Attachment Dimensions and Group Climate Growth in a Sample of Women Seeking Treatment for Eating Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult attachment and group process research are emerging areas of research for treating eating disorders. In this study, we examined several aspects of group processes: the weekly growth of group therapy climate, the relationship between group climate growth and outcomes, and the impact of the group on individual experiences of group climate. Further, we assessed the relationship between adult attachment dimensions and these group processes. Women (n = 264) diagnosed with an eating disorder completed attachment scales pre-treatment, eating disorder symptom scales pre- and post-treatment, and group climate scales weekly during treatment. Treatment consisted of a specialized eating disorders group-based day hospital program with rolling admissions. Engaged group climate increased and Avoidance group climate decreased across weeks of treatment. Engaged group climate growth was associated with improved eating disorder symptoms post-treatment. Higher attachment avoidance at pre-treatment was related to lower Engaged group climate at week 1, and was related to a greater impact of the group on the individual's experience of group engagement. Clinicians might improve group processes and outcomes by tailoring interventions to individuals' attachment avoidance when treating women for eating disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".