Search

The underlying structure of problematic gambling behaviors, such as those assessed by the South Oaks Gambling Screen ( SOGS), remain unknown: Can problem gambling be assessed unidimensionally or should multiple qualitatively different dimensions be taken into account, and if so, what do these qualitative dimensions indicate? How significant are the deviations from unidimensionality in practice? A cross-sectional random sample of Finns aged 15-74 (n = 4,484) was drawn from the Population Information Registry and surveyed in 2011-2012. Analyses were conducted using descriptive statistics, Confirmatory factor analysis ( CFA) and multidimensional item response theory ( MIRT) models. Altogether, 14.9% of the population endorsed at least one of the 20 SOGS items, but nine items had low endorsement rates (≤ 0.2%). CFA and MIRT techniques suggested that individuals differed from each other in two positively correlated ( r = 0.70) underlying dimensions: 'impact on self primarily' and 'impact on others also'. This two-factor correlated-factors model can be reinterpreted as a bifactor model with one general gambling-problem factor and two specific factors with similar interpretation as in the correlated-factors model but with non-overlapping items. The two specific factors may provide clinically useful information without extra costs of assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is scant research on the clinical utility of differentiating International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 10 diagnoses F50.0 anorexia nervosa (typical AN) and F50.1 atypical anorexia. We reviewed systematically records of 47 adolescents who fulfilled criteria for ICD-10 F50.0 ( n = 34) or F50.1 ( n = 13), assessing the impact of diagnostic subtype, comorbidity, background factors and treatment choices on recovery. Atypical AN patients were significantly older ( p = 0.03), heavier (minimum body mass index 16.7 vs 15.1 kg/m2, p = 0.003) and less prone to comorbidities (38% vs 71%, p = 0.04) and had shorter, less intensive and less costly treatments than typical AN patients. The diagnosis of typical versus atypical AN was the sole significant predictor of treatment success: recovery from atypical AN was 4.3 times (95% confidence interval [1.1, 17.5]) as likely as recovery from typical AN. Overall, our findings indicate that a broader definition of AN may dilute the prognostic value of the diagnosis, and therefore, ICD-11 should retain its distinction between typical and atypical AN. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and Eating Disorders Association. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]