Structure of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Criteria for Obsessive—Compulsive Personality Disorder in Patients with Binge Eating Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine 1-, 2-, and 3-factor model structures through confirmatory analytic procedures for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) criteria in patients with binge eating disorder (BED). METHOD: Participants were consecutive outpatients (n = 263) with binge eating disorder and were assessed with semi-structured interviews. The 8 OCPD criteria were submitted to confirmatory factor analyses in Mplus Version 4.2 (Los Angeles, CA) in which previously identified factor models of OCPD were compared for fit, theoretical relevance, and parsimony. Nested models were compared for significant improvements in model fit. RESULTS: Evaluation of indices of fit in combination with theoretical considerations suggest a multifactorial model is a significant improvement in fit over the current DSM-IV single- factor model of OCPD. Though the data support both 2- and 3-factor models, the 3-factor model is hindered by an underspecified third factor. CONCLUSION: A multifactorial model of OCPD incorporating the factors perfectionism and rigidity represents the best compromise of fit and theory in modelling the structure of OCPD in patients with BED. A third factor representing miserliness may be relevant in BED populations but needs further development. The perfectionism and rigidity factors may represent distinct intrapersonal and interpersonal attempts at control and may have implications for the assessment of OCPD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".