• Scott O Lilienfeld, Lorie A Ritschel, Steven Jay Lynn, Amanda P Brown, Robin L Cautin, and Robert D Latzman.
• Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA. slilien@emory.edu
• Int J Eat Disord. 2013 Jul 1; 46 (5): 386-94.

ObjectiveThe field of eating disorders (EDs) treatment has been beset by a marked disjunction between scientific evidence and clinical application. We describe the nature and scope of the research-practice gap in the ED field.MethodWe draw on surveys and broader literature to better understand the research-practice gap in ED treatment and reasons for resistance to evidence-based practice.ResultsWe identify three sources of the research-practice gap: (1) attitudinal factors, (2) differences in the definition of "evidence," and (3) cognitive factors, especially naïve realism and confirmation bias. We affirm the role of science as a safeguard against human fallibility and as a means of bridging the research-practice gap, and delineate key principles of scientific thinking for ED researchers and practitioners.DiscussionWe conclude with proposals for narrowing the research-practice gap in ED treatment and enhancing the quality of interventions for ED clients.Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

7 keywords...

hide…