Consistency between self-report and clinician-administered versions of the Yale-Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale

Federici, Anita; Summerfeldt, Laura J.; Harrington, Jennifer L.; McCabe, Randi E.; Purdon, Christine; Rowa, Karen; Antony, Martin M.

doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.05.005

Cited by 142 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondary outcomes are listed in Table 1, adapted with permission from Gellatly et al As research has demonstrated a moderate relationship between the Y-BOCS-OR and Y-BOCS-SR in a clinical sample of OCD patients, 45 it was agreed at the inception of the trial that, where it was not possible to complete the Y-BOCS-OR (primary outcome measure), the Y-BOCS-SR would be used as a proxy for the primary outcome.…”

Section: Secondary Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive–compulsive disorder: the Obsessive–Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET)

Lovell

Bower

Gellatly

et al. 2017

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Obsessive–Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial emerged from a research recommendation in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) guidelines, which specified the need to evaluate cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) treatment intensity formats.ObjectivesTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two low-intensity CBT interventions [supported computerised cognitive–behavioural therapy (cCBT) and guided self-help]: (1) compared with waiting list for high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 3 months; and (2) plus high-intensity CBT compared with waiting list plus high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 12 months. To determine patient and professional acceptability of low-intensity CBT interventions.DesignA three-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.SettingImproving Access to Psychological Therapies services and primary/secondary care mental health services in 15 NHS trusts.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥ 18 years meetingDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition criteria for OCD, on a waiting list for high-intensity CBT and scoring ≥ 16 on the Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (indicative of at least moderate severity OCD) and able to read English.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to (1) supported cCBT, (2) guided self-help or (3) a waiting list for high-intensity CBT.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was OCD symptoms using the Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale – Observer Rated.ResultsPatients were recruited from 14 NHS trusts between February 2011 and May 2014. Follow-up data collection was complete by May 2015. There were 475 patients randomised: supported cCBT (n = 158); guided self-help (n = 158) and waiting list for high-intensity CBT (n = 159). Two patients were excluded post randomisation (one supported cCBT and one waiting list for high-intensity CBT); therefore, data were analysed for 473 patients. In the short term, prior to accessing high-intensity CBT, guided self-help demonstrated statistically significant benefits over waiting list, but these benefits did not meet the prespecified criterion for clinical significance [adjusted mean difference –1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) –3.27 to –0.55;p = 0.006]. Supported cCBT did not demonstrate any significant benefit (adjusted mean difference –0.71, 95% CI –2.12 to 0.70). In the longer term, access to guided self-help and supported cCBT, prior to high-intensity CBT, did not lead to differences in outcomes compared with access to high-intensity CBT alone. Access to guided self-help and supported cCBT led to significant reductions in the uptake of high-intensity CBT; this did not seem to compromise patient outcomes at 12 months. Taking a decision-making approach, which focuses on which decision has a higher probability of being cost-effective, rather than the statistical significance of the results, there was little evidence that supported cCBT and guided self-help are cost-effective at the 3-month follow-up compared with a waiting list. However, by the 12-month follow-up, data suggested a greater probability of guided self-help being cost-effective than a waiting list from the health- and social-care perspective (60%) and the societal perspective (80%), and of supported cCBT being cost-effective compared with a waiting list from both perspectives (70%). Qualitative interviews found that guided self-help was more acceptable to patients than supported cCBT. Professionals acknowledged the advantages of low intensity interventions at a population level. No adverse events occurred during the trial that were deemed to be suspected or unexpected serious events.LimitationsA significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the high level of access to high-intensity CBT during the waiting list period.ConclusionsAlthough low-intensity interventions are not associated with clinically significant improvements in OCD symptoms, economic analysis over 12 months suggests that low-intensity interventions are cost-effective and may have an important role in OCD care pathways. Further research to enhance the clinical effectiveness of these interventions may be warranted, alongside research on how best to incorporate them into care pathways.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN73535163.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Section: Secondary Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive–compulsive disorder: the Obsessive–Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET)

Lovell

Bower

Gellatly

et al. 2017

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As respostas são dadas numa escala de cinco pontos, que varia entre 0 (Sem sintomas) e 4 (Muito grave). O Y-BOCS tem mostrado boas propriedades psicométricas, em amostras clínicas (Federici et al, 2010) e não-clínicas (Frost, Steketee, Krause, & Trepanier, 1995). No nosso estudo, o Y-BOCS apresentou valores adequados do alpha de Cronbach, quer para a escala total (α=.848), quer para as subescalas relativas às obsessões (α=.721) e compulsões (α=.740).…”

Section: Participantesunclassified

Propriedades psicométricas da versão portuguesa do Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory – Revised

Faria¹,

Cardoso²

2017

Análise Psicológica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foram examinadas as propriedades psicométricas da versão Portuguesa do Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory -Revised (OCI-R; Foa et al., 2002) em duas amostras não-clínicas (N=509). A estrutura original de seis fatores correlacionados foi confirmada através de uma análise fatorial confirmatória, tendo sido igualmente evidenciada a invariância estrutural segundo o sexo do OCI-R. Os resultados, para a escala total e cada uma das subescalas, revelaram boa consistência interna, validade convergente e divergente e confiabilidade teste-reteste após um intervalo de um mês. Conclui-se que a versão em Português do OCI-R retém as boas propriedades psicométricas da versão original sendo um instrumento adequado para avaliar os sintomas obsessivo-compulsivos em amostras não-clínicas.

show abstract

“…The self-report version of the scale has shown to have strong convergent validity with the original expert rating scale (Schaible et al, 2001;Steketee et al, 1996). To further improve the validity of the ratings, we provided definitions for obsessions and compulsions as patients sometimes confuse obsessions with others symptoms such as mental compulsions potentially compromising the validity of the self-rating (Federici et al, 2010). The ObsessiveeCompulsive Inventory-Revised (OCI-R; Foa et al, 2002; German version by Gönner et al, 2008) was administered to evaluate the frequency and distress experienced by OC symptoms across six subscales: washing, obsessing, hoarding, ordering, checking, and neutralizing.…”

Section: Questionnairesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Larger than life: Overestimation of object size is moderated by personal relevance in obsessive–compulsive disorder

Moritz

Alpers

Schilling

et al. 2011

Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Consistency between self-report and clinician-administered versions of the Yale-Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale

Cited by 142 publications

References 14 publications

Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive–compulsive disorder: the Obsessive–Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET)

Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive–compulsive disorder: the Obsessive–Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET)

Propriedades psicométricas da versão portuguesa do Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory – Revised

Larger than life: Overestimation of object size is moderated by personal relevance in obsessive–compulsive disorder

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About