Secondary Psychometric Examination of the Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (DOCS) is a promising measure of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptoms but has received minimal psychometric attention. We evaluated the utility and reliability of DOCS scores. The study included 832 students and 300 patients with OCD. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the originally proposed four-factor structure. DOCS total and subscale scores exhibited good to excellent internal consistency in both samples (α = .82 to α = .96). Patient DOCS total scores reduced substantially during treatment (t = 16.01, d = 1.02). DOCS total scores discriminated between students and patients (sensitivity = 0.76, 1 - specificity = 0.23). The measure did not exhibit gender-based differential item functioning as tested by Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests. Expected response options for each item were plotted as a function of item response theory and demonstrated that DOCS scores incrementally discriminate OCD symptoms ranging from low to extremely high severity. Incremental differences in DOCS scores appear to represent unbiased and reliable differences in true OCD symptom severity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".