The OCI-CV-R: A Revision of the Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory - Child Version
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
BACKGROUND: The Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory-Children's Version (OCI-CV) was developed to assess obsessive-compulsive symptoms in youth. Recent changes in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) exclude hoarding from inclusion in the diagnosis of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Accordingly, the present study examined the reliability, validity, factorial structure, and diagnostic sensitivity of a revised version of the scale - the OCI-CV-R- that excludes items assessing hoarding. METHODS: Participant were 1047 youth, including 489 meeting DSM criteria for primary OCD, 298 clinical controls, and 260 nonclinical controls, who completed the OCI-CV and measures of obsessive-compulsive symptom severity, depression, and anxiety at various treatment and research centers. RESULTS: Findings support a five-factor structure (doubting/checking, obsessing, washing, ordering, and neutralizing), with a higher order factor. Factorial invariance was found for older (12-17 years) and younger (7-11 years) children. Internal consistency of the OCI-CV-R was acceptable, and discriminant and convergent validity were adequate and akin to that of its progenitor. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were found for a total score of 8 and higher. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the OCI-CV-R replace the former version, and that this measure serve as part of a comprehensive clinical assessment of youth with OCD. Recommendations for further research with ethnically and racially diverse samples, as well as the need to establish benchmark scores are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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