Autonomous Motivation: A Predictor of Treatment Outcome in Bulimia‐Spectrum Eating Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Individuals with eating disorders are said to be highly ambivalent towards change and thus have difficulty maintaining a commitment to, and motivation for, treatment. Self-Determination Theory postulates that autonomous motivation for therapy exists when individuals view their participation as freely chosen. OBJECTIVE: The present study was designed to ascertain whether or not autonomous motivation was associated with treatment response in individuals with bulimia-spectrum eating disorders (BSED). METHOD: One hundred and fifty-five women with DSM-IV-TR BSED participated in multimodal group therapy and completed measures to assess motivation, eating and comorbid symptoms. RESULTS: Hierarchical multiple regression analyses demonstrated that higher levels of autonomous motivation at pretreatment predicted lower post-treatment scores on measures of eating preoccupations (shape, weight and eating concerns), binge eating, anxiety/depression, relationship to self and others and impulsivity. DISCUSSION: These results indicate that autonomous motivation may be an important predictor of outcome following treatment for BSED.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".