This article reviews the modifications to eating disorders that appear in the 'Feeding and Eating Disorders' chapter of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). These modifications include the addition of three disorders (avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, rumination disorder, and pica) previously described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) section 'Feeding and Eating Disorders of Infancy or Early Childhood'; clarifications and modifications to anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa; and the inclusion of binge eating disorder as a formal diagnosis. Research suggests that the majority of individuals seeking treatment for an eating disorder are classified as eating disorder not otherwise specified based on DSM-IV criteria. Using DSM-5 criteria, many of these individuals will be reassigned to a diagnosis with greater clinical utility. A large body of research also supports the inclusion of binge eating disorder as a formal diagnosis. The changes to eating disorders, recommended by the Eating Disorders Work Group, aim to clarify existing criteria and to decrease the frequency with which individuals are assigned to the heterogeneous residual category, eating disorder not otherwise specified, which provides little clinical utility.

“Though I am gone, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly believe. When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let the...

The collection and use of demographic data in psychological sciences has the potential to aid in transforming inequities brought about by unjust social conditions toward equity. However, many current methods surrounding demographic data do not achieve this goal. Some methods function to reduce, but not eliminate, inequities, whereas others may perpetuate harmful stereotypes, invalidate minoritized identities, and exclude key groups from research participation or access to disseminated findings. In this article, we aim to (a) review key ethical and social-justice dilemmas inherent to working with demographic data in psychological research and (b) introduce a framework positioned in ethics and social justice to help psychologists and researchers in social-science fields make thoughtful decisions about the collection and use of demographic data. Although demographic data methods vary across subdisciplines and research topics, we assert that these core issues—and solutions—are relevant to all research within the psychological sciences, including basic and applied research. Our overarching aim is to support key stakeholders in psychology (e.g., researchers, funding agencies, journal editors, peer reviewers) in making ethical and socially-just decisions about the collection, analysis, reporting, interpretation, and dissemination of demographic data.

This study assessed perceptions of Clinical Psychology doctoral programs' efforts to recruit and retain faculty and graduate students of color, as well as differences in perceptions based on participants' position within their program (i.e. graduate student versus faculty) and race. Participants (n = 297; 35% people of color; 79% female; mean age: 32) were graduate students and faculty from Clinical Psychology doctoral programs who completed an anonymous online survey about their programs' efforts to recruit and retain graduate students and faculty of color; sense of belonging and perceptions of racial discrimination within programs; and experiences of cultural taxation and racism within programs. Faculty (n = 95) reported significantly greater perceptions of recruitment and retention efforts and fewer perceptions of racial discrimination than did graduate students (n = 202). Asian (n = 31), Black (n = 25), and Latinx (n = 35) participants reported significantly fewer perceptions of recruitment and retention efforts, less sense of belonging, and greater perceptions of racial discrimination than did White participants (n = 192). Cultural taxation was common among participants of color, and approximately half (47%) reported they have considered leaving academia - and approximately one third (31%) have considered leaving their program - due to experiences of racism in their program or field. Cultural taxation and racial discrimination were common among scholars of color in this sample. Whether intentional or not, these experiences contribute to racially-toxic environments and negatively impact the racial diversity of the mental health workforce.

Behavioral weight loss (BWL) programs are not sufficiently effective at promoting high levels of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), despite the clear health benefits of exercise and the possibility that high levels of MVPA may improve long-term weight loss. This three-arm RCT tested the hypotheses that 1) BWL interventions with an intensive focus on exercise would result in higher amounts of MVPA and greater long-term weight loss, compared to standard BWL, and 2) among interventions with an intensive focus on exercise, outcomes would be superior when skills for exercise promotion were taught from an acceptance-based theoretical framework (which fosters willingness to accept discomfort in the service of valued behaviors), versus a traditional behavioral approach. Three hundred and twenty adults with overweight/obesity received group-based BWL for induction of weight loss (Months 1–6) and were randomized to receive one of three interventions for weight loss maintenance (Months 7–18): continued standard behavioral treatment (BT), behavioral treatment with an emphasis on exercise (BT+PA), or acceptance-based treatment with an emphasis on exercise (ABT+PA). MVPA and percent weight loss did not significantly differ by condition at 12 or 18 months. Participants engaging in relatively higher levels of MVPA had greater long-term weight losses compared to participants engaging in lower levels of MVPA. Further clinical innovations are needed so that participants in BWL programs can more readily adopt and maintain the recommended amounts of MVPA. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02363010