor loadings and factor variances R and eight EDI-2 correlations with the SCID-based ques-
were equal across gender. The invariant model is pre- tionnaire (see Table 1). That constraint resulted in a signif-
sented in Figure 1. We then tested whether the intercorre- icant chi-square of 180.93 (df = 42). Again, although the
lations among the eight factors were equivalent across chi-square test was significant, the change in fit was negli-
gender. We did so by first imposing all of the above equal- gible; the CFI went from .84 to .83, and the RMSEA did
ity constraints (i.e., for all factors) at once, and then we not change (.06; CI = .06–.06). The EDI-2 appears to pre-

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

90 ASSESSMENT

TABLE 1
Intercorrelations of EDI-2 and Symptom Measures for Men and Women Combined,
With Random Error Removed
Scales EDI-DFT EDI-Bulimia EDI-BD EDI-IN EDI-P EDI-ID EDI: IA EDI: MF BULIT SCID

EDI: DFT .65 .82 .47 .22 .07 .59 .30 .73 .77
EDI: Bul .48 .55 .27 .08 .76 .41 .78 .58
EDI: BD .52 .10 .15 .57 .28 .63 .70
EDI: IN .16 .80 .72 .51 .47 .50
EDI: P .07 .31 .27 .19 .22
EDI: ID .29 .26 .11 .17
EDI: IA .50 .56 .50
EDI: MF .37 .32
BULIT .83
SCID

NOTE: EDI-2 = Eating Disorder Inventory–2; EDI-DFT = Eating Disorder Inventory-Drive for Thinness; EDI-Bul = Eating Disorder Inventory–Bulimia;
EDI-BD = Eating Disorder Inventory-Body Dissatisfaction; EDI-IN = Eating Disorder Inventory-Ineffectiveness; EDI-P = Eating Disorder Inventory-Per-
fectionism; EDI-ID = Eating Disorder Inventory-Interpersonal Distrust; EDI-IA = Eating Disorder Inventory-Interoceptive Awareness; EDI-MF = Eating
Disorder Inventory-Maturity Fears; BULIT = Bulimia Test–Revised; SCID = Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM–IV–Research Form.
Correlations greater than .15 are significant, p < .05. Correlations greater than .18 are significant, p < .001.

TABLE 2
Comparison of Internal Consistency and of Pearson Intercorrelations of EDI-2 and
Symptom Measures for Men (M) and Women (W)
EDI-DFT EDI-Bulimia EDI-BD EDI-IN EDI-P EDI-ID EDI: IA EDI: MF BULIT SCID

Scales M W M W M W M W M W M W M W M W M W M W

EDI: DFT .82 .91 .41 .51 .71 .73 .47 .50 .12 .22 .28 .15 .56 .52 .16 .31 .59 .72 .43 .63
EDI: Bul .63 .74 .44 .32 .37 .59 .12 .26 .18 .20 .43 .64 .18 .41 .58 .66 .26 .48
EDI: BD .83 .93 .50 .46 –.04 .17 .25 .15 .45 .37 .09 .31 .56 .57 .38 .52
EDI: IN .73 .79 –.18 .33 .43 .40 .60 .72 .30 .62 .45 .51 .36 .44
EDI: P .69 .76 –.02 .28 .04 .36 .13 .25 .05 .23 .07 .16
EDI: ID .57 .74 .39 .48 .23. .42 .27 .17 .25 .23
EDI: IA .76 .83 .19 .53 .45 .50 .30 .46
EDI: MF .82 .80 .29 .34 .19 .33
BULIT .90 .94 .50 .71
SCID .65 .73

NOTE: EDI-2 = Eating Disorder Inventory–2; EDI-DFT = Eating Disorder Inventory–Drive for Thinness; EDI-Bul = Eating Disorder Inventory–Bulimia;
EDI-BD = Eating Disorder Inventory-Body Dissatisfaction; EDI-IN = Eating Disorder Inventory-Ineffectiveness; EDI-P = Eating Disorder Inventory-Per-
fectionism; EDI-ID = Eating Disorder Inventory-Interpersonal Distrust; EDI-IA = Eating Disorder Inventory-Interoceptive Awareness; EDI-MF = Eating
Disorder Inventory-Maturity Fears; BULIT = Bulimia Test–Revised; SCID = Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM–IV–Research Form.
Correlations greater than .15 are significant, p < .05. Correlations greater than .18 are significant, p < .001.

dict questionnaire measures of bulimic and anorexic
symptomatology equally for men and women.
Internal Consistency Reliabilities and Pearson
Intercorrelations of Measures
Table 2 presents internal consistency reliabilities and
Pearson correlation estimates separately by gender. As the
table shows, for all scales but one, men’s responses were
somewhat less reliable than were women’s. The one ex-
ception, Maturity Fears, was slightly more reliable for
men. Although the men’s reliabilities tended to be lower,
most were within an acceptable range. The clearest excep-
tion was Interpersonal Distrust, with a coefficient alpha of
.57 for men and .74 for women. The Bulimia scales inter-
nal consistency was also low for men (.63 compared to .74
for women).
Table 2 also shows that using Pearson methods that do
not remove random error, 21 of 28 EDI-2 scale intercorre-
lations were greater for women than for men. Seven of the
eight EDI-2 scale correlations with the BULIT-R were
greater for women, as were seven of eight EDI-2 correla-
tions with the SCID-based questionnaire. Although gener-
ally smaller, the men’s correlations were still substantial.
Only 4 of 28 EDI-2 intercorrelations were nonsignificant
for men (all were significant for women), and only men’s

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 Spillane et al. / MEN AND WOMEN ON THE EDI-2 91

TABLE 3
Gender Differences on Each Scale of the EDI-2
Women Men
Scale M SD M SD t

EDI-2
Drive for Thinness 5.07 5.93 1.53 3.13 7.69**
Bulimia 1.82 2.89 1.02 1.92 3.37**
Body Dissatisfaction 10.52 8.32 3.20 4.59 11.22**
Ineffectiveness 1.97 3.29 1.60 2.85 1.27
Perfectionism 6.73 4.14 7.77 3.92 –2.68*
Interpersonal Distrust 1.50 2.49 1.72 2.26 –.94
Interoceptive Awareness 2.90 4.31 1.94 3.22 2.60*
Maturity Fears 3.78 3.99 3.62 4.41 .40
BULIT-R 63.86 21.09 55.11 15.71 4.86**
SCID-based questionnaire 4.81 2.89 3.16 2.28 6.55**

NOTE: EDI-2 = Eating Disorder Inventory–2; BULIT = Bulimia Test–Revised; SCID = Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM–IV–Research Form.
*p < .01. **p < .001.

Perfectionism scores failed to correlate with the BULIT-R
and with the SCID-based questionnaire.
Mean Differences on EDI-2 and Symptom Mea-
sures by Gender
Table 3 presents results of t tests comparing the EDI-2
scales, the BULIT-R, and the SCID-based questionnaire
by gender. Men scored significantly lower than women on
four EDI-2 subscales—Drive for Thinness, Bulimia, Body
Dissatisfaction, and Interoceptive Awareness. Conversely,
men scored higher than women on Perfectionism and In-
terpersonal Distrust. Scores on the Ineffectiveness and
Maturity Fears subscales did not differ significantly by
gender. Thus, these findings are consistent with previous
reports of women consistently scoring higher on Drive for
Thinness, Bulimia, and Body Dissatisfaction (Cantrell &
Ellis, 1991; Gupta et al., 1993; Oates-Johnson &
DeCourville, 1999; Szekely et al., 1989) and men tending
to score higher on Perfectionism and Interpersonal Dis-
trust (Joiner et al., 2000; Szekely et al., 1989). Men scored
lower than women on both symptom measures.
DISCUSSION
The aim of this article was to begin consideration of
valid assessment of eating-disorder risk and symptoma-
tology among men. For the traditional eating disorders of
bulimia nervosa and anorexia nervosa, the symptom pic-
tures appear to be similar for men and women (Carlat et al.,
1997). Perhaps for this reason, researchers studying men
often use measures validated on women without consider-
ation of their reliability and validity for men. One of the
most commonly used and best-validated measures with
women is the EDI-2. Researchers have begun to use the
EDI-2 with men. To see whether doing so is appropriate,
we investigated the measures comparability between male
and female samples.
Results supported the EDI-2s validity with men. The
factor structure of the EDI-2 and that of each of its scales
was invariant across gender, meaning the scales can be
presumed to measure similar constructs in both sexes. Fur-
ther, with random error variance removed statistically, cor-
relations among the scales did not differ as a function of
gender, nor did the scales correlations with two external
symptom measures. The invariant factor structures, scale
intercorrelations, and correlations with symptom criteria
have two implications. First, the EDI-2 can be used validly
with men. Second, some identified risk factors among
women appear to function similarly among men. Aspects
of the risk process may be similar for men and women.
As encouraging as these findings are, there are impor-
tant caveats to note. First, most EDI-2 scales are somewhat
less reliable among men. An important consequence is
that using Pearson-based estimates of correlations (that do
not remove random error), mens EDI-2 scale scores will
appear less highly correlated with each other and with ex-
ternal criteria. The finding that with random error removed
statistically, the correlations were not lower indicates that
the lower Pearson correlations for men are because of the
lower reliabilities of the measures with men. Thus, the ob-
served Pearson-based differences are not substantive in
that they do not reflect differences in the core relation-
ships among risk and symptom measures by gender.
Researchers should be aware of this finding when inter-
preting results with men and exercise caution in drawing
conclusions about sex differences based on correlations.
Second, this study was not designed to explain why the
EDI-2 is less reliable in men than in women. However,
several possibilities are worth exploring in the future. For
instance, perhaps the EDI-2 items tap issues that are less

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

92 ASSESSMENT
common to men than to women (e.g., concern that thighs
or hips are too large), and therefore, men have more diffi-
culty responding in a consistent manner than do women.
Further, maybe these issues are so unusual or uninteresting
to men that they ultimately respond in a random or inatten-
tive manner. There is the possibility of floor effects; that is,
men may be so low on both risk and symptoms that current
measures cannot differentiate among many men, thus, re-
ducing the proportion of reliable variance in measures. In-
deed, men produced less variance than women on all eight
scales and on both symptom measures. This possibility is
not likely to be a complete explanation, however. Men
scored higher on two EDI-2 scales and did not differ from
women on two others. These remain important gaps in
knowledge and deserve additional investigation.
Third, the present results are based on a college student
sample. Although college students do represent a high-
risk group for the development of eating disorders, we do
not know how well these results apply to men and women
in general. To draw firmer conclusions about the validity
of the EDI-2 with men, it will be necessary to examine its
performance in a general population sample as well as
with an identified sample of men with eating disorders.
Although this study provides evidence that there is va-
lidity to the use of the EDI-2 with men, we believe the de-
velopment of male-specific risk constructs and models is
an important enterprise. There has been some recognition
of this need in the male eating-disorder literature, leading
some investigators to add items to existing scales to boost
their relevance to men (Oates-Johnson & DeCourville,
1999). As this venture matures, both the common and the
unique aspects of the risk process as a function of gender
will become clear.
NOTE
1. Item parcels were developed as follows: Every third item was as-
signed to a parcel (e.g., the first item for a given scale to Parcel 1, the sec-
ond item to Parcel 2, the third item to Parcel 3, the fourth item to Parcel 1,
etc.). Thus, for each subscale, two of the parcels had three items, and one
had two items. Parcel scores were computed as the mean of the set of
items. Using the same process, four item parcels were created for the
BULIT-R, and three were created for the SCID-based questionnaire. This
approach has been undertaken and described elsewhere (Hohlstein,
Smith, & Atlas, 1998; Leigh, 1989).
REFERENCES
Anderson, K. G., Smith, G. T., Fischer, S., & Fister, S. (2003). Integrating
risk models for disordered eating: Negative affectivity, learning, and
eating disorder symptoms. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Braun, D. L., Sunday, S. R., Huang, A., & Halmi, K. A. (1999). More
males seek treatment for eating disorders. The International Journal
of Eating Disorders, 25, 415-424.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing
model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equa-
tion models (pp.136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cantrell, P. J., & Ellis, J. B. (1991). Gender role and risk patterns for eat-
ing disorders in men and women. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
47(1), 53-57.
Carlat, D. J., & Carmago, C. A. (1991). Review of bulimia nervosa in
males. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 831-843.
Carlat, D. J., Carmago, C. A., Jr., & Herzog, D. B. (1997). Eating disor-
ders in males: A report on 135 patients. American Journal of Psychia-
try, 154(8), 1127-1132.
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1997).
Structured clinical interview for the DSM-IV Axis I disorders (Axis
I). Research version. New York: New York Biometrics Research
Division.
Garner, D. M. (1991). Eating Disorder Inventory-2 professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Garner, D. M., & Garfinkel, P. E. (1979). The Eating Attitudes Test: An
index of the symptoms of anorexia nervosa. Psychological Medicine,
9, 273-279.
Garner, D. M., Olmstead, M. P., & Polivy, J. (1983). Development and
validation of a multidimensional eating disorder inventory for an-
orexia nervosa and bulimia. The International Journal of Eating Dis-
orders, 2(2), 15-34.
Gupta, M. A., Schork, N. J., & Dhaliwal, J. S. (1993). Stature, drive for
thinness and body dissatisfaction: A study of males and females from
a non-clinical sample. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 38(1), 59-61.
Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (1980). Restrained eating. In A. Stunkard
(Ed.), Obesity (pp. 208-225). Philadelphia: Saunders.
Hohlstein, L. A., Smith, G. T., & Atlas, J. G.(1998). An application of ex-
pectancy theory to eating disorders: Development and validation of
measures of eating and dieting expectancies. Psychological Assess-
ment, 10(1), 49-58.
Hoyle, R. H., & Smith, G. T. (1994). Formulating clinical research hy-
potheses as structural equation models. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 429-440.
Hu, L. T., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in
covariance structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112,
351-362.
Joiner, T. E., Katz, J., & Heatherton, T. F. (2000). Personality features dif-
ferentiate late adolescent females and males with chronic bulimic
symptoms. The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 27,
191-197.
Lee, S., Lee, A. M., Leung, T., & Yu, H. (1997). Psychometric properties
of the Eating Disorders Inventory (EDI-1) in a nonclinical Chinese
population in Hong Kong. The International Journal of Eating Disor-
ders, 21(2), 187-194.
Leigh, B. C. (1989). Attitudes and expectancies as predictors of drinking
habits: A comparison of three scales. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
50(5), 432-440.
Lewinsohn, P. M., Seeley, J. R., Moerk, K. C., & Striegel-Moore, R. H.
(2002). Gender differences in eating disorder symptoms in young
adults. The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 32, 426-440.
Lucas, A., Beard, M., Kurland, L., & OFallon, M. (1991). 50-year trends
in the incidence of anorexia nervosa in Rochester, Minn: A popula-
tion-based study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 917-922.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. Y. (1996). An evaluation of incre-
mental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical
properties. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Ad-
vanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp.
315–353). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oates-Johnson, T., & DeCourville, N. (1999). Weight preoccupation,
personality, and depression in university students: An interactionist
perspective. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(9), 1157-1166.
 Spillane et al. / MEN AND WOMEN ON THE EDI-2 93

Olivardia, R., Pope, H. G., Mangweth, B., & Hudson, J. I. (1995). Eating Nichea S. Spillane, M.S., is a graduate student in clinical psy-
disorders in college men. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 1279-
chology at the University of Kentucky. Her research interests in-
1285.
Raciti, M. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1987). The EAT and EDI: Screening, in-
clude risk for eating disorders and Native American alcohol
terrelationships, and psychometrics. The International Journal of consumption.
Eating Disorders, 6(4), 579-586.
Rathner, G., & Rumpold, G. (1994). Convergent validity of the Eating
Laura M. Boerner, M.S., is a graduate student in clinical psy-
Disorder Inventory and the Anorexia Nervosa Inventory for self-rat-
ing in an Austrian nonclinical population. The International Journal chology at the University of Kentucky. Her research interests in-
of Eating Disorders, 16(4), 381-393. clude risk for eating disorders and psychological adjustment to
Schneider, J. A., & Agras, W. (1987). Bulimia in males: A matched com- cancer diagnoses.
parison with females. The International Journal of Eating Disorders,
6(2), 235-242.
Simmons, J. R., Smith, G. T., & Hill, K. K. (2002). Validation of eating Kristen G. Anderson, Ph.D., graduated from the clinical psy-
and dieting expectancy measures in two adolescent samples. The In- chology program at the University of Kentucky. She is currently
ternational Journal of Eating Disorders, 31, 461-473. a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, San Diego.
Szekely, B. C., Raffeld, P. C., & Snodgrass, G. (1989). Anonymity, sex, Her research interests focus on the mental health of women, in-
and weight-preoccupation as variables on the Eating Disorders Inven-
tory with normal college students. Psychological Reports, 65(3 Pt. 1),
cluding risk for eating disorders and risk for problem drinking.
795-800.
Gregory T. Smith, Ph.D., is an associate professor of psychol-
Thelen, M. H., Farmer, J., Wonderlich, S., & Smith, M. (1991). A revision
of the Bulimia Test: The BULIT-R. Psychological Assessment, 3(1), ogy at the University of Kentucky. His research interests include
119-124. psychometric and validity theory, risk for eating disorders, risk
Vandereycken, D. A., Fekken, G. C., & Boland, F. J. (1988). Critical vari- for problem drinking, and integrating personality and psycho-
ables associated with bingeing and bulimia in a university population: social learning models of risk.
A factor analytic study. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 7,
321-329.

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016