ReviewPsychology research and behavior management2026
Measurement Properties of the Exercise Dependence Scale-Revised (EDS-R): A Systematic Review Using the COSMIN Methodology.
Review in Psychology research and behavior management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Exercise Dependence Scale-Revised (EDS-R) is widely utilized internationally, yet empirical evaluations of its measurement properties exhibit pronounced inconsistencies. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the full-spectrum measurement properties of the EDS-R by integrating the COSMIN methodology, modified GRADE approach, and a quantitative Reliability Generalization (RG) meta-analysis. Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL up to October 24, 2025, without language restrictions. Methodological quality was appraised via the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Twenty-three studies (N = 14,779) across competitive athletes, sports academy students, gym members, and general populations were included. Content validity and hypothesis testing for construct validity (88.9% alignment, 24/27) were rated as sufficient (moderate-quality evidence). Structural validity was supported for the original first-order seven-factor model (20/22, 90.9%; moderate-quality evidence), as well as higher-order and bifactor configurations (sufficient, high-quality evidence); in contrast, variant 5- and 6-factor models showed mixed fit, and a unidimensional model was rejected (insufficient, high-quality evidence). Demographic and athletic subgroup measurement invariance (gender, age, competition level, training duration) was established with high-quality evidence; however, cross-cultural validity across languages was supported by limited evidence (1 study, insufficient). In the RG meta-analysis, pooled subscale reliabilities ranged from 0.724 to 0.886; notably, the "Reduction in Other Activities" subscale demonstrated marked vulnerability in athletic cohorts (pooled
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.