The Nepean Belief Scale (NBS) as a tool to investigate the intensity of beliefs in anorexia nervosa: psychometric properties of the Italian version
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with anorexia nervosa (AN) show a peculiar impairment of insight regarding their condition, often manifesting a denial of extreme emaciation and sometimes hiding or underreporting socially undesirable abnormal eating patterns. Sometimes the intensity of the beliefs held by patients with AN reach a delusional intensity. OBJECTIVES: In this study, the Italian version of the Nepean Belief Scale was applied to a sample of patients diagnosed with AN to investigate the intensity of their beliefs and convictions and its clinical correlates. METHODS: The Nepean Belief Scale (NBS) was translated and adapted to Italian and applied to a sample of patients diagnosed with AN based on the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID-5). RESULTS: The Italian version of the 5-item NBS showed excellent reliability. Convergent validity was proved by negative association with levels of insight measured with the Schedule for the Assessment of Insight in Eating Disorders. Beliefs of delusional intensity were reported by 10% of participants. Those with a greater intensity of beliefs, either overvalued or delusional ideas, were more likely to report poorer general cognitive performances on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. No association was observed between NBS score and age, body mass index, symptoms of eating disorders, body dissatisfaction, or levels of depression. Fear of weight gain and control seeking were the most often reported themes at the NBS. CONCLUSIONS: The Italian version of the NBS is a reasonably reliable, valid, and usable tool for the multidimensional assessment of insight in AN. Level of evidence Level III, Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".