Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study

Gulec, Mustafa; BOYSAN, MURAT; DEVECİ, Erdem; BARUT, YASAR

Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study

Murat BOYSAN, (Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi, Psikoloji Bölümü, Van, Türkiye)

Mustafa GÜLEÇ, (İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Psikiyatri Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, Türkiye)

Erdem DEVECİ, (Bezm-i Alem Vakıf Gureba Üniversitesi, Psikiyatri Bölümü, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Yaşar BARUT (Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Psikolojik Danışmanlık Bölümü, Samsun, Türkiye)

Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bülteni

5 2

Yıl: 2015 Cilt: 25 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 44 - 56 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study

Öz:

Objective: The Vancouver Obsessional Compulsive Inventory (VOCI) is a self-report inventory developedto assess a wide range of obsessive-compulsive symptoms, including contamination (12 items), checking(6 items), obsessions (12 items), hoarding (7 items), just right (12 items), and indecisiveness (6 items). TheEnglish version of the VOCI has been shown to be a promising psychometric instrument, as have its French,Italian, and Spanish versions. The aim of this study was to investigate psychometric properties of the Turkishversion of the VOCI in clinical and non-clinical samples.Method: A questionnaire package including the VOCI, Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R), Obsessional BeliefsQuestionnaire (OBQ), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) was administered to volunteer undergraduates(n=365) and patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) (n=46). Psychometric analyses were run toassess reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the VOCI. We converged a confirmatory factor analysisto test the factor structure. We also performed a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to determinecut-off scores and compared the diagnostic performance of the VOCI and PI-R. Convergent and discriminantvalidity of the VOCI were assessed through Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. Internalconsistency and temporal reliability were computed.Results: Confirmatory factor analysis replicated the original six-factor structure. The maximum likelihoodfactor loading estimates were higher than 0.40. OCD patients scored significantly higher than controlsubjects on the contamination, checking, obsessions, things just right, and indecisiveness subscales of theVOCI but not on the hoarding subscale. The global VOCI scores highly correlated with the PI-R (r=0.89);correlation between the contamination subscale of the VOCI and washing subscale of the PI-R was r=0.88;correlation between the checking subscales of both screening tools was r=0.83; correlation between thejust right subscale of the VOCI and precision subscale of the PI-R was r=0.71; and correlation between theobsession subscale of the VOCI and rumination subscale of the PI-R was r=0.71. Divergent validity of the VOCIwas also high, so that correlations of the total and subscales of the VOCI with the total and subscales of thePI-R were from r=0.25 to a high of r=0.41; therefore, it can be said that the coefficients ranged from weak tomoderate. These correlation coefficients were indicative of good convergent and divergent validity. Internalconsistency of the VOCI global was 0.97, and that of the VOCI subscales ranged between 0.82 and 0.92 inthe overall sample. Cronbach s Alphas of the VOCI subscales in the OCD group were between 0.73 and 0.88,and in the control group between 0.84 and 0.92. Fifteen-day test-retest intra-correlations for total scores ofthe VOCI were 0.75; for the subscales they ranged from 0.68 up to 0.88. The ROC analysis demonstrated amoderate diagnostic performance for the VOCI cut-off score of 87.5 with a sensitivity of 0.74 and a specificityof 0.73 immediately comparable to the PI-R cut-off point of 67.5.Conclusion: The VOCI had good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminantvalidity. It is concluded that the Turkish version of the VOCI has sound psychometric properties. Furtherstudies are needed to develop psychometric tools with stronger diagnostic performance for OCD assessment.

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Farmakoloji ve Eczacılık

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Ruscio AM, Stein DJ, Chiu WT, Kessler RC. The epidemiology of obsessive-compulsive disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Mol Psychiatry 2010;15(1):53-63. [CrossRef]
2. NIHM. A real illness: obsessivecompulsive disorder. Bethesda: National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services (NIHM Publication No. 00-4676). 2000.
3. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2000.
4. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5 th Edition ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
5. Atli A, Boysan M, Cetinkaya N, Bulut M, Bez Y. Latent class analysis of obsessive-compulsive symptoms in a clinical sample. Compr Psychiatry 2014;55(3):604-12. [CrossRef]
6. Besiroglu L, Uguz F, Saglam M, Agargun MY, Askin R, Cilli AS. Psychopharmacological treatment response in obsessive compulsive patients with autogenous and reactive obsessions. Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bulteni - Bulletin of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2007;17(1):1-8. (Turkish)
7. Turkyilmaz-Uyar E, Pirdogan E, Gunday-Toker O, Cakmak E, Ozer OA, Karamustafalioglu KO. Obsessive compulsive disorder: subtypes, severity and sexual dysfunction. Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bulteni - Bulletin of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2014;24(Suppl. 1):200-1.
8. First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams JBW. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I DisordersPatient edition. New York: Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute; 1997.
9. Rosario-Campos MC, Miguel EC, Quatrano S, Chacon P, Ferrao Y, Findley D, et al. The Dimensional Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (DY-BOCS): an instrument for assessing obsessive-compulsive symptom dimensions. Mol Psychiatry 2006;11(5):495-504. [CrossRef]
10. Abramowitz JS, Deacon BJ, Olatunji BO, Wheaton MG, Berman NC, Losardo D, et al. Assessment of obsessive- compulsive symptom dimensions: development and evaluation of the Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale. Psychol Assess 2010;22(1):180-98. [CrossRef]
11. Grabill K, Merlo L, Duke D, Harford KL, Keeley ML, Geffken GR, et al. Assessment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: a review. J Anxiety Disord 2008;22(1):1-17. [CrossRef]
12. Hodgson RJ, Rachman S. Obsessional-compulsive complaints. Behav Res Ther 1977;15(5):389-95. [CrossRef]
13. Sanavio E. Obsessions and compulsions: The Padua Inventory. Behav Res Ther 1988;26(2):169-77. [CrossRef]
14. Foa EB, Huppert JD, Leiberg S, Langner R, Kichic R, Hajcak G, et al. The obsessive-compulsive inventory: development and validation of a short version. Psychol Assess 2002;14(4):485- 96. [CrossRef]
15. Radomsky AS, Ouimet AJ, Ashbaugh AR, Lavoie SL, Parrish CL, OConnor KP. Psychometric properties of the French and English versions of the Vancouver Obsessional- Compulsive Inventory and the Symmetry Ordering and Arranging Questionnaire. Cogn Behav Ther 2006;35(3):164- 73. [CrossRef]
16. Thordarson DS, Radomsky AS, Rachman S, Shafran R, Sawchuk CN, Ralph Hakstian A. The Vancouver Obsessional Compulsive Inventory (VOCI). Behav Res Ther 2004;42(11):1289-314. [CrossRef]
17. Fritzler BK, Hecker JE, Losee MC. Self-directed treatment with minimal therapist contact: preliminary findings for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Behav Res Ther 1997;35(7):627-31. [CrossRef]
18. Emmelkamp PM, Kraaijkamp HJ, van den Hout MA. Assessment of obsessivecompulsive disorder. Behav Modif 1999;23(2):269-79. [CrossRef]
19. Richter MA, Cox BJ, Direnfeld DM. A comparison of three assessment instruments for obsessive compulsive symptoms. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 1994;25(2):143-7. [CrossRef]
20. Rachman S, Thordarson DS, Radomsky AS, editors. A revision of the Maudsley Obsessional Compulsive Inventory. World Congress of Cognitive and Behavioral Therapies; 1995; Copenhagen.
21. Shafran R, Thordarson DS, Rachman S. Thoughtaction fusion in obsessive compulsive disorder. J Anxiety Disord 1996;10(5):379-91. [CrossRef]
22. Arjona RN, Ávila AG, Lázaro AG, Sanchíz PR. Psychometric properties of the Vancouver Obsessional Compulsive Inventory (VOCI) in two non-clinical Spanish samples. Psicothema 2009;21(4):646-51.
23. Chiorri C, Melli G, Smurra R. Second-order factor structure of the Vancouver Obsessive Compulsive Inventory (VOCI) in a non-clinical sample. Behav Cogn Psychother 2011;39(5):561- 77. [CrossRef]
24. Gonner S, Ecker W, Leonhart R, Limbacher K. Multidimensional assessment of OCD: integration and revision of the Vancouver Obsessional-Compulsive Inventory and the Symmetry Ordering and Arranging Questionnaire. J Clin Psychol 2010;66(7):739-57.
25. Overduin MK, Furnham AF. Assessing obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD): A review of self-report measures. J Obsessive Compuls Relat Disord 2012;1(4):312-24. [CrossRef]
26. Freeston MH, Ladouceur R, Rhéaume J, Letarte H, Gagnon F, Thibodeau N. Self-report of obsessions and worry. Behav Res Ther 1994;32(1):29-36. [CrossRef]
27. Van Oppen P. Obsessions and compulsions: dimensional structure, reliability, convergent and divergent validity of the Padua Inventory. Behav Res Ther 1992;30(6):631-7. [CrossRef]
28. Besiroglu L, Agargun MY, Boysan M, Eryonucu B, Gulec M, Selvi Y. The assessment of obsessive-compulsive symptoms: reliability and validity of the Padua Inventory in a Turkish population. Turk Psikiyatri Derg 2005;16(3):179-89. (Turkish)
29. Obsessive Compulsive Cognitions Working Group. Psychometric validation of the Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire and the Interpretation of Intrusions Inventory: Part 2: factor analyses and testing of a brief version. Behav Res Ther 2005;43(11):1527-42. [CrossRef]
30. Boysan M, Besiroglu L, Cetinkaya N, Atli A, Aydin A. The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire-44 (OBQ-44). Archives of Neuropsychiatry 2010;47(3):216-22. (Turkish)
31. Beck AT, Rush J, Shaw BF, Emery G. Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford Press; 1979.
32. Hisli N. Reliability and validity of Beck Depression Inventory among university students. Turk Psikoloji Dergisi 1989;7(23):3-13. (Turkish)
33. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3 rd Edition. New York: Guilford Press; 2010.
34. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999;6(1):1-55. [CrossRef]
35. Bryant FB, Satorra A. EXCEL macro file for conducting scaled difference chi-square tests via LISREL 8, LISREL 9, EQS, and Mplus. Available from the authors. 2013.
36. Bryant FB, Satorra A. Principles and practice of scaled difference chi-square testing. Struct Equ Modeling 2012;19(3):372-98. [CrossRef]
37. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143(1):29-36. [CrossRef]
38. Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 1993;39(4):561-77.
39. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data- analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med 1993;12(14):1293-316. [CrossRef]
40. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58(10):982-90. [CrossRef]
41. van Oppen P, Emmelkamp PMG, van Balkom AJLM, van Dyck R. The sensitivity to change of measures for obsessive- compulsive disorder. J Anxiety Disord 1995;9(3):241-8. [CrossRef]
42. Anholt GE, van Oppen P, Emmelkamp PMG, Cath DC, Smith JH, van Dyck R, et al. Measuring obsessive-compulsive symptoms: Padua-inventory revised vs. Yale-Brown obsessive-compulsive scale. J Anxiety Disord 2009;23(6):830- 5. [CrossRef]
43. Kyrios M, Sanavio E, Bhar S, Liguori L. Associations between obsessive-compulsive phenomena, affect and beliefs: cross- cultural comparisons of Australian and Italian data. Behav Cogn Psychother 2001;29(4):409-22. [CrossRef]
44. Leckman JF, Rauch SL, Mataix-Cols D. Symptom dimensions in obsessive-compulsive disorder: Implications for the DSM- V. CNS Spectr 2007;12(5):376-87.
45. McKay D, Abramovitz JS, Calamari JE, Kyrios M, Radomsky A, Sookman D, et al. A critical evaluation of obsessive-compulsive disorder subtypes: Symptoms versus mechanisms. Clin Psychol Rev 2004;24(3):283-313. [CrossRef]
46. Pertusa A, Fullana MA, Singh S, Alonso P, Menchón JM, Mataix-Cols D. Compulsive hoarding: OCD symptom, distinct clinical syndrome, or both? Am J Psychiatry 2008;165(10):1289-98. [CrossRef]
47. Saxena S. Is compulsive hoarding a genetically and neurobiologically discrete syndrome? implications for diagnostic classification. Am J Psychiatry 2007;164(3):380-4. [CrossRef]
48. Rachman S, Elliott CM, Shafran R, Radomsky AS. Separating hoarding from OCD. Behav Res Ther 2009;47(6):520-2. [CrossRef]

APA	BOYSAN M, Gulec M, DEVECİ E, BARUT Y (2015). Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study. , 44 - 56.
Chicago	BOYSAN MURAT,Gulec Mustafa,DEVECİ Erdem,BARUT YASAR Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study. (2015): 44 - 56.
MLA	BOYSAN MURAT,Gulec Mustafa,DEVECİ Erdem,BARUT YASAR Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study. , 2015, ss.44 - 56.
AMA	BOYSAN M,Gulec M,DEVECİ E,BARUT Y Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study. . 2015; 44 - 56.
Vancouver	BOYSAN M,Gulec M,DEVECİ E,BARUT Y Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study. . 2015; 44 - 56.
IEEE	BOYSAN M,Gulec M,DEVECİ E,BARUT Y "Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study." , ss.44 - 56, 2015.
ISNAD	BOYSAN, MURAT vd. "Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study". (2015), 44-56.

APA	BOYSAN M, Gulec M, DEVECİ E, BARUT Y (2015). Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study. Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bülteni, 25(1), 44 - 56.
Chicago	BOYSAN MURAT,Gulec Mustafa,DEVECİ Erdem,BARUT YASAR Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study. Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bülteni 25, no.1 (2015): 44 - 56.
MLA	BOYSAN MURAT,Gulec Mustafa,DEVECİ Erdem,BARUT YASAR Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study. Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bülteni, vol.25, no.1, 2015, ss.44 - 56.
AMA	BOYSAN M,Gulec M,DEVECİ E,BARUT Y Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study. Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bülteni. 2015; 25(1): 44 - 56.
Vancouver	BOYSAN M,Gulec M,DEVECİ E,BARUT Y Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study. Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bülteni. 2015; 25(1): 44 - 56.
IEEE	BOYSAN M,Gulec M,DEVECİ E,BARUT Y "Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study." Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bülteni, 25, ss.44 - 56, 2015.
ISNAD	BOYSAN, MURAT vd. "Diagnostic Performance of the Turkish Version of the Vancouver ObsessionalCompulsive Inventory (VOCI) versus Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R): a validation study". Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bülteni 25/1 (2015), 44-56.