A <i>p</i> ‐curve analysis of the emotional Stroop effect among women with eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A recent meta-review of attentional bias research in eating disorders suggests that meta-analyses and systematic reviews include many low-quality and underpowered studies (Stott et al., 2021). As such, we examined whether published research examining the link between attentional bias, using the emotional Stroop task, and eating disorders among women with eating disorders has evidential value (ruling out selective reporting of a statistically significant effect) using a p-curve analysis. A p-curve analysis plots statisticall significant p-values onto a curve from .01 to .05 to examine its distribution. We hypothesized that the p-curve would be flat, indicating no true effect. METHOD: The hypothesis, database search strategy, and data analytic approach were pre-registered. The inclusion criteria were reports that compared control and eating disorder groups, reported inferential statistics, and that used body shape/weight or general threat target words. RESULTS: Fifty published reports were included in the p-curve analyses. Unexpectedly, the half and full p-curves were significantly right-skewed, indicating evidential value. However, the results were not robust to the exclusion of the seven lowest p-values and on average, reports were underpowered. There were also 18 reports with null results (they had a p-value greater than .05), which precluded their inclusion in the p-curve analyses. DISCUSSION: The findings suggest that most of the evidence from research examining attentional biases using the emotional Stroop task among women with an eating disorder or with elevated eating disorder symptoms is underpowered and so should be interpreted with considerable caution. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Concerns have been raised about the low quality of research examining attentional biases among women with eating disorders using the emotional Stroop task. In the current research, we observed that the evidential value of primary research reporting differences between women with and without eating disorders was equivocal and had low statistical power. These results can guide researchers towards conducting more rigorous research on attentional biases among people with 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 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 | 0.166 | 0.427 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".