35 Predictors of outcome for cognitive behaviour therapy in binge eating disorder 2 higher social embedding than non-completers. The groups did not differ on any of the other variables (Table 1). For the following part only treatment-completers will be considered. Table 1. Pretreatment means (SD), or percentages where relevant, on eating disorder psychopathology, general psychopathology and personality characteristics for treatmentcompleters and treatment non-completers. Treatment completers (n = 341) Treatment non-completers (n = 90) Test-statistics EDI-total score 68.42 (21.91) 70.86 (21.64) t (423) = 0.857, p = .351 BAT-total score 67.06 (14.83) 69.60 (12.35) t (424) = -1.481, p = .139 SCL90-total score 187.72 (51.42) 199.37 (59.09) t (425) = -1.842, p = .066 BDI-1 18.65 (8.33) 20.32 (9.14) t (425) = -1.660, p = .098 NEO-PI-R: Neuroticism 163.30 (23.37) 167.42 (19.16) t (374) = -1.458, p = .146 NEO-PI-R: Extraversion 143.43 (19.69) 142.21 (22.14) t (374) = 0.482, p = .630 NEO-PI-R: Openness to experience 154.82 (17.35) 156.51 (18.81) t (374) = -0.760, p = 447 NEO-PI-R: Agreeableness * 174.34 (15.17) 169.59 (15.95) t (373) = 2.455, p = .015 NEO-PI-R: Conscientiousness * 149.32 (19.01) 144.05 (19.00) t (374) = 2.211, p = .028 Gender 92.7 % female 92.2 % female χ2 (1, N = 431) = 0.021, p = . 886 Age 36.79 (9.35) 36.78 (10.33) t (427) = 0.011, p = .991 BMI 42.09 (6.95) 42.29 (8.16) t (427) = -0.233, p = .816 Social embedding ** 24.7 % low social embedding 48.9 % low social embedding χ2 (1, N = 430) =19.906, p < .01 Level of education 12.3 % low level 49.9 % medium level 37.8 % high level 8.9 % low level 54.4 % medium level 36.7 % high level χ2 (2, N = 431) = 1.042, p = 584 Employment 74.3 % employed 19.5 % unemployed 6.2 % in college 63.3 % employed 25.6 % unemployed 11.1 % in college χ2 (2, N = 428) = 4.776, p = .092 * p < .05 ** p < .01 Note. EDI, Eating Disorder Inventory; BAT, Body Attitude Test; SCL-90, Symptom Checklist-90; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; NEO-PI-R, Revised Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Personality Inventory; BMI, body mass index. Improvement after treatment Table 2 shows differences over treatment with respect to bulimia scale scores as well as with respect to BMI. As can be seen, patients improve on both measures. A repeatedmeasures ANOVA with time (pretreatment/post-treatment) as the within-subject factor
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw