Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University.
Department of Psychology, Duksung Women's University.
Psychol Assess. 2019 Feb;31(2):210-225. doi: 10.1037/pas0000660. Epub 2018 Oct 11.
Although current cognitive-behavioral models suggest that maladaptive "obsessive beliefs" about threat, responsibility, uncertainty, perfectionism, importance, and control of thoughts contributes to the development of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), the structure of such beliefs is unclear. The current study evaluated a bifactor model of obsessive beliefs, as assessed by the Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire (OBQ-44), and its association with OCD symptoms in clinical (Study 1; N = 264) and nonclinical (Study 2; N = 437) samples. The goals were as follows: (a) to evaluate whether obsessive beliefs should be conceptualized as unidimensional or whether distinct dimensions should be interpreted, and (b) to use structural equation modeling to examine the extent to which distinct beliefs predict OCD symptoms above and beyond a general obsessive belief factor. Results revealed that in both clinical and nonclinical samples, a bifactor model fit the data well and significantly better than a standard three-factor model of the OBQ-44 that specified 3 separate, yet correlated factors (Responsibility/Threat Estimation, Perfectionism/Certainty, and Importance/Control of Thoughts). Despite evidence that the OBQ-44 consists of a general factor and the 3 specific factors, structural equation modeling showed that only the general factor uniquely predicted a broad OCD symptom latent factor in clinical and nonclinical samples. Although obsessive beliefs about Perfectionism/Certainty did predict symmetry and ordering symptoms of OCD when controlling for the general factor in both studies, the general factor was a more robust predictor of specific OCD symptoms than the 3 factors. These findings suggest that the general factor of the OBQ-44 may have more utility than its specific factors in predicting the heterogeneity of OCD symptoms. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
虽然目前的认知行为模型表明，对威胁、责任、不确定性、完美主义、重要性和思维控制的不良“强迫观念”有助于强迫症（OCD）的发展，但这些观念的结构尚不清楚。本研究通过强迫症观念问卷（OBQ-44）评估了强迫观念的双因素模型及其与临床（研究 1；N=264）和非临床（研究 2；N=437）样本中 OCD 症状的关系。目的如下：（a）评估强迫观念是否应该被概念化为单维的，或者是否应该解释不同的维度；（b）使用结构方程模型来检验不同的观念在多大程度上可以预测 OCD 症状，而不仅仅是一个一般的强迫观念因素。结果表明，在临床和非临床样本中，双因素模型都很好地拟合了数据，明显优于 OBQ-44 的标准三因素模型，后者指定了 3 个独立但相关的因素（责任/威胁估计、完美主义/确定性和重要性/思维控制）。尽管 OBQ-44 由一个一般因素和 3 个特定因素组成，但结构方程模型显示，只有一般因素在临床和非临床样本中才能独特地预测广泛的 OCD 症状潜在因素。尽管在两项研究中，当控制一般因素时，OBQ-44 中的完美主义/确定性的强迫观念确实可以预测 OCD 的对称和排序症状，但一般因素是预测特定 OCD 症状的更有力因素，而不是 3 个因素。这些发现表明，OBQ-44 的一般因素在预测 OCD 症状的异质性方面可能比其特定因素更有用。（PsycINFO 数据库记录（c）2019 APA，保留所有权利）。
