Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34927269›Full record

ArticleThe International journal of eating disorders2022

Practice makes perfect: Commentary on Burnette et al. (2021).

Kyle P De Young, Paraskevi Evelyna Kambanis

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The International journal of eating disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kyle P De YoungDepartment of Psychology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6307-4029
Paraskevi Evelyna KambanisDepartment of Psychology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1950-3332

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Underrepresented identities have been overlooked in the development of measures assessing eating disorders; therefore, limited normative data exist for these identities. To address this, Burnette et al. sought to provide Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire and Eating Attitudes Test-26 norms for transgender adults using Amazon's MTurk. However, they were unable to achieve this goal due to what they perceived as high rates of invalid responses. Instead, they provided recommendations for conducting MTurk research. However, little or no evidence supports the validity of several recommendations, partly because their study was not designed to derive or validate recommendations. By their own admission, their strategies failed to address what they identified as the central problem. We express concern about Burnette et al.'s recommendations because (a) the recommendations are built on assumptions about the problem that may not be true; and (b) the recommendations are not provided within the context of limitations of self-report/online data collection writ large. We detail these concerns and propose that strategies for mitigating inattentive/invalid responding be subjected to validation prior to being recommended to prevent the implementation of procedures that result in the exclusion of the target population, individuals who we historically, and perhaps still, unjustly exclude from research.

Indexed as

Feeding and Eating DisordersAdultCognitionData CollectionHumansSelf ReportAmazon Mechanical Turkattention checksdiversityeating disorder psychopathologymeasurement errorvalidity checks

Identifiers

PMID34927269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.