Family Accommodation of Symptoms in Adults With Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Factor Structure and Usefulness of the Family Accommodation Scale for OCD–Patient Version
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), family accommodation of symptoms, such as over-reassurance, participation in rituals, or facilitation of avoidance, is one of the key factors associated with symptom severity, maintenance, and related impairment. Most studies have assessed accommodation behaviors based on reports from family members or other loved ones. Recently, a patient-rated questionnaire, the Family Accommodation Scale for OCD-Patient Version (FAS-PV) was developed to assess family accommodation from the patient's perspective. This study investigated the factor structure of the FAS-PV and clinical variables associated with patient-reported family accommodation in a sample of 151 treatment-seeking adults with OCD. A confirmatory factor analysis suggested that a 4-factor model best characterized the scale, with the following factors: (1) participation in symptoms, (2) avoidance of OCD triggers, (3) taking on responsibilities, and (4) modifying responsibilities. Internal consistency was high for the total score and for scores on the 4 subscales of the FAS-PV. Approximately 87% of the sample reported accommodation behaviors at some level. Family accommodation was positively correlated with OCD symptom severity and functional disability, and partially mediated the associations between these 2 factors, so that greater OCD severity was associated with greater accommodation, which, in turn, was associated with greater disability. Our findings parallel those of studies that have employed other versions of the FAS and suggest that the FAS-PV is a useful tool for assessing family accommodation of OCD symptoms from the patient's perspective.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".