Kaiser B, Bouvard M, Milliery M
Laboratoire interuniversitaire de psychologie (LIP-PC2s), département de psychologie, université de Savoie, BP 1104, 73011 Chambéry cedex, France.
Encephale. 2010 Feb;36(1):54-61. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2008.09.003. Epub 2009 Apr 1.
The aim of the present study is to explore the validity of the Padua inventory and two belief questionnaires: the obsessive beliefs questionnaire (OBQ) and the interpretation of intrusions inventory (III).
The Padua inventory is a 60-item self-report measurement of obsessive compulsive symptoms that measures both classic compulsive checking and cleaning behaviour as well as various types of obsessions, including impulses. Studies in several countries have provided support for the reliability and validity of the Padua inventory, including Italy, the Netherlands, North America, and the UK. The obsessive beliefs questionnaire assesses belief domains related to obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD): inflated responsibility, importance of thoughts, control of thoughts, overestimation of threat, perfectionism, and intolerance of uncertainty. It consists of 87 items representing dysfunctional assumptions covering these six domains. The interpretation of intrusions inventory consists of 31 items that refer to interpretations of intrusions that have occurred recently. Three of the above domains are represented: importance of thoughts, control of thoughts and responsibility. Data from clinical or non-clinical samples are used to study the factor structure, reliability, and convergent and divergent validity of these two questionnaires.
The three questionnaires were administrated to two groups of people as follows: 96 patients with OCD and 53 non-clinical subjects. The patients were selected from Rhone Alpes clinics and hospitals using DSM-IV criteria for diagnosis, prior to treatment. Diagnosis was based on semi-structured interview (MINI) and clinical interview by a trained psychiatrist using DSM-IV criteria. The second aim of the study was to investigate generality and congruence criterion of the subscales of the Padua inventory and beliefs domains in OCD symptom subtypes (rumination, washing, checking). The present study investigates whether specific OCD symptom subtypes are associated with specific symptom subscales and belief domains in an OCD sample. The criteria for categorizing a participant into an OCD symptom subtype was a score greater or equal to 75% of one main ritual. Fifty participants (52%) met these criteria: washing (n=20), rumination (n=16), checking (n=8), hoarding (n=1), perfectionism (n=3), and repeating (n=2). The other 46 subjects formed a non-specific symptom subtype (two or more rituals). Participants in the precision (perfectionism), the hoarding, and repeating symptom subtypes were excluded because of a small sample.
The Padua inventory and the two questionnaires OBQ and III discriminated between French OCD and non clinical controls. In the OCD sample, the three subtypes (washers, rumination and checkers) did not differ from each other on total YBOCS score and total Padua score. The "washer" subjects scored higher than both "checker" subjects and subjects with rumination on the washing scale of the Padua inventory. The "checker" subjects scored higher than the two other subtypes on the checking scale. The impaired mental control and urges and worries of losing control scales failed to discriminate between the subjects with rumination and the two other (checking and washing) subtypes. The OBQ total and the six subscale scores failed to discriminate between the three OCD subtypes. These results were replicated with the III. The ANOVAs revealed that the participants in the rumination symptom subtype scored higher only on the importance/control of thoughts of the OBQ-44 than the participants in the checking subtype. Implications for future research are discussed.
本研究旨在探讨帕多瓦量表以及两份信念问卷的有效性,这两份问卷分别是强迫信念问卷(OBQ)和闯入性思维解释量表(III)。
帕多瓦量表是一份包含60个条目的自陈式强迫症状测量工具,可测量经典的强迫检查和清洁行为以及各类强迫观念,包括冲动观念。在包括意大利、荷兰、北美和英国在内的多个国家开展的研究均支持了帕多瓦量表的信效度。强迫信念问卷评估与强迫症(OCD)相关的信念领域:夸大责任感、思维重要性、思维控制、高估威胁、完美主义以及对不确定性的不容忍。该问卷由87个条目组成,代表涵盖这六个领域的功能失调性假设。闯入性思维解释量表由31个条目组成,涉及对近期发生的闯入性思维的解释。上述三个领域在该量表中有所体现:思维重要性、思维控制和责任感。来自临床或非临床样本的数据用于研究这两份问卷的因子结构、信度以及聚合效度和区分效度。
将这三份问卷施测于两组人群,具体如下:96名强迫症患者和53名非临床受试者。这些患者选自罗纳-阿尔卑斯大区的诊所和医院,在治疗前依据《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM-IV)标准进行诊断。诊断基于半结构化访谈(MINI)以及由一名经过培训的精神科医生依据DSM-IV标准进行的临床访谈。本研究的第二个目的是调查帕多瓦量表各分量表以及强迫症症状亚型(反刍、洗涤、检查)中信念领域的普遍性和一致性标准。本研究调查在一个强迫症样本中,特定强迫症症状亚型是否与特定症状分量表和信念领域相关。将一名参与者归类为某种强迫症症状亚型的标准是其在一项主要仪式行为上的得分大于或等于该行为总分的75%。50名参与者(52%)符合这些标准:洗涤(n = 20)、反刍(n = 16)、检查(n = 8)、囤积(n = 1)、完美主义(n = 3)以及重复行为(n = 2)。其他46名受试者构成非特定症状亚型(两种或更多仪式行为)。由于样本量较小,完美主义、囤积和重复症状亚型的参与者被排除。
帕多瓦量表以及OBQ和III这两份问卷能够区分法国强迫症患者和非临床对照者。在强迫症样本中,三种亚型(洗涤者、反刍者和检查者)在耶鲁-布朗强迫症量表(YBOCS)总分和帕多瓦量表总分上没有差异。“洗涤者”受试者在帕多瓦量表的洗涤分量表上的得分高于“检查者”受试者和反刍者。“检查者”受试者在检查分量表上的得分高于其他两种亚型。心理控制受损以及失控冲动和担忧分量表未能区分反刍者与其他两种(检查和洗涤)亚型。OBQ总分及六个分量表得分未能区分三种强迫症亚型。III的结果与之相同。方差分析显示,反刍症状亚型的参与者仅在OBQ - 44的思维重要性/控制分量表上的得分高于检查亚型的参与者。文中讨论了对未来研究的启示。