Consistency between self-report and clinician-administered versions of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale
Consistency between self-report and clinician-administered versions of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.05.005
复制
发表时间：
2010-10-01
影响因子：
10.3
通讯作者：
Antony, Martin M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Federici, Anita;Summerfeldt, Laura J.;Antony, Martin M.
背景：证明耶鲁-布朗强迫症量表（Y-BOCS）自评版本的效用的初步努力是有希望的；然而，早期的报告是基于小的临床样本。本研究的目的是评估临床使用的Y-BOCS和自我报告版本之间的一致程度。方法：参与者包括86名主要诊断为强迫症（OCD）的个体。所有参与者都获得了Y-BOCS的自我报告版本，并被指示在第二次评估会议（在2周的时间框架内）返回，届时由一名训练有素且经验丰富的临床医生进行Y-BOCS访谈。结果：这两个版本有中等相关性，强迫分量表的相关性最高。个体项目的得分比较揭示了两种测量方法之间的一些不一致之处：抵抗项目的一致性水平较低，访谈版本产生了更高的强迫严重程度评级。结论：本研究为Y-BOCS自我报告和临床给药版本的趋同提供了适度支持，但两种评估方法之间存在重要差异。(C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd.版权所有。
Background: Preliminary efforts to demonstrate the utility of a self-rated version of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) have been promising; however, earlier reports are based on small clinical samples. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the level of agreement between the clinician-administered Y-BOCS and a self-report version.Methods: Participants included 86 individuals with a principal diagnosis of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). All participants were given the self-report version of the Y-BOCS to complete offsite and instructed to return it at a second assessment session (within a 2-week time frame), at which time a trained and experienced clinician administered the Y-BOCS interview.Results: The two versions were moderately correlated with the highest correlation observed for the Compulsions subscale. Comparison of scores for individual items revealed several inconsistencies between the two measures: level of agreement was low for resistance items, and the interview version generated higher compulsion severity ratings.Conclusions: The study provided moderate support for the convergence of the self-report and clinician-administered version of the Y-BOCS, however, important difference were detected between the two assessment methods. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.