Cited by 12Eating Disorders and BehaviorsMental Health Research TopicsMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

Bridging eating disorder symptoms and psychological flexibility and inflexibility in racially diverse emerging adult women: A network analysis

Jo, Duckhyun, Goh, Patrick K., Lin, Stephanie L., Spencer, Samuel D., Masuda, Akihiko·2024·Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcbs.2024.100766

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 78 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jo, D., Goh, P. K., Lin, S. L., Spencer, S. D., & Masuda, A.
Affiliations
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
Corresponding author
Jo, Duckhyun
Venue
Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-04
Volume
32
Pages
100766
ISSN
2212-1447 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4394893853
Cited by
12
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2
FWCI
6.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
eating disorder symptoms, psychological flexibility, psychological inflexibility, emerging adult women, racial diversity, body dissatisfaction, lack of awareness, bridge nodes, treatment goals

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review