Mother–Father Distress, Accommodation, and Child Eating Disorder Behaviors: A Dyadic Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Parental psychological distress and accommodating and enabling behaviors may represent maintaining factors of anorexia nervosa (AN). However, very few studies included both parents; their interdependence is unknown. Using a dyadic approach, this study aimed to examine the relationship between parental psychological distress and accommodation at the admission of their child to specialized eating disorder programs, and their observation of their child's eating disordered behaviors 1 year later. Ninety‐one dyads of mixed‐gender couples of parents of children and adolescents diagnosed with AN ( M age = 14.5 ± 1.5 years) were recruited from one of the five University Health Centers across the province of Québec, Canada. At admission, parents completed the Psychological Distress Index and the Accommodation and Enabling Scale for Eating Disorders. Furthermore, parents reported their child's anorexic behaviors 12 months later using the Anorexic Behavior Observation Scale. The dyads were nondistinguishable by gender, suggesting a similar pattern of associations for mothers and fathers. Path analyses guided by the actor–partner interdependence model revealed an indirect effect within each parent; higher parental psychological distress was associated with higher child's eating disordered behaviors at the 12‐month follow‐up through greater parental eating disorder accommodation. A partner effect was also found; when one parent experienced psychological distress, the other parent was more likely to engage in concomitant accommodating behaviors, which, in turn, was associated with a report of more child's eating disordered behaviors by this parent at the 12‐month follow‐up. These findings highlight the importance of a dyadic perspective in exploring parents' emotional states and behaviors toward children with AN.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".