A New Scrupulosity Scale for the Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (DOCS): Validation With Clinical and Nonclinical Samples. Issue 6 (November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wetterneck, Chad T.; Rouleau, Traleena M.; Williams, Monnica T.; Vallely, Anne; La Torre, Joseph T.; Björgvinsson, Thröstur
• Is Part Of: Behavior therapy. Volume 52:Issue 6(2021)
• Page Start: 1449
• Page End: 1463
• Publication Date: 2021-11
• Subjects: obsessive-compulsive disorder -- scrupulosity -- religiosity -- assessment; Behavior therapy -- Periodicals; 616.8914205
• DOI: 10.1016/j.beth.2021.04.001
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0005-7894

Abstract

Highlights: We have created a new subscale for the DOCS about Scrupulosity/Religious Thoughts (DOCS-SR). The DOCS-SR has good psychometric properties in non-clinical and clinical samples. The DOCS-SR relates strongly to former scrupulosity measures. Scrupulosity/Religious symptoms are more related to fear of sin than fear of God. Unacceptable Thoughts subscale shared similarities and differences with DOCS-SR. Abstract: Scrupulous obsessions are a prominent presentation of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Previous conceptualizations of scrupulosity have indicated that it belongs to the unacceptable thoughts dimension, which pertains to sexual, violent, and religious obsessive themes. However, research suggests that scrupulous symptoms may differ from other unacceptable thoughts symptoms, necessitating the need for targeted and thorough assessment. We added a Scrupulous or Religious Thoughts subscale (DOCS-SR) to the Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (DOCS) and tested its factorial structure, psychometric properties, and clinical correlates in a nonclinical and clinical sample. In the first study, nonclinical participants ( N = 203) completed the DOCS-SR, which was subjected to an exploratory factor analysis. Analyses revealed that the DOCS-SR reflected a one-factor solution and possessed acceptable internal consistency, as well as strong convergent validity with clinical correlates of OCD. In the second study, we administered the DOCS, as well as the DOCS-SR to a clinical sample ( N = 314). An exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis both suggested that the four subscales and additional DOCS-SR represented a five-factor solution. Internal consistency and convergent validity were strong. The DOCS Unacceptable Thoughts subscale and the DOCS-SR shared a moderate correlation but evidenced differences in associations with other correlates. This suggested both convergent and divergent validity. Collectively, our results support the utility of examining the individual components of the unacceptable thoughts dimension of OCD for effective assessment and treatment planning.