Objective: To identify core vulnerability features capable of discriminating subjects who are more prone to develop eating disorders. Sampling and Methods: A nonclinical group composed of 253 university students was studied by means of the Identity and Eating Disorders questionnaire (IDEA), exploring abnormal attitudes toward one's own body and difficulties in the definition of one's own identity, the Body Uneasiness Test (BUT) and different self-reported questionnaires evaluating the specific and general psychopathology of eating disorders. The results were compared with those of a clinical eating disorder group. Results: In the student sample, a group composed of 35 subjects with abnormal eating patterns and a group (218 subjects) without such features were identified. The IDEA total and subscale scores were found to be significantly higher in subjects with abnormal eating patterns than in subjects without them (all p < 0.001). Positive correlations between the IDEA total and subscale scores and the BUT global score were observed in both groups (all p < 0.01). The comparison of the scores on the IDEA between the clinical group (patients with full-blown eating disorders) and the subjects with abnormal over-threshold eating patterns yields a significant difference in the 'feeling extraneous from one's own body' subscale of the IDEA. Conclusions: The IDEA resulted in being a valid instrument to identify a vulnerability to eating disorders in subjects with abnormal eating patterns in the general population and to recognize the presence of a significant discomfort related to the body. Feeling extraneous from one's own body is the experience that discriminates most between clinical and nonclinical subjects.Bo

Is Feeling Extraneous from One's Own Body a Core Vulnerability Feature in Eating Disorders?

STANGHELLINI, Giovanni;
2014-01-01

Abstract

Objective: To identify core vulnerability features capable of discriminating subjects who are more prone to develop eating disorders. Sampling and Methods: A nonclinical group composed of 253 university students was studied by means of the Identity and Eating Disorders questionnaire (IDEA), exploring abnormal attitudes toward one's own body and difficulties in the definition of one's own identity, the Body Uneasiness Test (BUT) and different self-reported questionnaires evaluating the specific and general psychopathology of eating disorders. The results were compared with those of a clinical eating disorder group. Results: In the student sample, a group composed of 35 subjects with abnormal eating patterns and a group (218 subjects) without such features were identified. The IDEA total and subscale scores were found to be significantly higher in subjects with abnormal eating patterns than in subjects without them (all p < 0.001). Positive correlations between the IDEA total and subscale scores and the BUT global score were observed in both groups (all p < 0.01). The comparison of the scores on the IDEA between the clinical group (patients with full-blown eating disorders) and the subjects with abnormal over-threshold eating patterns yields a significant difference in the 'feeling extraneous from one's own body' subscale of the IDEA. Conclusions: The IDEA resulted in being a valid instrument to identify a vulnerability to eating disorders in subjects with abnormal eating patterns in the general population and to recognize the presence of a significant discomfort related to the body. Feeling extraneous from one's own body is the experience that discriminates most between clinical and nonclinical subjects.Bo
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Is Feeling Extraneous from One’s Own.pdf

Solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: PDF editoriale
Dimensione 113.59 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
113.59 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11564/581305
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 16
  • Scopus 45
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 42
social impact