Self‐report measures of loss of control over eating: Psychometric properties in clinical and non‐clinical samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Research evidence supports the clinical significance of subjective feelings of loss of control over eating; however, limited attention has been given to how this construct is assessed. Two measures have been developed in recent years (i.e., Eating Loss of Control Scale [ELOC] and Loss of Control over Eating Scale [LOCES]), but further validation in clinical and non-clinical samples is needed. METHOD: The current study evaluated the psychometric properties, including factor structure, criterion validity, and measurement invariance of the ELOC and LOCES across two groups: (a) a clinical sample of individuals with eating disorders (n = 106) and (b) a non-clinical sample of college students (n = 321). RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the 16-item version of the ELOC and 7-item brief version of the LOCES provided good fit to the data in both samples. These measures were highly correlated (r = .83-.87) and associated with binge-eating and related psychopathology. The ELOC demonstrated partial invariance between men and women and between the clinical and non-clinical samples. The LOCES-brief demonstrated full invariance between men and women and partial invariance between the clinical and non-clinical samples. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that the 16-item ELOC and 7-item LOCES are reliable measures of severity of loss of control eating in clinical and non-clinical samples. Given the brevity of the LOCES-brief and evidence for measurement invariance across sex, it is recommended over the ELOC in heterogeneous samples. Future research is needed to confirm the validity of these measures across individuals with and without 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".