Spanish version of the Inferential Confusion Questionnaire‐Expanded Version: Further support for the role of inferential confusion in obsessive–compulsive symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this research were (1) to analyse the psychometric properties of the Inferential Confusion Questionnaire-Expanded Version (ICQ-EV) in a Spanish population; (2) to explore the role of inferential confusion in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD); and (3) to compare the inferential confusion construct in nonclinical and clinical samples. A sample of 342 nonclinical participants and 66 patients with OCD completed the ICQ-EV Spanish adaptation as well as a set of questionnaires. Results confirmed a good fit of the ICQ-EV Spanish version to the original unifactorial structure and excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Moreover, results confirmed that the ICQ-EV predicts Obsessing, Checking, Washing, and Hoarding symptoms, independently of the contribution of dysfunctional beliefs. In addition, OCD patients scored significantly higher on the ICQ-EV than nonclinical participants. The Spanish version of the ICQ-EV is a reliable instrument to assess inferential confusion, and further support is provided for the relevance of the inferential confusion construct in OCD.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".