ArticleNeuropsychology2023
Measurement fidelity of clinical assessment methods in a global study on identifying reproducible brain signatures of obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Article in Neuropsychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early adversity links more to transdiagnostic than obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)-specific features: Findings from a large multinational study.Comprehensive psychiatry · 2026Article
- Psychometric Evaluation of Bengali, Hindi, and Kannada Versions of the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale.Indian journal of psychological medicine · 2025Article
- Age of onset of obsessive-compulsive disorder differentially affects white matter microstructure.Molecular psychiatry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the steps of ensuring measurement fidelity of core clinical measures in a five-country study on brain signatures of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).
methodWe collected data using standardized instruments, which included the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (YBOCS), the Dimensional YBOCS (DYBOCS), the Brown Assessment of Beliefs Scale (BABS), the 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D), the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID). Steps to ensure measurement fidelity included translating instruments, developing a clinical decision manual, and continuing reliability training with 11-13 transcripts of each instrument by 13 independent evaluators across sites over 4 years. We use multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) to report interrater reliability (IRR) among the evaluators and factor structure for each scale in 206 participants with OCD.
resultsThe overall IRR for most scales was high (ICC > 0.94) and remained good to excellent throughout the study. Consistent factor structures (configural invariance) were found for all instruments across the sites, while similarity in the factor loadings for the items (metric invariance) could be established only for the DYBOCS and the BABS.
conclusionsIt is feasible to achieve measurement fidelity of clinical measures in multisite, multilinguistic global studies, despite the challenges inherent to such endeavors. Future studies should not only report IRR but also consider reporting methods of standardization of data collection and measurement invariance to identify factor structures of core clinical measures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.