Assessment of bulimia nervosa: A comparison of interview and self‐report questionnaire methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study was to assess the level of agreement between the Eating Disorders Examination (EDE) and its self-report version (EDE-Q) on key items in a clinic sample of patients with bulimia nervosa. A second objective was to assess the concordance between self-reported and objective body weight in the sample. METHOD: Sixty females who met DSM-IV criteria for bulimia nervosa (purging type) participated. Fifty-seven of them completed both the EDE and the EDE-Q. Self-reported weight was obtained during a telephone screening interview. Objective weight was subsequently measured at an assessment about a week later. RESULTS: The EDE generated higher scores than the EDE-Q for the frequency of objective binge and vomiting episodes. The two methods produced equivalent results for subjective binge episodes, laxative and diuretic misuse, and concerns about shape and weight. The self-report method underestimated body weight. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that some core features of eating disorders are more accurately assessed using the EDE interview.
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 | 0.021 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".