A longitudinal examination of body‐checking behaviors and eating disorder pathology in a community sample of adolescent males and females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Related to the cognitive-behavioral theory of eating disorders, body checking has gained increasing recognition as both a maintaining factor for eating disorders and an important target for treatment. However, it is unclear whether body-checking behaviors contribute to the development of disordered eating, or if these behaviors develop as a response to experiencing eating disorder thoughts and behaviors. This study aims to examine the relationships between body-checking behaviors and eating disordered thoughts and behaviors in adolescent females and males in the community over time. METHODS: = 16.5 years) recruited from high schools in British Columbia, Canada, who completed the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire and Body Checking Questionnaire at baseline (T1) and again approximately 4 months later (T2). RESULTS: After controlling for baseline levels of eating pathology and body mass index (BMI), body checking at T1 predicted increases in eating pathology for both males and females. In contrast, after controlling for baseline levels of body checking and BMI, eating pathology at T1 did not predict changes in body checking for females, but it did for males. Findings suggest that, among adolescents, engaging in body-checking behaviors may increase risk for disordered eating. DISCUSSION: If supported by further research, targeting body-checking behaviors in prevention programs may be warranted.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".