A Psychometric Examination of the Dimensional Obsessive Compulsive Scale in a Treatment-Seeking Youth Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Dimensional Obsessive Compulsive Scale (DOCS) was developed to address several limitations of existing self-report measures of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) symptoms, and has been found to be a psychometrically sound method of assessing OCD symptoms in adults. However, to date, the psychometric performance of the DOCS has not been studied in a youth sample. The present study addressed this gap in the literature by examining the psychometric properties of the DOCS in a large sample (n=182) of treatment-seeking youth diagnosed with OCD. Results indicated that the DOCS showed good convergent validity with a youth OCD assessment scale, as well as similar sensitivity to the effects of treatment-related change in symptom severity. The DOCS also maintained its original four-factor structure in the youth sample, similar to findings in adults, supporting the consistency of the four subscales included. Overall, the DOCS appears to represent a promising method for assessing OCD symptom severity and response to treatment of OCD in youth.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".