{{ row.id }}. {{ row.short }}
{{ row.followUpHint }}
The total is shown against the usual 2+ positive-screen boundary.
{{ chartNote }}
The interpretation stays tied to the original 2+ SCOFF cut-point and the endorsed item pattern.
{{ interpretationLead }}
| Reference | Current status | Distance | Meaning here |
|---|---|---|---|
| {{ row.reference }} | {{ row.currentStatus }} | {{ row.distance }} | {{ row.note }} |
{{ disclaimerText }}
These are the yes answers carrying the current screen signal.
{{ row.followUpHint }}
No yes items were endorsed on this run.
Pair the endorsed cues with the quieter ones so the current pattern is easy to brief.
| Higher-scored cue | Lower-scored anchor | Why this split matters | Copy |
|---|---|---|---|
| {{ row.higherLabel }} | {{ row.lowerLabel }} | {{ row.note }} |
{{ supportNote }}
Export the item-level answers as a simple follow-up record.
| # | Signal | Prompt | Response | Why it matters | Copy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{ row.id }} |
{{ row.short }}
{{ row.domain }}
|
{{ row.text }} | {{ row.responseLabel }} | {{ row.why }} |
Use this if you want the same completed result in a machine-readable format.
Eating disorder concerns often build as a pattern rather than one dramatic event. Someone may notice repeated overeating followed by guilt, loss of control around food, rapid weight change, or constant preoccupation with body size before they ever speak with a clinician. This SCOFF screen turns those concerns into a short five-question check so you can see whether the pattern crosses a widely used follow-up threshold.
The package asks the standard SCOFF questions and counts the number of Yes answers. Once all five items are answered, it shows a total from 0 to 5, labels the screen as positive or negative, and adds a short pattern summary so the result is easier to explain to a clinician, counselor, or trusted supporter.
That makes it useful when the signs feel scattered. A person who has recently felt out of control when eating and keeps thinking about food can answer the items in under a minute, see that the total reaches the positive cut point, and use that result as a reason to arrange proper assessment instead of waiting for things to become more disruptive.
The total matters, but the specific answers matter too. A score of 1 can still point to a serious problem if the single endorsed item is self-induced vomiting or rapid weight loss, while a score of 2 or more is still only a screen and does not identify a diagnosis by itself.
Use the result as a prompt for follow-up, not as permission to self-diagnose or dismiss ongoing concerns. If vomiting, significant weight loss, fainting, dehydration, chest symptoms, or self-harm risk are involved, urgent medical help matters more than the score.
Answer the questions with one time frame in mind: the recent months named by the package. That keeps the total meaningful. Mixing one lifelong concern with four last-week answers can make a borderline result look cleaner or worse than it really is.
The best first pass is the most literal one. Read each item, choose Yes or No without trying to average away uncomfortable moments, and then review the question list before you trust the result. The screen is short enough that changing an answer after second thoughts is better than guessing.
A good outcome from this page is not simply "positive" or "negative." The useful outcome is knowing whether the total and the flagged items justify a fuller conversation with a qualified eating-disorder professional.
The SCOFF questionnaire is a brief binary screen for eating-disorder risk. Each of its five prompts maps to one clinically important signal: self-induced vomiting after feeling uncomfortably full, loss of control over eating, recent loss of more than one stone in three months, feeling fat despite being told one is too thin, and food dominating daily life. The package keeps that structure unchanged and treats each answer as a simple yes-or-no indicator.
The overall score is an unweighted count of Yes answers. No item is given extra points in the total. That matters because the package follows the standard SCOFF threshold directly: totals of 0 to 1 stay below the positive cut point, while totals of 2 to 5 are flagged as a positive screen. There is no rounding, scaling, or normalization because every item is already binary.
The page also calculates a few supporting summaries that help with interpretation but do not alter the core result. Behavior counts items 1, 2, and 5, Weight loss reflects item 3, and Body image reflects item 4. A local Near threshold hint appears at 1 out of 5 to warn against false reassurance, but that hint is package guidance rather than a separate validated category in the questionnaire itself.
| Symbol | Meaning | Type | Package use |
|---|---|---|---|
v_i |
One SCOFF item answer | 0 or 1 | No = 0, Yes = 1 |
S |
Total SCOFF score | Integer 0-5 | Primary result badge and gauge value |
B |
Behavior summary | Integer 0-3 | Items 1, 2, and 5 only |
W |
Weight-loss summary | 0 or 1 | Item 3 only |
I |
Body-image summary | 0 or 1 | Item 4 only |
| Total score | Boundary rule | Package label | How to read it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 to 1 | S < 2 |
Negative | Below the positive cut point, but not a rule-out for every eating disorder concern |
| 2 to 5 | S >= 2 |
Positive | Possible eating-disorder risk; fuller assessment is warranted |
The package waits until all five answers are present before showing the final result. If you return with a shared or bookmarked URL, a five-character response code can restore the answers, using 1, 0, and - for unanswered items. That state restoration is convenient, but it also means a shared URL can reveal answer patterns.
All scoring runs in the browser. The page does not ship a server-side scoring helper, and answering the questionnaire does not transmit responses for interpretation. Any CSV or DOCX output is created from the on-page answers after you choose to export it.
Use the screen in one short sitting so the answers reflect the same recent period.
If the result panel never appears, one item is still unanswered. Return to the question list, find the row without a check mark, and complete that item before interpreting the score.
The most important boundary is simple: 0 to 1 stays below the positive cut point, and 2 to 5 becomes a positive screen. That boundary should guide next steps, but it should not replace judgment about the individual answers. A single positive response for vomiting or rapid weight loss can still be clinically important.
The best verification step is to confirm which exact items were endorsed. A total of 2 driven by loss of control and food preoccupation points to a different discussion than a total of 2 driven by vomiting and rapid weight loss, even though both land on the same side of the threshold.
Two endorsed items and a positive screen. A person answers Yes to loss of control over eating and to food dominating daily life, with No on the other three items. The package shows Total 2/5, Screen: Positive, and Behavior 2/3. That is the classic use case for arranging formal assessment rather than waiting to see whether the pattern fades.
One endorsed item and a near-threshold warning. Another person answers Yes only to the one-stone weight-loss question. The result remains Total 1/5, so the screen stays negative, but the package can add its Near threshold note and the summary will show Weight loss 1/1. That result should not be brushed aside just because it did not reach 2.
No result because one item is still blank. Someone reaches 4/5 answered and expects the gauge to appear, but one question in the list has no check mark. The correct fix is not to guess at the score. Complete the missing item first, then read the final badge and answer table together.
No. The package labels scores of 2 to 5 as a positive screen, which means fuller assessment is warranted. Diagnosis still needs clinical evaluation.
Because the cut point is only one part of the story. The package keeps 1 below the positive threshold, but a single endorsed item such as vomiting or rapid weight loss can still deserve urgent follow-up.
It means about 6.35 kg lost within three months. The page uses that wording directly in the third question.
Scoring happens in the browser and there is no Lambda helper for this slug. The main privacy caution is the response code in the URL, because a shared link can expose answer state.
The page waits for all five responses. If the result is missing, check the question list for the row without a check mark and answer that item.