The Mediating Role of Alexithymia in the Relationship of Coping Strategies and Personality Traits With Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is one of the severe psychological health problems imposing considerable social and economic costs on society. OCD debilitating symptoms can disrupt interpersonal relations, job performance, and life quality. The purpose of this study is to investigate the mediating role of alexithymia in the relationship between coping strategies and personality traits with OCD. Methods & Materials: This is a descriptive correlational study. The study population consists of all people with OCD referred to psychiatric clinics in Kerman City, Iran, during 2018-2019. Of this population, 200 patients were selected using a convenience sampling method. Research instruments included the ways of coping questionnaire, NEO five-factor personality inventory, Toronto alexithymia scale, and Maudsley obsessive-compulsive test. The obtained data were analyzed using the Pearson correlation test and simultaneous and hierarchical regression in SPSS v. 23. Findings: Personality traits had a negative significant correlation with alexithymia (r=0.523, P<0.000) and OCD (r=0.253, P<0.000). Alexithymia had a significant positive correlation with OCD (r=0.272, P<0.000). There was no correlation between problem-focused coping and alexithymia (r=-0.045, P<0.531). There was a positive correlation between emotion-focused coping and OCD (r=0.198, P<0.000). The fit indices indicated a good fit of the proposed model (P<0.005). Conclusion: Alexithymia, as a mediator of the relationship between coping styles and personality traits with OCD, plays an essential role in improving the psychological health of people with 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".