Early Maladaptive Schemas in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Anxiety Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Purpose of this study is comparing early maladaptive schemas which are active in patients suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety disorders together, considering recent DSM-5 changes through which OCD has been placed in a separate and new diagnostic level. METHODOLOGY: This research is a causal-comparative study. 151 persons were categorized in three groups of people suffering from OCD (50), suffering from anxiety disorders (50), and control group (51). Early diagnosis of disorders in two clinical groups were verified based on structured clinical interview for DSM )SCID-I) and Yale-Brown obsessive-compulsive scale (Y-BOCS). General health questionnaire (GHQ-28), the short versions of the Young schemas questionnaire (YSQ), and Padua inventory-Washington State University Revision (PI-WSUR) were also implemented. FINDINGS: Findings revealed that mean scores of all schemas of those suffering from anxiety disorders, except for Self-Sacrifice, Unrelenting-Standards/Hypercriticalness, Entitlement/Grandiosity schemas, and mean scores of all early maladaptive schemas of those suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder are significantly higher than those of control group. OCD group had significantly higher scores in Emotional Deprivation, Mistrust/Abuse, and Defectiveness/Shame schemas than anxiety disorders group. Defectiveness/Shame and Vulnerability to Harm or Illness schemas can explain 38 percent of variance of obsessive compulsive symptoms. CONCLUSION: The dominant and specific early maladaptive schemas of OCD are Defectiveness/Shame, Mistrust/Abuse, and Emotional Deprivation Schemas. This study besides supporting the theory of early maladaptive schemas, suggests that interventions based on specific schemas can be useful methods in treatment of OCD and anxiety disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".