Validating an abbreviated version of the Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire

Gagné, Jean-Philippe; Kirk, Nathaniel Van; Hernandez-Vallant, Alexandra; Potluri, Sriramya; Krompinger, Jason W.; Cattie, Jordan E.; Garner, Lauryn E.; Crosby, Jesse M.; Brennan, Brian P.; Elias, Jason A.

doi:10.1002/jclp.22629

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To examine whether the IU questionnaires reflect the IU concept, previous articles compared the seven IU questionnaires with relevant clinical variables, such as worry, anxiety, OCD, and depression (Carleton et al, 2007; Cowie et al, 2018; Huntley et al, 2020; Moulding et al, 2011; Osmanağaoğlu et al, 2021; Rifkin & Kendall, 2020). Several articles also investigated the associations between these IU measures and other cognitive, emotional, and behavioral variables, such as metacognitive beliefs, anxiety sensitivity, fear and obsessive behaviors, and personality variables (Bredemeier et al, 2019; Gagné et al, 2018; Hong & Lee, 2015; Khawaja & Yu, 2010; Nagel et al, 2023; Rodgers et al, 2016; Wilson et al, 2020). Although different articles used different instruments to test the convergent validity of the IU questionnaires, the associations found suggest reasonable convergent validity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How is “intolerance of uncertainty” (IU) measured? A systematic review of assessment tools for IU and the psychometric properties of IU questionnaires.

Lin,

Mason,

Zhong

et al. 2024

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Intolerance of uncertainty (IU), a negative cognitive, emotional, and behavioral response to uncertainties, is a transdiagnostic trait associated with a wide range of mental health conditions. To clarify which IU assessment tools are best used in clinical or nonclinical populations, the present study aimed to systematically identify all IU measures and synthesis the psychometric properties of IU questionnaires. Method: Six databases including PubMed, Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched in two stages. All the evidence of psychometric properties were extracted, assessed, and summarized following the adapted COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments guidelines by two independent reviewers. Results: Forty-seven questionnaire names relevant to the concepts of IU or uncertainty were identified in Stage 1. Fifty-four IU-relevant articles and seven IU questionnaires were identified in Stage 2. There was no best measure for IU that reported the best psychometric properties with the best quality measure. Most of the IU questionnaires only reported sufficient internal consistency and convergent validity with good quality. Discussion: Recommendations for the choice of IU questionnaire to be used in the general population, specific populations, different age groups, and assessing distinct aspects of IU are given. Future research could develop or adapt IU measures to address the issues around the psychometric properties raised in this study. Public Health Significance StatementIntolerance of uncertainty (IU)-extremely negative response to uncertainties-is a trait associated with poor mental health. Measuring IU accurately is vital for understanding a wide range of mental health conditions and for interventions. In this study, we identified all IU assessment tools and evaluated the psychometric properties of IU questionnaires (the most commonly used type of IU measure). Suggestions are given for clinicians and researchers to help them select the most suitable IU questionnaire for specific purposes, situations, and target populations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How is “intolerance of uncertainty” (IU) measured? A systematic review of assessment tools for IU and the psychometric properties of IU questionnaires.

Lin,

Mason,

Zhong

et al. 2024

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their body weight (kg) and height (cm) were self-reported. To evaluate the convergent validity of TON-17, the Eating Attitudes Test Short-Form (EAT-26) [ 29 , 30 ] and the Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire Short-Form-9 (OBQ-9) [ 31 , 32 ] were used. The eating behaviors of the participants were evaluated with EAT-26, and obsessive disorders were evaluated with OBQ-9.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Turkish Version of the New Instrument for Orthorexia Nervosa—Test of Orthorexia Nervosa (TON-17): A Validity and Reliability Study

Yassıbaş

Ayyıldız

2023

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to adapt the Test of Orthorexia Nervosa- (TON-17) into Turkish and verify its validity and reliability. The study included 539 adults with a mean age of 30.2 ± 12.26 years. A reliability analysis was performed, along with a confirmatory factor analysis to test its construct validity. The time-invariance of the scale was examined by test–retest analysis, and its convergent validity was evaluated by a correlation analysis conducted to test the relationships between the scale and Eating Attitudes Test-26 and Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire-9. Analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 28 and the AMOS-24 software. The Cronbach’s α internal consistency coefficient of the total scale was found to be 0.82, suggesting a strong internal consistency. The Cronbach’s α values of its factors were 0.68 for the “control of food quality”, 0.64 for the “fixation on health and a healthy diet”, and 0.73 for the “disorder symptoms”. In addition, the test–retest reliability was found to be 0.87 for the total scale, suggesting excellent reliability. Most of the fit indices (CMIN/df, RMSEA, AGFI, NFI, and TLI) of the scale were acceptable, and the GFI indicated a good model fit. This study shows that the Turkish version of TON-17, which is a new tool with a three-factor structure to evaluate orthorexia, is a valid and reliable scale.

show abstract

“…Their body weight (kg) and height (cm) were based on their self-report. The Eating Attitudes Test-Short Form (EAT-26) was used to evaluate the participants' eating behaviors [35,36], and the Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire-Short Form 9 (OBQ-9) to evaluate their existing obsessive disorders [37,38].…”

Section: Design and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire (OBQ), which was developed by an international working group to evaluate cognitive biases speci c to obsessive compulsive disorder and consisted of 87 items in its initial version, was later used as OBQ-44 with 44 items [40,41]. Gagné et al [37] Both the total score and the 3 sub-dimension scores of the scale can be used separately [38]. In this study, the Cronbach's α was found to be 0.762 for the total OBQ-9.…”

Section: Eating Attitudes Test-short Form (Eat-26)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Turkish version of the new instrument for Orthorexia Nervosa -Test of Orthorexia Nervosa (TON-17): a validity and reliability study

Yassıbaş

Ayyıldız

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There are several scales to evaluate orthorexia nervosa (ON), a pathological obsession, fixation or preoccupation with healthy foods. However, studies report that some of these scales have poor internal consistency and some do not have test-retest reliability, therefore new scales are needed to evaluate ON correctly. This study aims to adapt the Test of Orthorexia Nervosa-17 (TON-17) into Turkish and verify its validity and reliability. Methods The study included a total of 539 adults, 131 men (24.3%) and 408 women (75.7%), with a mean age of 30.2 ± 12.26 years. A reliability analysis was performed and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test its construct validity. Time invariance of the scale was examined by test-retest analysis, and its convergent validity was evaluated by a correlation analysis conducted to test relationships between the scale and other theoretically relevant instruments (EAT-26 and OBQ-9). Analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 23 and the AMOS program. Results The Cronbach's α internal consistency coefficient of the total scale was found to be 0.820, suggesting a strong internal consistency. The Cronbach's α values of its factors were 0.681 for the Factor 1, 0.643 for the Factor 2, and 0.726 for the Factor 3. In addition, the test-retest reliability was found as 0.868 for the total scale, suggesting an excellent reliability. The most of fit indices (CMIN/df, RMSEA, AGFI, NFI and TLI) of the scale were acceptable, and the GFI indicated a good model fit. Conclusion This study has shown that the Turkish version of TON-17, which is a new tool with three-factor structure to evaluate both healthy and unhealthy orthorexia, is valid and reliable scale. Studies of TON-17 on diverse cultures will contribute to the literature. Therefore, examining the validity and reliability of TON-17 in diverse cultures and populations may contribute to developing the gold standard scale for evaluating ON in future studies.

show abstract

Validating an abbreviated version of the Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire

Abstract: The OBQ-9 appears to be a psychometrically sound tool for routine outcome monitoring of dysfunctional beliefs in hospital-based settings.

Cited by 13 publications

References 66 publications

How is “intolerance of uncertainty” (IU) measured? A systematic review of assessment tools for IU and the psychometric properties of IU questionnaires.

How is “intolerance of uncertainty” (IU) measured? A systematic review of assessment tools for IU and the psychometric properties of IU questionnaires.

Turkish Version of the New Instrument for Orthorexia Nervosa—Test of Orthorexia Nervosa (TON-17): A Validity and Reliability Study

Turkish version of the new instrument for Orthorexia Nervosa -Test of Orthorexia Nervosa (TON-17): a validity and reliability study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About