Ready or Not: Examining Self-Reported Readiness for Behavior Change at Intake Assessment for Adults With an Eating Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explored whether a single-item self-report measure (i.e., the Readiness Ruler) was an appropriate measure of treatment engagement in adult outpatients with eating disorders. In total, 108 women diagnosed with an eating disorder completed the Readiness Ruler and measures of symptom severity at intake to a hospital-based outpatient treatment program. Treatment engagement was operationalized as attendance to a minimum of one session of a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) treatment group, the number of CBT group sessions attended, and whether the participants dropped out of the CBT group prematurely. Results suggest that the Readiness Ruler was not associated with attending the CBT group. Among the participants who attended the program, the Readiness Ruler was not associated with the number of CBT group sessions attended or CBT group dropout. Higher Readiness Ruler score was associated with more severe symptomatology. In conclusion, the Readiness Ruler may not be a good predictor of CBT group treatment engagement for individuals with eating disorders and may instead be a proxy for symptom severity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".