Changes in harm avoidance and incompleteness across group CBT for OCD and their relationship with symptom change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptoms are hypothesized to be driven by two core motivations: harm avoidance and incompleteness. While cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for OCD, many posit that OCD presentations characterized by high incompleteness may be harder to treat. The relationship between the core motivations and treatment outcomes remains to be further explored. AIMS: To investigate if harm avoidance and incompleteness decrease across group CBT and to examine the relationship between treatment outcomes and both baseline and changes in harm avoidance and incompleteness throughout treatment. METHOD: A naturalistic sample of 65 adult out-patients with OCD completed self-report questionnaires measuring OCD symptom severity and the core motivations before, during, and after 12 weeks of group CBT for OCD. RESULTS: Harm avoidance and incompleteness scores significantly decreased from pre- to post-treatment. Pre-treatment harm avoidance and incompleteness levels did not predict post-treatment symptom severity, but changes in the core motivations throughout treatment were significant predictors of treatment outcome. Specifically, reductions in harm avoidance across treatment and reductions in incompleteness early in treatment, were associated with better treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Participants who completed group CBT for OCD experienced modest reductions in the core motivations thought to maintain OCD symptoms and these changes predicted better outcomes. However, pre-treatment levels of harm avoidance and incompleteness do not appear to moderate treatment outcome.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".