Efficacy Trial of a Dissonance Based Eating Disorder Program

The Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ) was used to measure body dissatisfaction in the present trial. The BSQ is a 34-item scale. Items are measured on a 6-point Likert scale designed to assess the frequency of negative body-related thoughts (1= never, 6 = always). Individual items are summed to compute an overall score. Scores on this scale range from 34 to 204. Higher scores indicate higher frequency of negative body-related thoughts and higher levels of body dissatisfaction.

Time frame: Baseline assessments occurred after screening and prior to the delivery of any interventions.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ) was used to measure body dissatisfaction in the present trial. The BSQ is a 34-item scale. Items are measured on a 6-point Likert scale designed to assess the frequency of negative body-related thoughts (1= never, 6 = always). Individual items are summed to compute an overall score. Scores on this scale range from 34 to 204. Higher scores indicate higher frequency of negative body-related thoughts and higher levels of body dissatisfaction.

Time frame: Postintervention assessments were conducted approximately 4 weeks following the baseline assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ) was used to measure body dissatisfaction in the present trial. The BSQ is a 34-item scale. Items are measured on a 6-point Likert scale designed to assess the frequency of negative body-related thoughts (1= never, 6 = always). Individual items are summed to compute an overall score. Scores on this scale range from 34 to 204. Higher scores indicate higher frequency of negative body-related thoughts and higher levels of body dissatisfaction.

Time frame: Follow-up assessments began approximately 8 weeks after the postintervention assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The 28-item Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire global score was used to measure eating disorder symptomatology. Participants report symptomatology over the past 28 days on a 7-point Likert scale from 0 (no days) to 6 (everyday). The EDE-Q contains 4 subscales: Restraint, Weight Concern, Eating Concern, and Shape Concern. Subscale scores are calculated by finding the averages of the subscale items. A global score is also calculated by averaging the subscale scores. Scores range from 0 to 6; higher scores indicate higher levels of eating disorder pathology.

Time frame: Baseline assessments occurred after screening and prior to the delivery of any interventions.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The 28-item Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire global score was used to measure eating disorder symptomatology. Participants report symptomatology over the past 28 days on a 7-point Likert scale from 0 (no days) to 6 (everyday). The EDE-Q contains 4 subscales: Restraint, Weight Concern, Eating Concern, and Shape Concern. Subscale scores are calculated by finding the averages of the subscale items. A global score is also calculated by averaging the subscale scores. Scores range from 0 to 6; higher scores indicate higher levels of eating disorder pathology.

Time frame: Postintervention assessments were conducted approximately 4 weeks following the baseline assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The 28-item Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire global score was used to measure eating disorder symptomatology. Participants report symptomatology over the past 28 days on a 7-point Likert scale from 0 (no days) to 6 (everyday). The EDE-Q contains 4 subscales: Restraint, Weight Concern, Eating Concern, and Shape Concern. Subscale scores are calculated by finding the averages of the subscale items. A global score is also calculated by averaging the subscale scores. Scores range from 0 to 6; higher scores indicate higher levels of eating disorder pathology.

Time frame: Follow-up assessments began approximately 8 weeks after the postintervention assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Ideal Body Stereotype Scale - Revised was used to assess the extent to which participants internalized the cultural feminine thin-ideal. The IBSS-R is a self-report inventory which asks participants to report their level of agreement with 6 statements which indicate what attractive women look like on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Responses are averaged to compute a total score. Scores ranges from 1 to 5; higher scores indicate higher levels of thin-ideal internalization.

Time frame: Follow-up assessments began approximately 8 weeks after the postintervention assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Ideal Body Stereotype Scale - Revised was used to assess the extent to which participants internalized the cultural feminine thin-ideal. The IBSS-R is a self-report inventory which asks participants to report their level of agreement with 6 statements which indicate what attractive women look like on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Responses are averaged to compute a total score. Scores ranges from 1 to 5; higher scores indicate higher levels of thin-ideal internalization.

Time frame: Postintervention assessments were conducted approximately 4 weeks following the baseline assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Ideal Body Stereotype Scale - Revised was used to assess the extent to which participants internalized the cultural feminine thin-ideal. The IBSS-R is a self-report inventory which asks participants to report their level of agreement with 6 statements which indicate what attractive women look like on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Responses are averaged to compute a total score. Scores ranges from 1 to 5; higher scores indicate higher levels of thin-ideal internalization.

Time frame: Baseline assessments occurred after screening and prior to the delivery of any interventions.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

Mean R wave amplitude was determined via a 3-lead ECG and was measured in millivolts (mV). The ECG signal was acquired via PowerLab 16/35 psychophysiological data acquisition system with a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. Hardware setup included an ECG100C amplifier with a 35Hz LPN filter and a .5Hz HP filter. ECG data were analyzed via PowerLab LabChart 8 software. A total of 5 minutes and 30 seconds of ECG data were collected to allow for artifact trimming. Artifacts were flagged by experimenters during data collection. Mean R wave amplitude represents ventricular depolarization. Higher magnitudes indicated increased polarity associated with an increased force of ventricular contraction.

Time frame: Baseline assessments occurred after screening and prior to the delivery of any interventions.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

Mean R wave amplitude was determined via a 3-lead ECG and was measured in millivolts (mV). The ECG signal was acquired via PowerLab 16/35 psychophysiological data acquisition system with a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. Hardware setup included an ECG100C amplifier with a 35Hz LPN filter and a .5Hz HP filter. ECG data were analyzed via PowerLab LabChart 8 software. A total of 5 minutes and 30 seconds of ECG data were collected to allow for artifact trimming. Artifacts were flagged by experimenters during data collection. Mean R wave amplitude represents ventricular depolarization and is measured in millivolts. Higher magnitudes indicated increased polarity associated with an increased force of ventricular contraction.

Time frame: Follow-up assessments began approximately 8 weeks after the postintervention assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

Mean R wave amplitude was determined via a 3-lead ECG and was measured in millivolts (mV). The ECG signal was acquired via PowerLab 16/35 psychophysiological data acquisition system with a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. Hardware setup included an ECG100C amplifier with a 35Hz LPN filter and a .5Hz HP filter. ECG data were analyzed via PowerLab LabChart 8 software. A total of 5 minutes and 30 seconds of ECG data were collected to allow for artifact trimming. Artifacts were flagged by experimenters during data collection. Mean R wave amplitude represents ventricular depolarization and is measured in millivolts. Higher magnitudes indicated increased polarity associated with an increased force of ventricular contraction.

Time frame: Postintervention assessments were conducted approximately 4 weeks following the baseline assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that used to measure positive and negative affect. Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very slightly) to 5 (extremely) which measures the extent to which the client has experienced that affect over the past week. The 10 positive and 10 negative items are summed separately to create a positive affect score and a negative affect score respectively. Each score ranges between 0 and 50 with higher scores indicating higher positive or negative affect.

Time frame: Postintervention assessments were conducted approximately 4 weeks following the baseline assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that used to measure positive and negative affect. Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very slightly) to 5 (extremely) which measures the extent to which the client has experienced that affect over the past week. The 10 positive and 10 negative items are summed separately to create a positive affect score and a negative affect score respectively. Each score ranges between 0 and 50 with higher scores indicating higher positive or negative affect.

Time frame: Follow-up assessments began approximately 8 weeks after the postintervention assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that used to measure positive and negative affect. Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very slightly) to 5 (extremely) which measures the extent to which the client has experienced that affect over the past week. The 10 positive and 10 negative items are summed separately to create a positive affect score and a negative affect score respectively. Each score ranges between 0 and 50 with higher scores indicating higher positive or negative affect.

Time frame: Baseline assessments occurred after screening and prior to the delivery of any interventions.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that used to measure positive and negative affect. Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very slightly) to 5 (extremely) which measures the extent to which the client has experienced that affect over the past week. The 10 positive and 10 negative items are summed separately to create a positive affect score and a negative affect score respectively. Each score ranges between 0 and 50 with higher scores indicating higher positive or negative affect.

Time frame: Baseline assessments occurred after screening and prior to the delivery of any interventions.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that used to measure positive and negative affect. Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very slightly) to 5 (extremely) which measures the extent to which the client has experienced that affect over the past week. The 10 positive and 10 negative items are summed separately to create a positive affect score and a negative affect score respectively. Each score ranges between 0 and 50 with higher scores indicating higher positive or negative affect.

Time frame: Follow-up assessments began approximately 8 weeks after the postintervention assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that used to measure positive and negative affect. Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very slightly) to 5 (extremely) which measures the extent to which the client has experienced that affect over the past week. The 10 positive and 10 negative items are summed separately to create a positive affect score and a negative affect score respectively. Each score ranges between 0 and 50 with higher scores indicating higher positive or negative affect.

Time frame: Postintervention assessments were conducted approximately 4 weeks following the baseline assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

QTc prolongation was measured in msec and was assessed via 3-lead ECG. The ECG signal was acquired via PowerLab 16/35 psychophysiological data acquisition system with a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. Hardware setup included an ECG100C amplifier with a 35Hz LPN filter and a .5Hz HP filter. ECG data were analyzed via PowerLab LabChart 8 software. For detection, typical QRS width was set at 80ms and R waves were at least 300ms apart. QTc was corrected with Bazett's formula. QT interval length represents the length of ventricular depolarization and repolarization and is measured in msec.

Time frame: Baseline assessments occurred after screening and prior to the delivery of any interventions.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

QTc prolongation was measured in msec and was assessed via 3-lead ECG. The ECG signal was acquired via PowerLab 16/35 psychophysiological data acquisition system with a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. Hardware setup included an ECG100C amplifier with a 35Hz LPN filter and a .5Hz HP filter. ECG data were analyzed via PowerLab LabChart 8 software. For detection, typical QRS width was set at 80ms and R waves were at least 300ms apart. QTc was corrected with Bazett's formula. QT interval length represents the length of ventricular depolarization and repolarization and is measured in msec.

Time frame: Postintervention assessments were conducted approximately 4 weeks following the baseline assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

Time frame: Follow-up assessments began approximately 8 weeks after the postintervention assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is designed to assess global feelings of self-worth. The RSE includes 10 items (e.g. I feel that I'm a person of worth'') rated on a four-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). A total score represents the sum of individual item responses. Scores range from 10 to 40 and higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem.

Time frame: Baseline assessments occurred after screening and prior to the delivery of any interventions.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is designed to assess global feelings of self-worth. The RSE includes 10 items (e.g. I feel that I'm a person of worth'') rated on a four-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). A total score represents the sum of individual item responses. Scores range from 10 to 40 and higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem.

Time frame: Postintervention assessments were conducted approximately 4 weeks following the baseline assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is designed to assess global feelings of self-worth. The RSE includes 10 items (e.g. I feel that I'm a person of worth'') rated on a four-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). A total score represents the sum of individual item responses. Scores range from 10 to 40 and higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem.

Time frame: Follow-up assessments began approximately 8 weeks after the postintervention assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Self-Objectification Questionnaire (SOQ) is a 10-item self-report inventory designed to assess the relative importance of body competence versus body appearance in sense of self. Participants rank appearance- versus competence-based attributes from 0 to 9 with higher scores representing higher importance. An overall trait self-objectification score is computed by summing competence and appearance ratings and subtracting the sum of competence ratings from the sum of appearance ratings. Resulting scores range from -25 to 25. Higher scores denote higher levels of trait self-objectification.

Time frame: Follow-up assessments began approximately 8 weeks after the postintervention assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Self-Objectification Questionnaire (SOQ) is a 10-item self-report inventory designed to assess the relative importance of body competence versus body appearance in sense of self. Participants rank appearance- versus competence-based attributes from 0 to 9 with higher scores representing higher importance. An overall trait self-objectification score is computed by summing competence and appearance ratings and subtracting the sum of competence ratings from the sum of appearance ratings. Resulting scores range from -25 to 25. Higher scores denote higher levels of trait self-objectification.

Time frame: Postintervention assessments were conducted approximately 4 weeks following the baseline assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Self-Objectification Questionnaire (SOQ) is a 10-item self-report inventory designed to assess the relative importance of body competence versus body appearance in sense of self. Participants rank appearance- versus competence-based attributes from 0 to 9 with higher scores representing higher importance. An overall trait self-objectification score is computed by summing competence and appearance ratings and subtracting the sum of competence ratings from the sum of appearance ratings. Resulting scores range from -25 to 25. Higher scores denote higher levels of trait self-objectification.

Time frame: Baseline assessments occurred after screening and prior to the delivery of any interventions.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Social Comparison Rating Scale (SCRS) is an 11-item scale used to assess perception of social rank and social comparison tendencies in the present trial. The scale consists of a series of bipolar adjectives (e.g., inferior/superior) separated by the numbers 1 through 10. For each adjective pair, participants are asked to rank themselves in comparison to others. A score around 60 indicates a person, on average, sees themselves approximately equal to others. Higher scores indicate higher levels of favorable social comparison and higher perceived social rank.

Time frame: Baseline assessments occurred after screening and prior to the delivery of any interventions.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Social Comparison Rating Scale (SCRS) is an 11-item scale used to assess perception of social rank and social comparison tendencies in the present trial. The scale consists of a series of bipolar adjectives (e.g., inferior/superior) separated by the numbers 1 through 10. For each adjective pair, participants are asked to rank themselves in comparison to others. A score around 60 indicates a person, on average, sees themselves approximately equal to others. Higher scores indicate higher levels of favorable social comparison and higher perceived social rank.

Time frame: Postintervention assessments were conducted approximately 4 weeks following the baseline assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The Social Comparison Rating Scale (SCRS) is an 11-item scale used to assess perception of social rank and social comparison tendencies in the present trial. The scale consists of a series of bipolar adjectives (e.g., inferior/superior) separated by the numbers 1 through 10. For each adjective pair, participants are asked to rank themselves in comparison to others. A score around 60 indicates a person, on average, sees themselves approximately equal to others. Higher scores indicate higher levels of favorable social comparison and higher perceived social rank.

Time frame: Follow-up assessments began approximately 8 weeks after the postintervention assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The State Trait Anxiety Inventory- Form Y (STAI) is a 20-item self-report measure used to assess level of trait anxiety in the present study. Each item consists of a statement which assesses feelings of anxiety or relaxation on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so). Responses to individual items are summed to create an overall score. Scores range from 20 to 80. Higher scores indicate higher levels of anxiety.

Time frame: Follow-up assessments began approximately 8 weeks after the postintervention assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The State Trait Anxiety Inventory- Form Y (STAI) is a 20-item self-report measure used to assess level of trait anxiety in the present study. Each item consists of a statement which assesses feelings of anxiety or relaxation on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so). Responses to individual items are summed to create an overall score. Scores range from 20 to 80. Higher scores indicate higher levels of anxiety.

Time frame: Postintervention assessments were conducted approximately 4 weeks following the baseline assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

The State Trait Anxiety Inventory- Form Y (STAI) is a 20-item self-report measure used to assess level of trait anxiety in the present study. Each item consists of a statement which assesses feelings of anxiety or relaxation on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so). Responses to individual items are summed to create an overall score. Scores range from 20 to 80. Higher scores indicate higher levels of anxiety.

Time frame: Baseline assessments occurred after screening and prior to the delivery of any interventions.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

Low frequency to high frequency spectral power was assessed via heart rate variability (HRV) power spectral analysis of 3-lead ECG. This index was reported in normalized units. The ECG signal was acquired via PowerLab 16/35 psychophysiological data acquisition system with a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. Hardware setup included an ECG100C amplifier with a 35Hz LPN filter and a .5Hz HP filter. Maximum frequency was set at 0.5 Hz with number of frequencies at 500. LF spectral power ranged from 0.04-0.15 Hz. HF spectral power ranged from 0.15-0.45 Hz. The ratio is designed to assess degree of sympathetic innervation to the heart.

Time frame: Baseline assessments occurred after screening and prior to the delivery of any interventions.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

Low frequency to high frequency spectral power was assessed via heart rate variability (HRV) power spectral analysis of 3-lead ECG. This index was reported in normalized units. The ECG signal was acquired via PowerLab 16/35 psychophysiological data acquisition system with a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. Hardware setup included an ECG100C amplifier with a 35Hz LPN filter and a .5Hz HP filter. Maximum frequency was set at 0.5 Hz with number of frequencies at 500. LF spectral power ranged from 0.04-0.15 Hz. HF spectral power ranged from 0.15-0.45 Hz. The ratio is designed to assess degree of sympathetic innervation to the heart.

Time frame: Postintervention assessments were conducted approximately 4 weeks following the baseline assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

Low frequency to high frequency spectral power was assessed via heart rate variability (HRV) power spectral analysis of 3-lead ECG. This index was reported in normalized units. The ECG signal was acquired via PowerLab 16/35 psychophysiological data acquisition system with a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. Hardware setup included an ECG100C amplifier with a 35Hz LPN filter and a .5Hz HP filter. Maximum frequency was set at 0.5 Hz with number of frequencies at 500. LF spectral power ranged from 0.04-0.15 Hz. HF spectral power ranged from 0.15-0.45 Hz. The ratio is designed to assess degree of sympathetic innervation to the heart.

Time frame: Follow-up assessments began approximately 8 weeks after the postintervention assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

High frequency spectral power was assessed via heart rate variability (HRV) power spectral analysis of 3-lead ECG data and was reported in normalized units. The ECG signal was acquired via PowerLab 16/35 psychophysiological data acquisition system with a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. Hardware setup included an ECG100C amplifier with a 35Hz LPN filter and a .5Hz HP filter. ECG data were analyzed via PowerLab LabChart 8 software. Maximum frequency was set at 0.5 Hz with number of frequencies at 500. LF spectral power ranged from 0.04-0.15 Hz. HF spectral power ranged from 0.15-0.45 Hz. Increased high frequency spectral power represents increased vagal input to the heart.

Time frame: Follow-up assessments began approximately 8 weeks after the postintervention assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

High frequency spectral power was assessed via heart rate variability (HRV) power spectral analysis of 3-lead ECG data and was reported in normalized units. The ECG signal was acquired via PowerLab 16/35 psychophysiological data acquisition system with a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. Hardware setup included an ECG100C amplifier with a 35Hz LPN filter and a .5Hz HP filter. ECG data were analyzed via PowerLab LabChart 8 software. Maximum frequency was set at 0.5 Hz with number of frequencies at 500. LF spectral power ranged from 0.04-0.15 Hz. HF spectral power ranged from 0.15-0.45 Hz. Increased high frequency spectral power represents increased vagal input to the heart.

Time frame: Postintervention assessments were conducted approximately 4 weeks following the baseline assessment.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.

High frequency spectral power was assessed via heart rate variability (HRV) power spectral analysis of 3-lead ECG data and was reported in normalized units. The ECG signal was acquired via PowerLab 16/35 psychophysiological data acquisition system with a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. Hardware setup included an ECG100C amplifier with a 35Hz LPN filter and a .5Hz HP filter. ECG data were analyzed via PowerLab LabChart 8 software. Maximum frequency was set at 0.5 Hz with number of frequencies at 500. LF spectral power ranged from 0.04-0.15 Hz. HF spectral power ranged from 0.15-0.45 Hz. Increased high frequency spectral power represents increased vagal input to the heart.

Time frame: Baseline assessments occurred after screening and prior to the delivery of any interventions.

Population: Mean scores and standard deviations were reported as a function of group and time. Single mean imputation was used to impute all missing scores to reflect a sample size of n=60 per condition (N=180 total) based on participants admitted at the beginning of the trial. The outcome analyses were based on imputed values and therefore, overall number of participants analyzed equals 60 per condition in the outcome analyses.