Estimating readiness for change in anorexia nervosa: Comparing clients, clinicians, and research assessors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This research compared the relative ability of clients, clinicians, and research assessors in estimating readiness for change in individuals with anorexia nervosa. METHOD: Fifty-six individuals with a current or past diagnosis of anorexia nervosa made ratings of the extent to which they perceived themselves to be ready for treatment and recovery. Clinicians and research assessors made the same ratings based on their impressions following clinical and research assessments, respectively. The outcome variables included questionnaire measures of change activities, assigned behavioral tasks, and clients' decision to accept intensive treatment. RESULTS: While research assessor and client ratings predicted questionnaire recovery activities, only research assessor ratings predicted completion of behavioral tasks and clients' decision to accept intensive treatment. Clinician ratings were not related to any of the questionnaire or behavioral recovery activity measures. DISCUSSION: Conditions favoring the accurate prediction of readiness for treatment and recovery are discussed, and implications for clinical practice are addressed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".