Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 505

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and validation of the Eating Pathology Symptoms Inventory (EPSI).

Forbush, Kelsie T., Wildes, Jennifer E., Pollack, Lauren O., Dunbar, Danica, Luo, Jing, Patterson, Kathryn, Petruzzi, Liana, Pollpeter, Molly, Miller, Haylie, Stone, Andrea, Bright, Ashley, Watson, David·2013·Psychological Assessment
DOI 10.1037/a0032639
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Many current measures of eating disorder (ED) symptoms have 1 or more serious limitations, such as inconsistent factor structures or poor discriminant validity. The goal of this study was to overcome these limitations through the development of a comprehensive multidimensional measure of eating pathology. An initial pool of 160 items was developed to assess 20 dimensions of eating pathology. The initial item pool was administered to a student sample (N = 433) and community sample (N = 407) to determine the preliminary structure of the measure using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The revised measure was administered to independent samples of patients recruited from specialty ED treatment centers (N = 158), outpatient psychiatric clinics (N = 303), and students (N = 227). Analyses revealed an 8-factor structure characterized by Body Dissatisfaction, Binge Eating, Cognitive Restraint, Excessive Exercise, Restricting, Purging, Muscle Building, and Negative Attitudes Toward Obesity. Scale scores showed excellent convergent and discriminant validity; other analyses demonstrated that the majority of scales were invariant across sex and weight categories. Eating Pathology Symptoms Inventory scale scores had excellent internal consistency (median coefficient alphas ranged from .84-.89) and reliability over a 2- to 4-week period (mean retest r = .73). The current study represents one of the most comprehensive scale development projects ever conducted in the field of EDs and will enhance future basic and treatment research focused on EDs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0032639

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 505

Metadata

Authors
Forbush, K. T., Wildes, J. E., Pollack, L. O., Dunbar, D., Luo, J., Patterson, K., Petruzzi, L., Pollpeter, M., Miller, H., Stone, A., Bright, A., & Watson, D.
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2013-09
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
859-878
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
DOI
10.1037/a0032639
OpenAlex
W2098064832
Cited by
505
References
14
FWCI
14.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.