Beşiroğlu Lütfullah, Yücel Ağargün Mehmet, Boysan Murat, Eryonucu Buket, Güleç Mustafa, Selvi Yavuz
Yüzüncü Yil U Tip Fak., Van.
Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2005 Fall;16(3):179-89.
We examined the reliability and validity of the 60-and 41-item versions of the Padua Inventory (PI and PI-R) which were developed to assess the frequency and severity of obsessive-compulsive symptoms, in a Turkish population.
The sample consisted of 43 OCD patients, 30 non-OCD patients with other anxiety disorders, 30 nonobsessional depressed patients, 76 healthy adults, and 181 undergraduate students. We investigated internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and factor structure, concurrent and discriminant validity.
Psychometric analyses showed that both the original PI and PI-R had a high internal consistency and test-retest reliability. While principal factor analysis of the 41 items revealed six factors that are consistent with the PI-R, the factor structure of the original scale was not confirmed. All the subcales and total scores for both instruments were significantly correlated with the Yale-Brown scores except for the impulses subscale. There were significant differences between OCD patients and nonclinical samples in all total and subscale scores for both instruments. OCD patients scored significantly higher on the total, contamination/washing and checking subscales for both instruments than nonobsessional anxious, and depressed patients. While OCD patients scored significantly higher on the PI-R rumination scale than nonobsessional anxious patients, their PI impaired control subscale score was not different from that of the other clinical groups.
The Turkish version of the PI has appropriate reliability and validity for assessing the frequency and severity of obsessive-compulsive symptoms.
我们在土耳其人群中检验了帕多瓦量表(PI和PI-R)60项和41项版本的信度和效度,这两个版本旨在评估强迫症状的频率和严重程度。
样本包括43名强迫症患者、30名患有其他焦虑症的非强迫症患者、30名无强迫观念的抑郁症患者、76名健康成年人和181名本科生。我们调查了内部一致性、重测信度、因子结构、同时效度和区分效度。
心理测量分析表明,原始的PI和PI-R都具有较高的内部一致性和重测信度。虽然对41个项目的主因子分析揭示了与PI-R一致的六个因子,但原始量表的因子结构未得到证实。除冲动子量表外,两种工具的所有子量表和总分均与耶鲁-布朗评分显著相关。强迫症患者与非临床样本在两种工具的所有总分和子量表分数上均存在显著差异。强迫症患者在两种工具的总分、污染/清洗和检查子量表上的得分均显著高于无强迫观念的焦虑症和抑郁症患者。虽然强迫症患者在PI-R沉思量表上的得分显著高于无强迫观念的焦虑症患者,但他们在PI受损控制子量表上的得分与其他临床组没有差异。
PI的土耳其语版本在评估强迫症状的频率和严重程度方面具有适当的信度和效度。