000132505 001__ 132505 000132505 005__ 20260210085333.0 000132505 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.7189/jogh.14.03007 000132505 0248_ $$2sideral$$a137663 000132505 037__ $$aART-2024-137663 000132505 041__ $$aeng 000132505 100__ $$0(orcid)0000-0001-6887-6277$$aBarrada, Juan Ramón$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza 000132505 245__ $$aOrthorexia nervosa: research based on invalid measures is invalid 000132505 260__ $$c2024 000132505 5060_ $$aAccess copy available to the general public$$fUnrestricted 000132505 5203_ $$aOrthorexia nervosa (ON) refers to a strong preoccupation with a healthy diet with negative emotional, cognitive, or social consequences when trying to approach this goal and when the eating behaviour deviates from these self-imposed rules. According to a recent meta-analysis published in this journal, the prevalence of ON could be as high as 27.5% [1]. If that was true, ON – which is not (yet) a recognised eating disorder in diagnostic classification systems – would be the most prevalent of all eating disorders and, in fact, of all mental disorders [2]. There are two explanations for this. Either humans have been unaware of this eating disorder pandemic or the results from that meta-analysis suffer from a systematic bias in measurement. We consider the second one more likely. Most importantly, the data that the meta-analysis is based on all came from studies that used the ORTO-15 questionnaire [3]. However, recent evidence shows this scale produces invalid scores for assessing ON [4]. Even the meta-analysis’s authors acknowledge the ORTO-15’s limitations in the discussion section. Given that ‘validity refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses of tests’ (p. 11, [5]), no validity implies that the scores cannot be interpreted as intended. More clearly stated, the ORTO-15 does not measure ON and should not be interpreted as doing so. The logical conclusion is that any study using it (including meta-analyses) adds very limited knowledge to the scientific record or, even worse, it can be considered noise that some people will interpret as evidence. It has to be remembered that ‘validity is, therefore, the most fundamental consideration in developing tests and evaluating tests’ (p. 11, [5]). 000132505 540__ $$9info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess$$aby-nc-nd$$uhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es 000132505 590__ $$a4.3$$b2024 000132505 592__ $$a1.172$$b2024 000132505 591__ $$aPUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH$$b47 / 421 = 0.112$$c2024$$dQ1$$eT1 000132505 593__ $$aPublic Health, Environmental and Occupational Health$$c2024$$dQ1 000132505 591__ $$aPUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH$$b47 / 421 = 0.112$$c2024$$dQ1$$eT1 000132505 593__ $$aHealth Policy$$c2024$$dQ1 000132505 594__ $$a5.7$$b2024 000132505 655_4 $$ainfo:eu-repo/semantics/article$$vinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion 000132505 700__ $$aMeule, Adrian 000132505 7102_ $$14009$$2735$$aUniversidad de Zaragoza$$bDpto. Psicología y Sociología$$cÁrea Psicolog.Evolut.Educac 000132505 773__ $$g14 (2024), 03007 [3 pp.]$$pJournal of global health.$$tJournal of Global Health$$x2047-2978 000132505 8564_ $$s227501$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/132505/files/texto_completo.pdf$$yVersión publicada 000132505 8564_ $$s2109898$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/132505/files/texto_completo.jpg?subformat=icon$$xicon$$yVersión publicada 000132505 909CO $$ooai:zaguan.unizar.es:132505$$particulos$$pdriver 000132505 951__ $$a2026-02-10-08:27:06 000132505 980__ $$aARTICLE