Objective Research and theory suggest the aetiological nature and symptomatic profile of eating disorders (EDs) can be explained by multiple factors, including the development of early maladaptive schemas (EMS). Yet, there is lack of consensus regarding the evidence supporting the relationship between EMS and EDs. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to examine existing literature concerning the relationship between different ED diagnoses and EMS to provide a synthesis and evaluation of relevant research. Method A comprehensive literature search of four electronic databases was conducted and studies were included that examined the association between EMS and EDs. Studies were required to use a variant of Young Schema Questionnaire and establish ED diagnosis or symptomology using self‐report questionnaires or clinical interview. Results A total of 29 studies were included in the review. Compared to healthy controls and varying clinical populations, individuals with EDs generally reported significantly higher scores across all EMS except for Entitlement. Furthermore, Unrelenting Standards consistently appeared as a significant EMS across all ED diagnoses whilst Insufficient Self‐Control was significantly lower in ED diagnoses with restrictive behaviour compared to diagnoses with binge eating or purging behaviour. Discussion Research supports significant associations between EMS and EDs, which may contribute to our understanding of ED aetiology, including different diagnostic categories. This review underscores the need for studies to explore more gender and age diverse samples and highlights important implications for practitioners.

Objective The current study aimed to examine the relationship between early adaptive schemas and eating disorder symptomatology in adults. Method A cross‐sectional, correlational design was used to collect data from 352 females and 36 males aged between 18 and 49 years (M = 25.70, SD = 7.04). Participants completed an online questionnaire, which included The Young Positive Schema Questionnaire (YPSQ), Eating Disorder Examination‐Questionnaire (EDE‐Q) and demographic measures. Results Four separate hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that high levels of Healthy Boundaries and low levels of Optimism significantly predicted lower Restraint, Eating Concern, Shape Concern and Weight Concern scores. Additionally, higher scores in Emotional Openness and Social Belonging significantly predicted lower Eating Concern, while higher scores in Self‐Care significantly predicted lower levels of Shape Concern. Conclusion The findings highlight the protective function that certain early adaptive schemas may play in mitigating eating disorder symptomatology. Moreover, the findings allude to potential modifiable therapy targets in the treatment of eating disorders. Further research is needed to investigate any differences in early adaptive schemas between eating disorder diagnoses.

Purpose The Young Positive Schema Questionnaire (YPSQ) measures early adaptive schemas (EAS) which could be used to develop positive psychology and schema-based interventions to benefit the treatment of eating disorders (EDs). Methods The present study investigated the factor structure of the YPSQ in a sample of 826 participants (18–73 years; n = 753 women) with ED symptomatology (e.g., restricting, binging, and purging). The sample was randomly split into two groups for exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Full sample analysis using Pearson correlations was conducted to explore convergent validity of the new YSPQ factor structure with ED symptomatology, emotional regulation, and cognitive flexibility. Results A nine-factor model was found, demonstrating good fit indices and internal consistency (α = 0.77–0.92). The YPSQ showed an inverse relationship to ED symptomatology and emotional suppression, and a positive relationship with cognitive flexibility and emotion reappraisal. Conclusion Further research is needed to explore the clinical benefits of the YPSQ to identify EAS deficits in individuals with EDs to improve treatment outcomes. Level of evidence Level V, descriptive study.