Validation of the German Version of the Commitment to Exercise Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pathological forms of exercising are a topic of debate in terms of classification, etiology, and treatment. Validated instruments are a precondition for research in this field. The aim of this study was to validate the German version of the Commitment to Exercise Scale (CES-de). A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using data from a large community sample (n = 571). In a second study, 100 eating disordered patients, 107 elite athletes and 100 individuals engaged in leisure time sporting activities were compared to assess discriminant validity and psychological correlates. A 1-factor solution showed the best fit to the data. The CES-de differentiated between the eating disordered group and individuals engaged in leisure time sporting activities, but not between those with an eating disorder and competitive athletes. The total score was significantly correlated with drive for thinness, perfectionism, and overall psychopathology. The CES-de can be considered a valid instrument for measuring problematic behavioral and attitudinal aspects of the commitment to exercise. The use of the CES-de total score is recommended. However, a more specific instrument should be used for athletes. A limitation of the study is that the samples were not stratified by age and gender.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".