Belief in the obsessional doubt as a real probability and its relation to other obsessive‐compulsive beliefs and to the severity of symptomatology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite the important role of doubt in understanding obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), current cognitive models of OCD usually do not separate this initial doubt from the anticipated consequence of not ritualizing. The current study evaluates belief in the obsessional doubt as a real probability as an additional cognitive dimension of obsessive-compulsive (OC) beliefs. METHODS: One hundred and fifteen participants with OCD completed four clinical scales measuring different OC beliefs in: (a) the real probability of obsessional doubt; (b) the realism of anticipated consequences; (c) the degree of conviction in the need to perform rituals; and (d) the perceived ability to resist rituals. The severity of symptomatology was also evaluated. DESIGN: Using cross-sectional and longitudinal data, correlational analyses were performed to determine the relationship between OC beliefs as well as to observe how these beliefs may be related to the severity of symptomatology and how they fluctuated over time. Regression analyses were also employed to verify which OC beliefs better predicted the perceived ability to resist rituals. RESULTS: Belief in the obsessional doubt as a real probability was significantly related to other OC beliefs. Also, levels of belief for the same doubt remained stable for a period of two weeks, but different levels of belief were observed for distinct obsessional doubts measured at the same time. Finally, belief in the obsessional doubt as a real probability better predicted the perceived ability to resist rituals than other OC beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: Belief in the obsessional doubt as a real probability may be an important dimension to consider when evaluating OC beliefs in treatment resistant OCD, particularly in people who have low perceived ability to resist rituals.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".