Examining the Relationship Between Prospective and Inhibitory Intolerance of Uncertainty, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Symptoms and Treatment Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Intolerance of uncertainty (IU) is a cognitive vulnerability factor that plays a role in obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). Most research has looked at IU at an omnibus level. This paper aimed to investigate the two dimensions of IU, prospective and inhibitory IU, and their relation to overall OCD symptom severity, as well as the severity of obsessions and compulsions. METHOD: Fifty-nine individuals with OCD completed measures of OCD symptom severity and IU at pre- and post- group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). RESULTS: IU and OCD symptoms, and their dimensions, all reduced over the CBT treatment. At the start of treatment, only prospective IU was associated with compulsion symptom severity. In contrast, at the end of treatment, prospective and inhibitory IU were associated with compulsion symptom severity, and inhibitory IU was associated with obsession symptom severity. Baseline IU, prospective and inhibitory IU were not associated with post OCD symptom severity scores, when controlling for pre-treatment OCD severity levels. Change in prospective IU was associated with changes in OCD symptom severity, and change in compulsions, but not change in obsessions. The results cannot speak to causal or temporal predictions, or directionality of the relationship between IU and OCD. CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the dynamic relationship between the IU dimensions and OCD symptoms, and highlights prospective IU as a potential important target in CBT for OCD to achieve reductions in compulsions and overall OCD symptom severity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".