Is stage of change enough? Confidence as a predictor of outcome in inpatient treatment for eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While stage of change has been shown to be a robust predictor of eating disorder treatment outcome, little attention has been paid to the role of confidence. This study sought to better understand the role of confidence and the possible interaction it may have with stage of change in promoting eating disorder symptom change. METHOD: Participants were adult women in inpatient treatment for eating disorders. They completed measures of motivation for change, which assessed precontemplation, action, confidence and internality (changing for oneself vs. others) and eating disorder symptom severity at pretreatment (N = 159) and posttreatment (n = 59). Only treatment completer analyses were used. RESULTS: Precontemplation and confidence had significant effects on pretreatment and posttreatment symptom severity, while action only had a significant effect on pretreatment symptoms. Confidence was shown to moderate relations between both measures of stage of change (i.e., precontemplation and action) and symptoms posttreatment. Follow-up analyses indicated that high precontemplation was associated with poor outcome, irrespective of confidence, however, low precontemplation was associated with better outcome at high levels of confidence. The interaction between confidence and action was also significant at very high levels of confidence. That is, among individuals who had high action at baseline, those with low confidence had significantly poorer outcomes relative to those with high confidence. DISCUSSION: Findings indicate that stage of change and confidence are both important prognostic factors and suggest that early behavior change in the absence of confidence may not guarantee best outcomes in inpatient eating disorder treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".