Contribution of Interpersonal Problems to Eating Disorder Psychopathology via Negative Affect in Treatment‐seeking Men and Women: Testing the Validity of the Interpersonal Model in an Understudied Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on the psychosocial correlates and theoretical frameworks of men presenting with eating disorders (ED) psychopathology is limited. This study compared treatment-seeking men and women in terms of their levels of interpersonal functioning (affiliation and dominance), regulation of negative emotions (negative affect and instability) and ED psychopathology. The study also investigated the validity of the interpersonal model of ED in men. Results from the cross-sectional data of 388 participants (137 men and 251 women) demonstrated that the structural models fit and that paths were invariant across men and women. There were significant indirect effects of interpersonal functioning on ED psychopathology, mediated through negative affect and instability, for both men and women. Negative affect and instability partially explain the relationship between interpersonal problems and ED psychopathology in treatment-seeking men and women. Current findings highlight the need to evaluate the validity of the model using longitudinal designs to test whether men and women are likely to benefit equally from interpersonal therapies for ED. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGE: Negative affect and instability mediated the relationship between interpersonal problems and eating disorder psychopathology for treatment-seeking men and women. There were no gender differences between levels of negative affect, emotional instability and interpersonal dysfunction, but women reported slightly higher eating concerns than men. Interpersonal model is a framework that is applicable to understanding and potentially treating men with 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".