Psychometric Properties of the Eating Disorders Inventory-2 among Women Seeking Treatment for Binge Eating Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychometric properties of the Eating Disorders Inventory-2 (EDI-2) when used for women with Binge Eating Disorder (BED) are assessed. The EDI-2 was administered to 144 outpatients seeking treatment for BED and 152 outpatients seeking treatment for Bulimia Nervosa (BN). Most EDI-2 scales had acceptable internal consistence for both the BED and BN samples. EDI-2 scales demonstrated adequate stability within a subsample of those with BED who were retested. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed a hypothesized second-order two-factor structure for the original EDI scales for the BED group but not for those with BN. When the provisional EDI-2 scales were included, a two-factor structure was not supported for any group. Some scales differentiated the BED from the BN sample, and the second-order factors correlated with measures of similar constructs. The original EDI scales can be used reliably for those with BED.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".