Received: 5 August 2022 Revised: 26 October 2022 Accepted: 12 November 2022

DOI: 10.1002/eat.23860

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Factor structure and psychometric properties of a multicultural

Spanish-language version of the Eating Disorder-15 in a
nonclinical sample of Chilean women

Emilio J. Compte PhD 1,2 | Claudia Cruzat-Mandich PhD 1 |

Leonardo Pérez Ríos MSc 1
| Sofía Vásquez MSc 1

mez Lic. 2 |
| Nathalie Go
Eva Trujillo-ChiVacuan MD 2,3

1
Eating Behavior Research Center, School of
Psychologyj, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez,
Santiago, Chile
2
Research Department, Comenzar de Nuevo
Treatment Center, Monterrey, Mexico
3
Tecnolo
gico de Monterrey, Escuela de
Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Monterrey,
Mexico
Correspondence
Emilio J. Compte, School of Psychology,
Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez Office B-221. Diag.
Las Torres 2640, Santiago, Peñalolén
7941169, Regio
n Metropolitana, Chile and
Research Department, Comenzar de Nuevo,
Av. Humberto Lobo 1001, Del Valle, 66220,
San Pedro Garza García, N.L., México.
Email: emilio.compte@uai.cl
Funding information
Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Grant/Award
Number: PAI-2021
Action Editor: Ruth Striegel Weissman
Abstract
Objective: The Eating Disorder-15 (ED-15) is a brief measure developed for the rou-
tine assessment of eating disorder (EDs), despite its use in research settings
having increased over the last few years. To assess the psychometric properties of
the ED-15 in a nonclinical sample of Chilean women.
Method: A multicultural Spanish-language version was developed through combined
translation techniques. University female students (N = 380) (Mage 22.32, SD = 2.48)
were recruited through social media. After providing their informed consent, partici-
pants completed a battery of questionnaires online.
Results: A bi-factor model replicating the bi-factor structure and providing support
for the general factor showed the best fit to the data. Moderate-to-strong correla-
tions with measures of EDs, physical comparison, body appreciation, social physique
anxiety, and depressive symptoms are presented as evidence of concurrent and con-
vergent validity. Items analyses revealed strong correlations between manifest vari-
ables, their correspondent latent variable and the general factor (rs = .60 to .89,
ps < .001). Additionally, current findings provide support for the internal consistency
of the scale (Cronbach's alpha and Omega values were ≥ .80) and test–retest reliabil-
ity (ICCs = .84 to .89, ps < .001).
Discussion: Like previous findings, the current study provides validity to the original
bi-factor structure of the ED-15 and additional validity to a general factor. The avail-
ability of this multicultural Spanish-language version would provide session-by-
session assessment, providing crucial information throughout treatment. Also, the
availability of the current measure would contribute to further research efforts in a
yet understudied population such as Hispanic women.
Public Significance: The Eating Disorder-15 (ED-15) is a promising measure meant to
assess session-by-session change for clinical and research purposes. The availability of
a Multicultural Spanish language version of the ED-15 allows for routine clinical assess-
ment and represents a contribution for research efforts in a yet understudied popula-
tions such as Hispanic women.

Int J Eat Disord. 2023;56:727–735. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/eat © 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 727
 1098108x, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eat.23860 by Emilio J. Compte - Universidad Adolfo Ibanez , Wiley Online Library on [25/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
728 COMPTE ET AL.

Resumen
Objetivo: El Eating Disorder-15 (ED-15) es una breve medida de trastornos alimen-

n rutinaria, a pesar de que su uso en
tarios (TCA) diseñada para realizar una evaluacio

n ha crecido en los últimos años. Evaluar las propiedades psicométricas
la investigacio
del ED-15 en una muestra no clínica de mujeres chilenas.

una versio
Método: Se desarrollo
n multicultural al español mediante técnicas de

n combinadas. Las estudiantes universitarias (N = 380) (Medad 22.32,
traduccio
DT = 2.48) fueron reclutadas en redes sociales. Después de dar su consentimiento,
las participantes completaron cuestionarios en línea.
Resultados: un modelo bifactorial que replica la estructura de dos factores y propor-

el mejor ajuste. Correlaciones moderadas
ciona soporte para un factor general mostro

n física, apreciacio
a fuertes con medidas de TCA, comparacio
n corporal, ansiedad
social física y síntomas depresivos se presentan como evidencia de validez concur-
rente y convergente. Análisis de ítems revelaron fuertes correlaciones entre las vari-
ables manifiestas, su correspondiente variable latente y el factor general (rs = .60 a
.89, ps < .001). Los hallazgos actuales respaldan la consistencia interna (alfa Cronbach
y Omega > .80) y la confiabilidad test–retest (ICC = .84 a .89, ps < .001).

n: El estudio actual proporciona validez a la estructura original de 2 factores
Discusio

n
del ED-15 y validez adicional a un factor general. La disponibilidad de esta versio

n sesio
multicultural en español permitirá una evaluacio
n por sesio

n, brindando

n clínica crucial al tratamiento. Su disponibilidad permitirá el desarrollo de
informacio

n aún poco estudiada como la de mujeres latinas.
investigaciones en una poblacio

KEYWORDS
CFA, Chile, Chilean women, confirmatory factor analysis, Eating Disorder-15, ED-15, session-
by-session assessment

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N sensitive to reflect short-term change (Tatham et al., 2015). With this

An accurate evaluation of eating disorders (EDs) may contribute to
developing personalized treatment strategies, leading to better treat-
ment outcomes and precise research results, enhancing our under-
standing of EDs (Mitchell & Peterson, 2005). Face-to-face structured
interviews represent some advantages, as they allow for an in-depth
evaluation, give interviewers the possibility of reformulating ques-
tions, gathering qualitative information, and so on (Walsh &
Satir, 2007). However, interviews are not always feasible due to cost-
effective motives (e.g., specific training requirements, availability of a
significant amount of time, etc.). Still, assessment can be conducted
through self-report scales (Mitchell & Peterson, 2005). Self-reported
measures may present some benefits over interviews as they allow
for the evaluation of more than one individual at a time and thus be
helpful for research purposes, require little training, and may allow for
routine clinical assessment of the therapeutic process, among other
advantages.
Routine assessment through available EDs measures has been
questioned, given their considerable length and unstable models;
moreover, it has been suggested that these measures may not be
in mind, Tatham et al. (2015) developed a brief measure covering core
EDs attitudes (10 items) and behaviors (5 items) over the past week,
the Eating Disorder-15 (ED-15). Despite being developed to assess
early response to treatment, its use in nonclinical (Barbeau
et al., 2022; Conceição et al., 2022; Rodrigues et al., 2022) and clinical
research (Hibbs et al., 2021; Toro et al., 2022; Wade et al., 2021) has
increased over the past years.
Items of the ED-15 were generated to cover EDs' core psychopa-
thology and maintenance mechanisms. According to the transdiagnos-
tic model, EDs share core psychopathology regarding overvaluation of
shape and weight and their control (Fairburn, 2008). Cognitive and
behavioral features such as worry about body appearance and body-
checking behaviors are described as common maintaining mechanisms
that perpetuate the schema of self-worth, also resulting in adverse
mood states such as anxiety and depression (Fairburn, 2008; Fairburn
et al., 2003). In this regard, the ED-15 includes items that assess core
EDs psychopathology (e.g., item 1: “Worried about losing control over
my eating”), maintaining mechanisms (e.g., Item 4: “Compared my
body negatively with others”), and adverse mood states (e.g., Item 6:
“Felt distressed about my weight”).

COMPTE ET AL.
The underlying factor structure was initially assessed in a
university-based sample (Tatham et al., 2015), where exploratory analyses
suggested a 10-item bi-factor model. Recently, Rodrigues et al. (2019)
supported the bi-factor model through a confirmatory approach, using
community-based samples of Portuguese high school and university stu-
dents. Adequate internal consistency and test–retest reliability levels are
described in the original study and the Portuguese validation. Also, signifi-
cant associations with EDs and measures of anxiety and depression have
been described as evidence of concurrent and convergent validity
(Tatham et al., 2015).
A recent review and meta-analysis on EDs epidemiology in Latin
America suggest that EDs are common psychiatric conditions among
Hispanics. However, specific cultural nuances are yet to be deter-
mined, given the scant scientific literature on this population (Kolar
et al., 2016). Thus, the availability of a brief measure would provide
clinicians with a valid measure for routine assessment and contribute
to research efforts aiming to reduce the knowledge gap between
countries from developed and developing economies. Therefore, in
the present study, we aim to assess the psychometric properties of
the ED-15 in a nonclinical sample of Chilean women. Consistent with
previous research, adequate psychometric properties and evidence
that support the bi-factor model were expected (alternative hierarchi-
cal models accounting for an eventual strong correlation between the
two factors have also been considered). In addition, significant posi-
tive associations with EDs and appearance-related measures were
anticipated as evidence of concurrent validity. Also, we predicted sig-
nificant associations with depression symptomatology as evidence of
convergent validity.
2 | METHODS
2.1 | Translation
Given the different uses of the Spanish language, bilingual team mem-
bers from Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico participated in the
translation process. Combined techniques were considered following
International Test Commission (2017). Three team members did trans-
lations using committee procedure (MacCallum et al., 1996). Each
member independently translated the ED-15 from English to Spanish
and reconciled all three translations into a final version. Simulta-
neously, three other bilingual team members performed a forward-
and-back translation (Muñiz & Bartram, 2007); one researcher con-
ducted a direct English-to-Spanish translation, while a second
researcher translated the Spanish version back to English. Finally, both
English versions were compared in terms of conceptual meaning by a
member highly proficient in English. The final version of both transla-
tion procedures was eventually revised by team members involved in
the process and reconciled into a final version. A pretesting of the
Spanish-language version was conducted among 29 female college
students (Mage = 23.97, SDage = 3.91). Participants were asked to
assess the items' understanding, acceptability, and emotional impact.
1098108x, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eat.23860 by Emilio J. Compte - Universidad Adolfo Ibanez , Wiley Online Library on [25/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
729
No semantic adjustment was required after pretesting the final
version.
2.2 | Procedure and participants
After IRB approval was obtained from the School of Psychology at
Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, participants were recruited by posting
flyers on social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn)
between August and November 2021. Through a QR code and/or a
web link, potential participants were derived to a series of filter (cor-
rect/noncorrect) questions assessing inclusion criteria and response
consistency. Participants whose responses were consistent and met
the inclusion criteria were introduced to the aim of the study and
were required to provide their informed consent. Participants were
required to be female, ≥18 years of age, live, and study at a university
in Chile and understand the Spanish language. Participants completed
an online survey via SurveyMonkey and were asked whether they
were willing to fulfill a 7-day test–retest assessment on the ED-15.
Four hundred and 91 responses were received, of which
111 (22.61%) were discharged due to inconsistencies in the filter
questions, failing to provide informed consent, or not meeting the
inclusion criteria. The sample comprised 380 female university stu-
dents with a mean age of 22.32 (SD = 2.48, range = 18–30) and a
mean self-reported BMI of 24.63 (SD = 4.99, range = 16.38–53.15).
Almost half of the sample (45.83%) lived in Santiago Metropolitan
Region, 13.42% in the Los Rios Region, 11.69% in the La Auraucanía
Region, 4.63% in the Biobío Region, and the remaining 29.06% of the
participants lived in the other 12 regions. Among participants, 73.95%
identified themselves as heterosexual, 17.37% as bisexual, 3.16% as
lesbian, 2.89% as other, and 2.63% preferred not to say. Most partici-
pants did not work in addition to their studies (63.68%), and 10.80%
identified as belonging to an indigenous group. Since all questions
were mandatory, there were no missing values. Participants were
compensated with a multistore gift card of CLP 5.000 (Chilean pesos).
2.3 | Measures
In addition to self-reported sociodemographic data, participants com-
pleted the following questionnaires:
Eating Disorder-15 (ED-15; Tatham et al., 2015): It is a brief
10-item questionnaire that assesses core EDs' psychopathology. Items
are organized into two factors, “Weight and Shape Concerns” (Items
2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10) and “Eating Concerns” (Items 1, 3, 7, and 8).
Response options are organized on a 7-point scale ranging from
0 = Not at all to 6 = All the time. Psychometric properties were ade-
quate in terms of internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .80 to .94) and
1-to-3-weeks test–retest reliability (temporal stability) (r = .85 to .90).
In addition to attitudinal items, frequency of key EDs behaviors
(i.e., binge eating, vomiting, laxative misuse, restrictive eating, and
excessive exercise) over the past week are also considered.

730
Eating Disorders Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q; Fairburn, 2008):
It is a 28-item self-reported, widely used measure that assesses disor-
dered attitudes and behaviors. The 22 attitudinal items are organized
into four dimensions, Restraint, Eating Concerns, Weight Concerns, and
Shape Concerns. An overall Global score is the average of the four sub-
scale scores. Items are rated on a 7-point scale about the previous
28 days, with higher scores indicating a higher ED pathology. Behavioral
items assess frequencies of disordered eating behaviors (e.g., binge eat-
ing and compensatory behaviors). The Chilean Spanish language version
used in the current study was translated by Escobar et al. (2022).
Physical Appearance Comparison Scale-Revised (PACS-R;
Schaefer & Thompson, 2014). It is a measure that assesses the ten-
dency to compare physically with others. It comprises 11 items orga-
nized in a single factor structure and rated on a 5-point scale
(0 = never, 4 = always). The Spanish-language version validated by

n et al. (2020) replicated the single factor structure and
Senín-Caldero
showed a strong positive correlation with a measure of EDs.
Body Appreciation Scale-2 (BAS-2; Tylka & Wood-
Barcalow, 2015). It is a 10-item single-factor measure that assesses
body appreciation. Items are rated on a 5-point scale (1 = never,
5 = always), with higher scores indicating higher body appreciation.
The multicultural Spanish-language version validated among three
samples of Argentinian, Colombian, and Mexican adolescents repli-
cated the single factor structure. It showed significant negative corre-
lations with measures of body dissatisfaction and body ideals

ngora et al., 2020).
internalization (Go
Social Physique Anxiety Scale-7 (SPAS-7; Hart et al., 1989;
Motl & Conroy, 2000, 2009). It is a measure to assess the degree of
anxiety when others observe or evaluate our physique. Motl and Con-
roy (2000, 2009) described a unidimensional brief 7-item (SPAS-7)
version, which showed adequate psychometric properties. The
Spanish-speaking version of the SPAS-7 replicated the factor struc-
ture and showed adequate levels of internal consistency (α = .85) and
evidence of temporal stability (ICC = .82) (Sáenz-Alvarez et al., 2013).
Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2001). It
is a brief 9-item self-report measure that assesses symptoms of
depression. Items are rated on a 4-point scale, where higher scores
indicate higher levels of depression. The Spanish-language version
was evaluated in a sample of adult patients consulting in primary
health care centers in Chile by Saldivia et al. (2019). The Chilean ver-
sion showed a unifactorial solution with adequate levels of internal
consistency (ω ¼ :90 and α = .89).
Internal consistency values for the used measures in the current
sample are presented in Table 2.
2.4 | Data analysis
Continuous variables were categorized as mean ± SD, and categorical
variables as percentages. Guidelines were followed to estimate sample
size based on power analysis for a root mean square error of approxi-
mation (RMSEA) value consistent with a good model fit (MacCallum
1098108x, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eat.23860 by Emilio J. Compte - Universidad Adolfo Ibanez , Wiley Online Library on [25/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
COMPTE ET AL.
et al., 1996). A minimum sample size of 305 participants was required
for an alpha level of .05, a power of .80, and an RMSEA value of .05.
Multivariate normality was assessed through Mardia's multivariate test.
Given the evidence of multivariate non-normality (Skewness = 629.95,
p < .001; Kurtosis = 17.47, p < .001), confirmatory factor analyses
(CFAs) were based on the robust maximum likelihood estimation
method with the Satorra–Bentler scaled correction (Satorra &
Bentler, 1994). A CFA was conducted on the bi-factor model described
in the original ED-15 paper (Tatham et al., 2015) (Model 1). Following
Rodrigues et al. (2019), a single-factor model with all 10 attitudinal
items collapsed into a single factor (Model 2) was also assessed. If corre-
lations between factors in the original model resulted in a strong corre-
lation (i.e., rs > .70), alternative models were to be inspected
(Kline, 2011): a hierarchical higher-order model that would account for
the eventual high correlation between the two factors (Model 3), and a
bi-factor model that would account for the variance in the manifest var-
iables dividing the underlying factor structure into domain-specific fac-
tors (ED-SWC and ED-EC) and a general factor (g factor) (Model 4). To
evaluate model fit, the following statistics were considered: normed
model chi-square (χ 2/df), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis
index (TLI), RMSEA, and its 90% Confidence Interval, and the standard-
ized root mean square residual (SRMR). Values of χ 2/df ≤3.00, CFI and
TLI ≥ .95, RMSEA close to .07–.08, and SRMR close to .08 were indica-
tive of an adequate fit (Kline, 2011). The Akaike information criterion
(AIC) and expected cross validation index (ECVI) were considered for
model comparison for non-nested models. Lower values of AIC and
ECVI were preferable as they represent a combination of a better fit to
the data and a more parsimonious model (Kline, 2011). Additionally, the
Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient was considered to assess
concurrent and convergent validity; values of rs ≥ .10–.29 were indica-
tive of weak correlations, rs ≥ .30–.49 were considered moderate corre-
lations, and rs ≥ .50 depicted strong correlations (Cohen, 1992). We
calculated Cronbach's alpha and the Omega coefficient with its 95% CI
(Dunn et al., 2014) to determine internal consistency. Internal consis-
tency values ≥.80 were considered acceptable (Nájera Catalán, 2019;
Nunnally, 1978). Additionally, all items were subject to item analysis; no
values rs < .20 were expected between each latent variable and their
corresponding items (Nunnally, 1978). Two-way mixed effect with
absolute agreement intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calcu-
lated for participants who completed a 1-week test–retest reliability to
assess the temporal stability of the scale; ICC < .50 was considered
poor reliability, and values between .50 and .75 were considered mod-
erate reliability, values between .75 and .90 were indicative of good reli-
ability, and ICC > .90 were considered excellent reliability (Koo &
Li, 2016). A two-tailed p-value < .05 was considered for statistical signif-
icance. All data and analytic scripts are available and can be accessed at
https://t.ly/Zst0.
All analyses were conducted through the R software (version
4.0.2); the following packages were used: WebPower (Zhang &
Yuan, 2018); MVN (Korkmaz et al., 2014); Lavaan (Rosseel, 2012);
semPlot (Epskamp, 2013). MBESS (Kelley & Lai, 2012); Psych
(Revelle, 2018); Hmisc (Harrel, 2008); and irr (Gamer et al., 2019).
 1098108x, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eat.23860 by Emilio J. Compte - Universidad Adolfo Ibanez , Wiley Online Library on [25/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
COMPTE ET AL. 731

TABLE 1 Fit indices for the ED-15 tested model (N = 380)

Tested models χ 2/df CFI TLI RMSEA (90% CI) SRMR AIC ECVI
Model 1: Original two-factor model 2.99 .96 .95 .08 (.07, .10) .04 13,161.79 .49
Model 2: One-factor model 3.91 .94 .93 .10 (.09, .12) .04 13,208.71 .61
Model 3: Hierarchical second-order model 2.99 .96 .95 .08 (.07, .10) .04 13,161.79 .49
Model 4: Bi-factor model 2.21 .98 .97 .07 (.04, .09) .02 13,114.80 .37

Abbreviations: AIC, Akaike information criterion; CFI, comparative fit index; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; TLI, Tucker-Lewis index.

TABLE 2 Descriptive statistics, internal consistency, concurrent, and convergent validity (N = 380)

M (SD) Omega (95% CI) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. ED-15 WSC 2.68 (1.66) .93 (.91, .94) .92
2. ED-15 EC 2.95 (1.49) .83 (.80, .86) .80* .83
3. ED-15 Total 2.79 (1.51) .94 (.93, .95) .97* .91* .83
4. EDE-Q R 1.66 (1.54) .85 (.82, .87) .66* .73* .72* .84
5. EDE-Q EC 2.31 (1.52) .86 (.84, .89) .77* .75* .80* .75* .85
6. EDE-Q WC 2.76 (1.74) .86 (.83, .88) .83* .76* .84* .71* .78* .85
7. EDE-Q SC 3.07 (1.75) .92 (.91, .93) .85* .78* .86* .72* .77* .92* .92
8. EDE-Q GS 2.57 (1.51) .96 (.95, .97) .86* .82* .89* .84* .88* .95* .96* .96
9. PCAS-R 1.95 (1.22) .97 (.96, .98) .72* .64* .73* .57* .65* .72* .72* .73* .97
10. BAS-2 3.15 (1.01) .95 (.94, .96) .76* .58* .73* .59* .65* .72* .78* .77* .63* .95
11. SPAS-7 2.94 (0.87) .88 (.86, .90) .74* .64* .74* .59* .66* .72* .75* .75* .73* .69* .86
12. PHQ-9 1.09 (0.72) .89 (.87, .91) .54* .47* .54* .48* .53* .50* .54* .56* .44* .56* .51* .89

Note: Cronbach's alpha values are presented along the correlation matrix diagonal in bold.
Abbreviations: BAS-2, Body Appreciation Scale-2; ED-15 WSC, ED-15 Weight and Shape Concerns; ED-15 ED, ED-15 Eating Concerns; ED-15 Total, ED-
15 Total score (g factor); EDE-Q R, Eating Disorders Examination-Questionnaire Restraint; EDE-Q EC, Eating Disorders Examination-Questionnaire Eating
Concerns; EDE-Q WC, Eating Disorders Examination-Questionnaire Weight Concerns; EDE-Q SC, Eating Disorders Examination-Questionnaire Shape
Concerns; EDE-Q GS, Eating Disorders Examination-Questionnaire Global Score; PCAS-R, Physical Appearance Comparison Scale-Revised; Social
Physique Anxiety Scale-7, Social Physique Anxiety Scale-7; PHQ-9, Patient Health Questionnaire-9.
*p < .001.

3 | RESULTS variable's variance is explained by the second set of latent variables,

3.1 | Confirmatory factor analyses
Fit and model comparison statistics for Models 1–4 are presented
in Table 1. All tested models showed a good fit for the data. Model
1 showed excellent fit indices, goodness-of-fit statistics (CFA and
TLI) showed levels >.95. Badness-of-fit statistics (RMSEA and
SRMR) also showed excellent values (<.08). Factor loadings for the
ED-WSC factor were all significant (ps < .001) and ranged between
.69 and .88, and for the ED-EC factor loadings were also significant
(ps < .001) and ranged between .67 and .84. However, given that
correlation between both factors was high (rs = .80, p < .001), a uni-
dimensional solution (Model 2) was considered. Despite that the
overall fit statistics were adequate, the single-factor solution (Model
2) showed levels of RMSEA marginally above the suggested thresh-
old (i.e., upper bound of the CI) and higher values of AIC and ECVI
than the bi-factor model (Model 1). An alternative hierarchical
higher-order model (Model 3) was considered. A high-order latent
which explains the manifest variables at the end. Fit and model
comparison statistics did not differ between Models 1 and 3; this is
due because we are shifting the relationships from being covariances
to regression. However, from a structural equation modeling perspec-
tive, the hierarchical second-order model (Model 3) was considered
theoretically more appropriate given the high correlation between the
two factors. Nevertheless, we finally tested a bi-factor model that
would account for the variance in the manifest variables dividing the
underlying factor structure into domain-specific factors (ED-SWC and
ED-EC) and a general factor (g factor) (Model 4). Model 4 showed
best-fit to the data with goodness-of-fit statistics (CFI and TLI) with
values >.97 and badness-of-fit statistics (RMSEA and SRMR) with
values ≤.05. Also, values of AIC and ECVI were lower in Model 4 com-
pared with the previous models, suggesting a better fit to the data
and more parsimony in Model 4. In addition, factor loadings in the
general factor (g factor) were all significant (ps < .001) and ranged
between .64 and .91. Therefore, Model 4 was retained. Figure 1
shows a conceptual description of Model 4.

732
F I G U R E 1 Bi-factor model for the ED-15 (N = 380). A bi-factor
model that accounts for the variance in the manifest variables dividing
the underlying factor structure into domain specific factors (SWC and
EC) and a general factor ( g) showed best fit to the data (χ 2/df = 2.21,
CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .07 [90% CI = .04, .09], SRMR = .02,
AIC = 13,114.80, ECVI = .37); g = ED-15 General factor; SWC = ED-
15 Shape and Weight Concerns; EC = ED-15 Eating Concerns. Factor
loadings ranged from .64 to .91 (ps < .001). The dashed line indicates
that during CFA one item per factor was fixed to 1 to ensure an
identified model.
3.2 | Concurrent and convergent validity and
correlations between ED-15 and EDE-Q behavioral
items
Table 2 shows descriptive statistics, measures of internal consistency,
and correlations among attitudinal ED-15 items and measures of EDs,
physical comparison, body appreciation, social physique anxiety, and
symptoms of depression. In terms of concurrent validity, both dimen-
sions of the ED-15 and the total score ( g factor) showed significant
strong correlations with all four dimensions, and the Global Score of
the EDE-Q (rs = .66 to .86). In particular, the ED-WSC showed sub-
stantial significant positive corrections with EDE-Q subscales asses-
sing Weight and Shape concerns (rs = .83 and .85, ps < .001,
respectively). Similarly, the ED-EC also showed strong positive associ-
ations with the EDE-Q Eating Concerns subscale (rs = .75, p < .001).
Likewise, the g factor of the ED-15 (total score) presented a strong
positive correlation with the Global Score of the EDE-Q (rs = .89,
p < .001). Also, both subscales of the ED-15 and the general factor
showed significant strong correlations with appearance-related mea-
sures (physical comparison: rs = .64 to .72, ps < .001; social physique
anxiety: rs = .64 to .74; body appreciation: rs = .58 to .76,
ps < .001). Moreover, positive associations with depressive symptoms
were observed (rs = .47 to .54, ps < .001).
1098108x, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eat.23860 by Emilio J. Compte - Universidad Adolfo Ibanez , Wiley Online Library on [25/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
COMPTE ET AL.
Strong positive correlations between key EDs behaviors measured
by the ED-15 and the EDE-Q are also presented as evidence of concur-
rent validity. The frequency of objective binge eating as measured by
the ED-15 (over the past 7 days) showed a strong positive correlation
with the frequency of objective binge eating as measured by the
EDE-Q (over the past 28 days) (rs = .69, p < .001). Similarly, strong posi-
tive correlations were observed for dietary restraint (rs = .51, p < .001),
vomiting (rs = .84, p < .001), laxative misuse (rs = .78, p < .001), and
excessive exercise (rs = .75, p < .001).
3.3 | Item analysis
All 10-attitudinal items showed significant strong positive correlations
with the general domain factor (rs = .60 to .89, ps < .001). Similarly,
items from each domain specific factor also showed strong positive
correlations with their correspondent latent variable (ED-WSC:
rs = .78 to .89, ps < .001; ED-EC: rs = .76 to .87, ps < .001).
3.4 | Internal consistency and test–retest reliability
In terms of internal consistency, all Cronbach's alpha values for the
general factor and both ED-15 subscales were above the suggested
threshold of .80 (Cronbach's α = .83 to .92). Similarly, the Omega
coefficient also showed values above the proposed threshold. More-
over, the lower bounds of the 95% CIs of the Omega coefficients
were ≥.80 for both ED-15 domain-specific factors and the general
factor. Internal consistency was supported by the additional
measures used.
Of the total sample, 359 participants (94.5%) agreed to receive an
email for a retest assessment of the ED-15 1 week after completing
the survey; only 46% (n = 165) of them completed the 1-week retest
evaluation. A good 1-week test–retest reliability for the ED-15 was
observed for the domain-specific factors (ED-SWC: ICC = .88,
p < .001; ED-EC: ICC = .84, p < .001) and for the general factor
(ICC = .89, p < .001). Self-reported key disordered eating behaviors
(i.e., objective binge eating, dietary restraint, self-induced vomiting,
laxative misuse, and excessive exercise) also showed moderate-to-
good temporal reliability (ICC = .56 to .89, ps < .001).
4 | DI SCU SSION
The current study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the
ED-15 in a nonclinical sample of Chilean women. A multicultural
Spanish-language version of the ED-15 resulted from combined trans-
lation techniques and a post hoc assessment with a focus group of
female university students. A series of CFAs were conducted to assess
the original bi-factor structural and a unidimensional version collaps-
ing all 10 attitudinal items into a single factor. The original bi-factor
best fits the data compared to the unidimensional model. However,
given the high correlation between the two latent variables,

COMPTE ET AL.
alternative high-order, and bi-factor models were tested. The bi-factor
model accounting for the variance in the manifest variables dividing
the underlying factor structure into domain-specific factors and a gen-
eral factor showed the best fit to the data compared to the high-order
model tested. Moderate-to-strong correlations supported evidence of
concurrent validity with EDs and appearance-related measures and
convergent validity with depression symptomatology. Similarly, inter-
nal consistency and test–retest reliability were backed by values
above the suggested thresholds.
Consistent with the original article and the Portuguese version of
the ED-15 (Rodrigues et al., 2019; Tatham et al., 2015), the bi-factor
model (Model 1) showed a better fit for the data than the unidimen-
sional model (Model 2). Also, attitudinal items were loaded into the
same factors across studies. From a structural equation modeling per-
spective, a higher-order (Model 3) and a bi-factor (Model 4) models
were considered due to a high correlation between both latent vari-
ables. The higher-order model assumes that the covariances of the
first-order latent variables (i.e., ED-WSC and ED-EC) are accounted
for by the second-order variable representing a higher-order construct
(i.e., ED-15 total score). However, fit statistics were better in the bi-
factor model, a generalization of hierarchical models (Beaujean, 2014).
In bi-factor models, a general factor influences all manifest variables,
and domain-specific latent variables affect specific manifest variables.
Bi-factor models are often considered when there is an interest in
domain-specific factors (i.e., ED-WSC and ED-EC) and a general factor
(i.e., ED-15 total score). In other words, the current findings support
the original bi-factor model and a global score that considers all items.
Given that item contents of the ED-15 were created to capture
EDs' core psychopathology and maintenance mechanisms, stronger
correlations were expected between the ED-15 and EDs and
appearance-related measures than between the ED-15 and a measure
of depressive symptoms not explicitly related to physical appearance.
In this regard, correlations between the ED-15 and EDs and
appearance-related measures ranged between rs = .58 and .89
(in absolute values). In contrast, correlations between the ED-15 and a
measure of general symptoms of depression ranged between rs = .47
and .54. These findings support concurrent and convergent validity,
respectively. Additionally, rather than a measure of body dissatisfac-
tion in the current study, we have included a measure of body appre-
ciation (BAS-2) to assess the adequacy of the associations between
ED-15 and theoretically associated constructs. In this line, we antici-
pated that while positive correlations with measures of EDs and
appearance comparison and anxiety were expected, negative associa-
tions between the ED-15 and a measure of appearance appreciation
were observed. Consequently, Table 2 shows strong positive correla-
tions between the ED-15 and the EDE-Q, PACS-R, and SPAS-7 and
strong negative correlations with the BAS-2, suggesting that the ED-
15 is adequately related to theoretically associated constructs.
On the other hand, the ED-WSC subscale of the ED-15 showed
higher correlations with the Weight Concerns and Shaped Concerns
subscales of the EDE-Q than the ED-EC, as expected. Consistently,
the ED-EC showed a higher correlation with the EDE-Q Restraint sub-
scale than the ED-SWC subscale. However, contrary to our
1098108x, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eat.23860 by Emilio J. Compte - Universidad Adolfo Ibanez , Wiley Online Library on [25/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
733
expectancy, correlations with the Eating Concern subscale of the
EDE-Q were similar across ED-15 subscales. We would have
expected that the EDE-Q Eating Concern subscale would have been
more strongly correlated with the ED-EC; instead, it showed similar
correlations with the ED-WSC. Similar associations were observed
due to some degree of overlap between ED-15 factors in terms of
EDs' core psychopathology, as the EDE-Q Eating Concern subscale
captures it. This is consistent with the strong positive correlation
between ED-15 factors (rs = .80), which supports the retention of the
bi-factorial model. Also, as described in the original article and the
Portuguese validation (Rodrigues et al., 2019; Tatham et al., 2015),
the high correlation between total scores of the ED-15 and the
EDE-Q suggest that both scales measure very similar constructs.
Additionally, high correlations between key EDs behaviors measured
by the EDE-Q and the ED-15 provide additional concurrent validity
support.
The psychometric properties assessed in the current studies
showed levels above the suggested thresholds. For example, internal
consistency was evaluated by Cronbach's alpha and Omega coeffi-
cients. Among all measures, values were above the ≥.80 cut-off value,
including all the lower bounds of the 95% CIs of the Omega coeffi-
cients, providing supportive evidence for the internal consistency of
the ED-15 and subscales. Cronbach's alpha values were similar to
those observed in the original English and Portuguese versions.
Regarding test–retest reliability, current findings replicate results from
the Portuguese version, where ICCs values were good, suggesting
that the ED-15 is a stable scale over time (Rodrigues et al., 2019;
Tatham et al., 2015).
Scores of the ED-15 among the nonclinical participants of the
current study are higher than those observed in nonclinical samples in
previous studies of ED15 (but still lower than those observed among
EDs female patients in said studies) (Rodrigues et al., 2019; Tatham
et al., 2015). It has been suggested elsewhere that during the COVID-
19 pandemic, individuals changing various domains in their life experi-
enced increased psychological distress, resulting in disordered eating
(Ramalho et al., 2022). In line with this argument, given that this study
was conducted during the advanced phases of the pandemic with still
some degree of restrictions on circulation in Chile (Chilean Ministry of
Health, 2022), differences between nonclinical samples from this
study and those with English and Portuguese nonclinical participants
may be due to undesirable mental health implication of the pandemic
that women in the current study have faced. However, even though
these comparisons are not within the scope of this study, the avail-
ability of a solid psychometric brief EDs measure which has shown a
stable factor structure across participants from England, Portugal, and
Chile (i.e., the ED-15), allows for the development of cross-cultural
research to clarify these differences, as well as any other cross-
cultural considerations that may be of interest for future research
efforts.
Despite the significant findings, the current study is not without
limitations. Results from the present study must be carefully inter-
preted as only female university students were included; to what
extent recent findings are generalizable to Chilean men remains

734
unknown. Also, the participants responded to an online survey, which
is a less controlled environment than an in-person evaluation. Addi-
tionally, relationships among the assessed variables should be inter-
preted prudently as no assessment of potential method bias has been
considered (i.e., standard method variance; Podsakoff et al., 2011).
Contrary to the original and Portuguese studies on the ED-15
(Rodrigues et al., 2019; Tatham et al., 2015), no EDs samples were
included; thus, no clinical validity in terms of the trade-off between
sensitivity and specificity was assessed in the present study. Similarly,
the fact that discriminant validity was not considered (i.e., nonexistent
relationship with an unrelated construct) prevents us from achieving
full construct validity. Despite these issues, the availability of the mul-
ticultural Spanish language allows for further research aiming to evalu-
ate the psychometrics of the ED-15 in, for example, clinical or male
samples or even among other community-based samples from differ-
ent Latino countries.
In conclusion, the multicultural Spanish language version of the
ED-15 is a valid, reliable, and brief measure to assess core EDs' psy-
chopathology among nonclinical Chilean women. This would not only
allow setting routine session-by-session assessments but also the
availability of the current measure would contribute to research effort
in a yet understudied population such as Hispanic women.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Claudia Cruzat-Mandich: Conceptualization; investigation; resources;
supervision; writing – review and editing. Leonardo Pérez-Ríos: Data
curation; funding acquisition; investigation; methodology; project
administration. Sofía Vásquez: Data curation; funding acquisition;

mez:
investigation; methodology; project administration. Nathalie Go
Investigation; methodology; project administration. Eva Trujillo: Con-
ceptualization; investigation; resources; writing – review and editing.
Emilio Juan Compte: Conceptualization; methodology; software; for-
mal analysis; investigation; data curation; writing – original draft.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge Ilse Escamilla, Adriana Granja, Mariana
Gutiérrez, and Rosella Soriano for their involvement in the translation
process. This study supports Leonardo Pérez Ríos and Sofía Vásquez
with an internal research grant from Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez
(PAI-2021).
CONF LICT OF IN TE RE ST
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest that could be
perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.
DATA AVAI LAB ILITY S TATEMENT
All data and analytic scripts are openly available and can be accessed
at https://t.ly/Zst0.
ORCID
Emilio J. Compte https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6803-5950
Claudia Cruzat-Mandich https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3477-8737
1098108x, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eat.23860 by Emilio J. Compte - Universidad Adolfo Ibanez , Wiley Online Library on [25/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
COMPTE ET AL.
Leonardo Pérez Ríos https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7257-720X
Eva Trujillo-ChiVacuan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7419-3050
RE FE RE NCE S
Barbeau, K., Carbonneau, N., & Pelletier, L. (2022). Family members
and peers' negative and positive body talk: How they relate to
adolescent girls' body talk and eating disorder attitudes. Body
Image, 40, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BODYIM.2021.
12.010
Beaujean, A. A. (2014). Latent variable modeling using R. A step-by-step
guide. Routledge.
Chilean Ministry of Health. (2022, April 20). Plan paso a paso. https://
www.gob.cl/pasoapaso/
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Conceição, E. M., Moreira, C. S., de Lourdes, M., Ramalho, S., & Vaz, A. R.
(2022). Exploring correlates of loss of control eating in a nonclinical
sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2021.787558
Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A
practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency
estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bjop.12046
Epskamp, S. (2013). semPlot: Path diagrams and visual analysis of various
SEM packages' output. R package version 0.3.2.
Escobar, T., Gaete, M. I., & Lo
pez, C. (2022). Chilean Spanish-language
translation of the Eating Disorders Examination-Questionnaire.
[Unpublished manuscript].
Fairburn, C. G. (2008). Cognitive behavior therapy and eating disorders. Guil-
ford Press.
Fairburn, C. G., Cooper, Z., & Shafran, R. (2003). Cognitive behaviour ther-
apy for eating disorders: A “transdiagnostic” theory and treatment.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(5), 509–528. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0005-7967(02)00088-8
Gamer, M., Lemon, J., Fellows, I., & Sing, P. (2019). irr: Various coefficients
of interrater reliability and agreement (Version 0.83). https://cran.r-
project.org/web/packages/irr/index.html
Go
ngora, V. C., Cruz Licea, V., Mebarak Chams, M. R., & Thornborrow, T.
(2020). Assessing the measurement invariance of a Latin-American
Spanish translation of the Body Appreciation Scale-2 in Mexican,
Argentinean, and Colombian adolescents. Body Image, 32, 180–189.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BODYIM.2020.01.004
Harrel, F. (2008). Hmisc: Harrell miscellaneous. https://hbiostat.org/R/Hmisc/
Hart, E. A., Leary, M. R., & Rejeski, W. J. (1989). Tie measurement of social
physique anxiety. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 94–
104. https://doi.org/10.1123/JSEP.11.1.94
Hibbs, R., Pugh, M., & Fox, J. R. E. (2021). Applying emotion-focused ther-
apy to work with the “anorexic voice” within anorexia nervosa: A brief
intervention. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 31(4), 327–347.
https://doi.org/10.1037/INT0000252
International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC guidelines for translating
and adapting tests (2nd ed.). www.InTestCom.org
Kelley, K., & Lai, K. (2012). MBESS: MBESS. R package version 3.3.2.
http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=MBESS
Kline, R. B. (2011). In R. B. Kline (Ed.), Principles and practice of structural
equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guiford Press.
Kolar, D. R., Rodriguez, D. L. M., Chams, M. M., & Hoek, H. W. (2016). Epi-
demiology of eating disorders in Latin America: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 29(6), 363–371.
https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000279
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting Intra-
class correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiro-
practic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCM.
2016.02.012

COMPTE ET AL.
Korkmaz, S., Goksuluk, D., & Zararsiz, G. (2014). MVN: An R package for
assessing multivariate normality. R Journal, 6(2), 151–162. https://doi.
org/10.32614/RJ-2014-031
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity
of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medi-
cine, 16(9), 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1046/J.1525-1497.2001.
016009606.X
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analy-
sis and determination of sample size for covariance structure model-
ing. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/
1082-989X.1.2.130
Mitchell, J. E., James, E., & Peterson, C. B. (2005). Assessment of eating dis-
orders. Guilford Press https://www.guilford.com/books/Assessment-
of-Eating-Disorders/Mitchell-Peterson/9781593856427/editors
Motl, R. W., & Conroy, D. E. (2000). Validity and factorial invariance of
the Social Physique Anxiety Scale. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 32(5), 1007–1017. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-
200005000-00020
Motl, R. W., & Conroy, D. E. (2009). The Social Physique Anxiety Scale:
Cross validation, factorial invariance, and latent mean structure. Mea-
surement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 5(2), 81–95.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327841MPEE0502_2
Muñiz, J., & Bartram, D. (2007). Improving International Tests and Testing.
European Psychologist, 12(3), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-
9040.12.3.206
Nájera Catalán, H. E. (2019). Reliability, population classification and
weighting in multidimensional poverty measurement: A Monte Carlo
study. Social Indicators Research, 142(3), 887–910. https://doi.org/10.
1007/S11205-018-1950-Z/FIGURES/6
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Sources of
method bias in social science research and recommendations on how
to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.
org/10.1146/ANNUREV-PSYCH-120710-100452
Ramalho, S. M., Trovisqueira, A., de Lourdes, M., Gonçalves, S., Ribeiro, I.,
Vaz, A. R., Machado, P. P. P., & Conceição, E. (2022). The impact of
COVID-19 lockdown on disordered eating behaviors: the mediation
role of psychological distress. Eating and Weight Disorders, 27(1), 179–
188. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40519-021-01128-1/FIGURES/1
Revelle, W. (2018). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological
research. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
Rodrigues, T., Vaz, A. R., Silva, C., Conceição, E., & Machado, P. P. P.
(2019). Eating Disorder-15 (ED-15): Factor structure, psychometric
properties, and clinical validation. European Eating Disorders Review,
27(6), 682–691. https://doi.org/10.1002/ERV.2694
Rodrigues, T. F., Ramos, R., Vaz, A. R., Brandão, I. M., Fernandez-
Aranda, F., & Machado, P. P. P. (2022). The mediating role of self-criti-
cism, experiential avoidance and negative urgency on the relationship
between ED-related symptoms and difficulties in emotion regulation.
European Eating Disorders Review., 30, 760–771. https://doi.org/10.
1002/ERV.2914
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling.
Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/
jss.v048.i02
Sáenz-Alvarez, P., Sicilia, Á., González-Cutre, D., & Ferriz, R. (2013). Psy-
chometric properties of the Social Physique Anxiety Scale (SPAS–7) in
1098108x, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eat.23860 by Emilio J. Compte - Universidad Adolfo Ibanez , Wiley Online Library on [25/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
735
Spanish adolescents. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16, E86.
https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2013.86
Saldivia, S., Aslan, J., Cova, F., Vicente, B., Inostroza, C., Rinco
n, P.,

n, P.
Saldivia, S., Aslan, J., Cova, F., Vicente, B., Inostroza, C., & Rinco
(2019). Propiedades psicométricas del PHQ-9 (Patient Health Question-
naire) en centros de atencio
n primaria de Chile. Revista Médica de Chile,
147(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872019000100053
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and stan-
dard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C.
Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental
research (pp. 399–419). Sage Publications, Inc.
Schaefer, L. M., & Thompson, J. K. (2014). The development and validation
of the Physical Appearance Comparison Scale-Revised (PACS-R). Eat-
ing Behaviors, 15(2), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2014.
01.001
Senín-Caldero
n, C., Santos-Morocho, J., & Rodríguez-Testal, J. F. (2020).
Validation of a Spanish version of the physical appearance comparison
scales. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 17(20), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH17207399
Tatham, M., Turner, H., Mountford, V. A., Tritt, A., Dyas, R., &
Waller, G. (2015). Development, psychometric properties and pre-
liminary clinical validation of a brief, session-by-session measure of
eating disorder cognitions and behaviors: The ED-15. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 48(7), 1005–1015. https://doi.org/10.
1002/eat.22430
Toro, C. T., Jackson, T., Payne, A. S., Walasek, L., Russell, S., Daly, G.,
Waller, G., & Meyer, C. (2022). A feasibility study of the delivery of
online brief cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT-T) for eating disorder
pathology in the workplace. The International Journal of Eating Disor-
ders, 55(5), 723–730. https://doi.org/10.1002/EAT.23701
Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015). The Body Appreciation
Scale-2: Item refinement and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 12,
53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BODYIM.2014.09.006
Wade, T. D., Ghan, C., & Waller, G. (2021). A randomized controlled trial
of two 10-session cognitive behaviour therapies for eating disorders:
An exploratory investigation of which approach works best for whom.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 146, 103962. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.BRAT.2021.103962
Walsh, B. T., & Satir, D. A. (2007). Diagnostic Issues. In J. E. Mitchell &
C. B. Peterson (Eds.), Assessment of eating disorders (pp. 1–16). Guilford
Press.
Zhang, Z., & Yuan, K. H. (2018). Practical statistical power analysis using
web power and R. ISDSA Press.
How to cite this article: Compte, E. J., Cruzat-Mandich, C.,

mez, N., & Trujillo-ChiVacuan, E.
Pérez Ríos, L., Vásquez, S., Go
(2023). Factor structure and psychometric properties of a
multicultural Spanish-language version of the Eating
Disorder-15 in a nonclinical sample of Chilean women.
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 56(4), 727–735.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23860