Multidimensional perfectionism and orthorexia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We provide the first systematic review and meta-analysis of research examining multidimensional perfectionism-perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns-and orthorexia. METHODS: The systematic review and meta-analysis was pre-registered and conducted using a search of PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Education Abstracts, and Oxford Academic, and ScienceDirect up to April 2023. PRISMA guidelines were also followed. Meta-analysis using random-effects models was used to derive independent and unique effects of perfectionism, as well as total unique effects (TUE), and relative weights. Moderation of effects were examined for age, gender, domain, perfectionism and orthorexia instruments, and methodological quality. RESULTS: = 0.25, 95% CI [0.18, 0.31]) had positive relationships with orthorexia. After controlling for the relationship between perfectionism dimensions, only perfectionistic strivings predicted orthorexia which also contributed marginally more to an overall positive total unique effect of perfectionism (TUE = 0.35; 95% CI [0.28, 0.42]). There was tentative evidence that orthorexia instrument moderated the perfectionistic concerns-orthorexia relationship. DISCUSSION: Research has generally found that both dimensions of perfectionism are positively related to orthorexia. More high-quality research is needed to examine explanatory mechanisms while also gathering further evidence on differences in findings due to how orthorexia is measured, as well as other possible moderating factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1, systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".