Calamari John E, Wiegartz Pamela S, Riemann Bradley C, Cohen Robyn J, Greer Alyssa, Jacobi David M, Jahn Susan C, Carmin Cheryl
Department of Psychology, Finch University of Health Sciences/The Chicago Medical School, 3333 Green Bay Road, North Chicago, IL 60064, USA.
Behav Res Ther. 2004 Jun;42(6):647-70. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00173-6.
A symptom-based subgroup taxonomy for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) was evaluated and refined. The Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale symptom checklist was scored and cluster analysis was conducted with a sample of OCD patients (N = 114). Results were compared to Calamari et al.'s (Behaviour Research and Therapy 37 (1999) 113) five subgroup model. Rules for determining the number of subgroups supported a more complex model. In between sample comparisons, a stable contamination subgroup was found in both a five and seven subgroup taxonomy. Between sample stability was not as strong for Harming, Obsessionals, Symmetry, and Certainty subgroups. Hoarding, as a distinctive subgroup, was unstable in separate samples. When the Calamari et al. sample and the present sample were combined (N = 220), we found a reliable Hoarding subgroup. More interpretable and stable models emerged with the combined samples suggesting that large clinical samples are needed to identify OCD subgroups. Greater support was found for a seven subgroup taxonomy based subgroup interpretability and validation measure differences. The potential utility of symptom-based subgroup models of OCD and alternative approaches are discussed. Identification of reliable and valid OCD subtypes may advance theory and treatment.
对一种基于症状的强迫症(OCD)亚组分类法进行了评估和完善。对耶鲁-布朗强迫症量表症状清单进行评分,并对一组强迫症患者样本(N = 114)进行聚类分析。将结果与卡拉马里等人(《行为研究与治疗》37(1999)113)的五亚组模型进行比较。确定亚组数量的规则支持一个更复杂的模型。在样本间比较中,在五亚组和七亚组分类法中均发现了一个稳定的污染亚组。伤害、强迫观念、对称和确定性亚组在样本间的稳定性不强。囤积作为一个独特的亚组,在不同样本中不稳定。当将卡拉马里等人的样本与本样本合并(N = 220)时,我们发现了一个可靠的囤积亚组。合并样本产生了更具可解释性和稳定性的模型,这表明需要大的临床样本以识别强迫症亚组。基于亚组可解释性和验证测量差异,七亚组分类法获得了更多支持。讨论了基于症状的强迫症亚组模型的潜在效用和替代方法。识别可靠且有效的强迫症亚型可能会推动理论和治疗的发展。