Self‐esteem and binge eating: Do patients with binge eating disorder endorse more negatively worded items of the Rosenberg Self‐Esteem Scale?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Self-esteem is a core aspect of eating disorder symptomatology. This study aims to examine whether method effects associated with negatively worded items of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) may interact the negative self-evaluations experienced by patients with obesity and binge eating disorder (BED). We also examined whether negatively worded items were associated with psychological distress and eating symptoms. METHOD: Five hundred thirty three female outpatients (mean age: 42.59) with BED (n = 160) or obesity without BED (n = 373) completed the RSES and measures of interpersonal problems, psychological distress, and eating symptoms. RESULTS: Patients with BED responded more strongly to the negatively worded items of the RSES than those with obesity. The RSES negatively worded item factor was negatively associated with higher interpersonal problems, psychological distress, and binge eating. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BED may be more responsive to negatively phrased items on the RSES consistent with their negative self-evaluations and self-perceptions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".