Cognitive Distortions Associated with Imagination of the Thin Ideal: Validation of the Thought-Shape Fusion Body Questionnaire (TSF-B)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thought-shape fusion (TSF) describes the experience of body-related cognitive distortions associated with eating disorder (ED) pathology. In the laboratory TSF has been activated by thoughts about fattening/forbidden foods and thin ideals. This study aims at validating a questionnaire to assess the trait susceptibility to TSF (i.e. body-related cognitive distortions) associated with the imagination of thin ideals, and developing an adapted version of the original TSF trait questionnaire, the Thought-Shape Fusion Body Questionnaire (TSF-B). Healthy control women (HC, n=317) and women diagnosed with subthreshold and clinical EDs (n=243) completed an online-questionnaire. The factor structure of the TSF-B questionnaire was examined using exploratory (EFA) and subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA pointed to a two-factor solution, confirmed by CFA. Subscale 1 was named Imagination of thin ideals, containing five items referring to the imagination of female thin ideals. Subscale 2 was named Striving for own thin ideal, with seven items about pursuing/abandoning attempts to reach one’s own thin ideal. The total scale and both subscales showed good convergent validity, excellent reliability, and good ability to discriminate between individuals with subthreshold/clinical EDs and HCs. Results indicate that cognitive distortions are also related to the imagination of thin ideals, and are associated with ED pathology. With two subscales, the TSF-B trait questionnaire appropriately measures this construct. Future studies should clarify whether TSF-B is predictive for the development and course of EDs. Assessing cognitive distortions with the TSF-B questionnaire could improve understanding of EDs and stimulate the development of cognitively-oriented interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".