20.08.2013 Views

DClinPsy Portfolio Volume 1 of 3 - University of Hertfordshire ...

DClinPsy Portfolio Volume 1 of 3 - University of Hertfordshire ...

DClinPsy Portfolio Volume 1 of 3 - University of Hertfordshire ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

% within Body<br />

mass index USA 35.7% 42.9% 21.4% 100.0%<br />

Underweight Count 18 2 1 21<br />

% within Body<br />

mass index USA 85.7% 9.5% 4.8% 100.0%<br />

Total Count 68 17 11 96<br />

% within Body<br />

mass index USA 70.8% 17.7% 11.5% 100.0%<br />

As can be seen from Table 29 above 74% <strong>of</strong> those in the low risk group are a healthy<br />

BMI weight with 26% <strong>of</strong> the healthy BMI being in the moderate or high risk groups<br />

combined. The overweight group has 64% in the moderate and high risk groups<br />

combined as opposed to 36% in the low risk group. The underweight group result appears<br />

perhaps more paradoxical with 86% in the low risk group and only 29% in the at risk<br />

group. A Chi-square test <strong>of</strong> independence found that there was a significant association,<br />

Chi-square = 11.30, (df = 4), p = 0.02, with a Contingency Coefficient 0.33.<br />

Section IV – A multivariate analysis <strong>of</strong> predictors <strong>of</strong> eating disorder risk<br />

As predicted, the two key factors <strong>of</strong> the ACT model – inflexibility and body image<br />

acceptance – were both found to be significantly associated with the EDR groups (see<br />

section II). However, it was also found that these two factors were themselves<br />

considerably correlated (r = -.55). It was therefore important to determine whether each<br />

factor would still be a significant predictor in its own right in relation to the EDR groups<br />

when controlled for by the other factor. This was achieved by a logistic regression<br />

analysis using the low EDR group (n = 68) and the moderate and high EDR groups<br />

(grouped together n = 28) as the criterion variable and the total scores <strong>of</strong> the Body Image<br />

Acceptance Questionnaire (BIAAQ) and the Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire<br />

(AFQY) measuring inflexibility as the two predictors. This model was significant, LR =<br />

12.2, df = 2, p = .002, Nagelkerke R-squared = .21, however, only inflexibility turned out<br />

to be a significant predictor (p = .01), but not body image acceptance (p = .76), which<br />

was therefore discarded from further analysis (see Table 31).<br />

Table 31: Results <strong>of</strong> the logistic regression analysis (1)<br />

197

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!