Reliability and validity of the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale‐12: Attachment dimensions in a clinical sample with eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Attachment insecurity is a potential risk factor for the development and maintenance of eating disorders (EDs). To date, there are multiple psychometrically sound questionnaires for the evaluation of attachment in both clinical and healthy populations, such as the Experience in Close Relationships (ECR) scale. Composed by two subscales (i.e., attachment anxiety and avoidance), the ECR scale was recently adapted to a shorter, 12-item version (ECR-12). However, a validation of the ECR-12 among patients with EDs is still lacking. The present study sought to investigate the psychometric properties of the ECR-12, when used in a treatment-seeking sample with EDs. METHOD: A total of 1,262 treatment-seeking patients with various ED diagnoses completed the ECR-12, together with a commonly used measure of ED psychopathology (Eating Disorder Inventory-2). Subsamples also completed the Attachment Style Questionnaire (n = 66) or underwent a Day Hospital Program (n = 128). RESULTS: A multigroup confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the ECR-12 maintained its two-factor structure across the ED diagnostic groups. In addition, the scale demonstrated good convergent validity, internal consistency, concurrent, and incremental validity. Finally, both ECR-12 subscales demonstrated adequate test-retest reliability. DISCUSSION: Our results provide preliminary evidence of the psychometric properties of ECR-12 in assessing attachment anxiety and avoidance among patients with EDs. This short scale could help clinicians tailor interventions for EDs that take into account attachment dimensions.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".