An ultra-brief screening scale for pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder: The OCI-CV-5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is an often disabling and chronic condition that is normally assessed using diagnostic interviews or lengthy self-report questionnaires. This makes routine screening in general health settings impractical, and as a result OCD is often under-(or mis-)recognized. The present study reports on the development of an ultra-brief version of the Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory-Child Version (OCI-CV) which may be administered routinely as a screener for pediatric OCD. METHOD: A total of 489 youth diagnosed with OCD, 259 non-clinical controls, and 299 youth with other disorders completed the OCI-CV and other indices of psychopathology. Using item analyses, we extracted five items and examined the measure's factor structure, sensitivity and specificity, and convergent and discriminant validity. RESULTS: We extracted five items that assess different dimensions of OCD (washing, checking, ordering, obsessing, neutralizing/counting), termed the OCI-CV-5. Results revealed that the measure possesses good to excellent psychometric properties, and a cutoff off (≥2) yielded optimal sensitivity and specificity. LIMITATIONS: Participants were predominantly White. In addition, more research is needed to examine the OCI-CV-5's test-retest reliability and sensitivity to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The OCI-CV-5 shows promise as an ultra-brief self-report screener for identifying OCD in youth when in-depth assessment is unfeasible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".