. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Nov 1.

Published in final edited form as: Int J Eat Disord. 2016 Jul 12;49(11):1027–1031. doi: 10.1002/eat.22579

Table 1. Comparison of Dimensions of Impulsivity Across Eating Disorder Status Groups.

Impulsivity Construct	Active ED (n = 53)	Partially recovered (n = 15)	Fully recovered (n = 20)	Controls (n = 67)	Significance	Pair-wise comparisons

Multivariate effect, controlling for age: F = 4.41, p < .001, Wilks´ lambda = .71, η_p² = .11
Negative Urgency	2.77 (.72)	2.62 (.75)	2.11 (.52)	2.07 (.60)	F(3, 150) = 12.29, p < .001, η_p² = .20	C < PR, AED FR < AED
Lack of Premeditation	2.11 (.58)	2.12 (.78)	2.07 (.50)	2.03 (.54)	F(3, 150) = .11, p = .954, η_p² = .002	---
Lack of Perseverance	2.06 (.60)	1.87 (.70)	1.81 (.35)	1.79 (.44)	F(3, 150) = 2.07, p = .106, η_p² = .04	---
Sensation Seeking	2.25 (.73)	2.46 (.65)	2.58 (.69)	2.76 (.57)	F(3, 150) = 3.54, p = .016, η_p² = .07	C > AED

Note. ED = Eating Disorder. AED = Active Eating Disorder. PR = Partially Recovered. FR = Fully Recovered. C = Controls. Higher scores mean more impulsivity on the particular dimension. Pairwise comparisons listed are significant at least at p < .05. Inferential statistics include age as a covariate, but descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) are reported as unadjusted for the covariate so that they can be compared to other studies.