Psychometric Properties of the Obsessive—Compulsive Inventory—Revised in a Turkish Analogue Sample
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory-Revised (OCI-R) assesses distress associated with the symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). This study reports on the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the OCI-R as a widely known measure. The sample consisted of 319 Turkish university students (67.1% women; M age = 21.5, SD = 2.0). The questionnaire battery included measures of OCD symptoms, specific cognitions, thought control, and personality characteristics. A target rotation analysis supported the factorial validity of the Turkish OCI-R as indicated by its replicability with the original factor structure (i.e., checking, washing, obsessing, hoarding, ordering, and mental neutralizing). High-scoring OCD symptom groups also significantly differed on the Turkish OCI-R and thus presented preliminary evidence for its criterion validity. Correlational analysis supported convergent and divergent validity of the measure, with significant correlations between the Turkish OCI-R and OCD symptoms, OCD-specific beliefs, two thought control strategies (e.g., worry and punishment), and neuroticism, but not with psychoticism or extraversion. The current findings provide initial evidence of sound psychometric properties for the Turkish OCI-R in a nonclinical sample.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it