David Barron

Research has suggested that schizotypy—a personality organisation representing latent vulnerability for schizophrenia-spectrum disorders—may be elevated in women with symptoms of disordered eating. However, studies have not fully considered associations between symptoms of disordered eating and multidimensional schizotypy. To overcome this limitation, we asked an online sample of 235 women from the United States to complete measures of symptoms of disordered eating (drive for thinness, body dissatisfaction, and bulimic symptoms) and multidimensional schizotypy. Correlational analyses indicated significant associations between drive for thinness and bulimic symptoms, respectively, and most schizotypal facets. Body dissatisfaction was significantly associated with only two schizotypal facets. Overall, the strength of correlations was weak-to-moderate. Regression results indicated that only the schizotypal feature of excessive social anxiety was significantly associated with all risk for disordered eating factors. These results are consistent with aetiological models of disordered eating that highlight socio-affective difficulties as risk factors for symptoms of disordered eating.

Both nature exposure and green exercise (GE) can improve health. However, there are no scales examining frequency of engagement; or that consider interaction with nature. There are also no scales assessing these variables during childhood. The aim of this study was to develop a modified (NES-II) and retrospective (RNES-II) version of the Nature Exposure Scale to incorporate GE and to examine their factor structure and reliability. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) explored the factor structure of the scales; followed by confirmatory factor analysis to confirm the model fit. Fit indices for the one factor five item NES-II and RNES-II models identified by EFA were poor. Use of modification indices resulted in a good model fit; NES-II: χ(5, n = 385) = 2.638; χ_normed = 0.879; CFI= 1.000; RMSEA < 0.001 with 90%CI = 0.000–0.082; SRMR = 0.009; AIC = 36.638. RNES-II: χ(2, n = 385) = 7.149; χ_normed = 3.574; CFI = 0.995; RMSEA = 0.082 with 90%CI = 0.023–0.151; SRMR = 0.015; AIC = 43.149. Both models demonstrated very good reliability (α = 0.84; 89 respectively). These findings indicate that the scales can be used to assess current and retrospective nature exposure. However, due to the removal of item one, the authors recommend that the scales be named the ‘intentional nature exposure scale’ and ‘retrospective intentional nature exposure scale’.