Sasha Gorrell

Objective Although exercise is generally considered healthy, many individuals engage in maladaptive exercise (e.g., compulsive in nature). Several definitions of maladaptive exercise exist, leading to multiple, varied assessment tools; assuming homogeneity across these assessments contributes to low consensus in etiological models. Method We used a Jaccard Index to quantify content overlap among 15 commonly‐used self‐report instruments measuring maladaptive exercise, with 31 features identified across 224 items. Results The most common features were exercise to control weight/shape and to avoid negative affect (both included in 9/15 instruments), or compensate for calories consumed (8/15 instruments). Overlap among instruments was low (.206) and no features were common across all instruments. Conclusions Findings generally support theoretical models of exercise in eating pathology. However, instruments most commonly used to assess maladaptive exercise measure heterogenous content. Careful consideration should be taken when comparing findings derived from differing instruments, when synthesizing literature on maladaptive exercise, and when selecting instruments to measure specific maladaptive exercise features. Public Significance Many, varied, tools exist for the assessment of maladaptive exercise (e.g., compulsive or compensatory) in the context of eating disorders. Assuming homogeneity across tools contributes to low consensus in the field. We used a Jaccard Index to quantify content overlap among 15 self‐report instruments measuring maladaptive exercise. The most commonly used instruments measure heterogenous content. Careful consideration should be taken when synthesizing literature and selecting instruments to use in research.

Objective There is increasing consensus that open science practices improve the transparency and quality of clinical science. However, several barriers impede the implementation of these practices at the individual, institutional, and field levels; understanding and addressing these barriers is critical to promoting targeted efforts in increasing effective uptake of open science. Methods Within this research forum, we drew from publicly available online information sources to identify initial characterizations of researchers engaged in several types of open science practices in the field of eating disorders. We use these observations to discuss potential barriers and recommendations for next steps in the promotion of these practices. Results Data from online open science repositories suggest that individuals using these publishing approaches with pre‐prints and articles with eating‐disorder‐relevant content are predominantly non‐male gender identifying, early to mid‐career stage, and are more likely to be European‐, United States‐, or Canada‐based. Discussion We outline recommendations for tangible ways that the eating disorder field can support broad, increased uptake of open science practices, including supporting initiatives to increase knowledge and correct misconceptions; and prioritizing the development and accessibility of open science resources. Public Significance Statement The use of open science practices has the potential to increase the transparency and quality of clinical science. This Forum uses publicly sourced online data to characterize researchers engaged in open science practices in the field of eating disorders. These observations provide an important framework from which to discuss potential barriers to open science and recommendations for next steps in the promotion of these practices.