Development, psychometric properties and preliminary clinical validation of a brief, session‐by‐session measure of eating disorder cognitions and behaviors: The ED‐15
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In the treatment research literature on other psychological disorders, there is a move towards session-by-session symptom measurement. The necessary measures need to be brief, focused on core features since the last session, and readily available to clinicians. There is no measure in the eating disorders that meets those criteria. This research reports the development and validation of such a self-report questionnaire. METHOD: The authors generated and refined a brief set of attitudinal and behavioral items. The resulting questionnaire (the ED-15) and an existing measure (Eating Disorders Examination-Questionnaire; EDE-Q) were completed by a large nonclinical adult sample (N = 531), a group of self-reported eating disorder sufferers (N = 63), and a group of women (N = 33) diagnosed with bulimia nervosa or atypical bulimia nervosa and undertaking cognitive-behavioral therapy. RESULTS: Factor analysis identified two scales (Weight and Shape Concerns; Eating Concerns), with strong internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Correlations with the EDE-Q (r = 0.889) indicates that the ED-15 and EDE-Q measure near-identical constructs. The ED-15 differentiated self-reported eating-disordered and nonclinical groups to the same degree as the longer EDE-Q. Session-by-session analysis of the CBT treatment group demonstrated that the different ED-15 scales changed in different patterns across therapy. DISCUSSION: The ED-15 is not proposed as an alternative to existing measures, but as a complementary tool, used to measure session-by-session change for clinical and research purposes. Future research will track changes in ED-15 scores across therapy, to determine the importance of very early response to therapy and sudden changes.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it