Cargando…

Recognizing obsessive-compulsive disorder: how suitable is the German Zohar-Fineberg obsessive-compulsive screen?

BACKGROUND: Despite the prevalence of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), its precise identification remains challenging. With the Zohar-Fineberg Obsessive-Compulsive Screen (ZF-OCS; 5 or 6 items), a brief instrument is widely available mainly in English. As there is a lack of empirical studies on...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kühne, Franziska, Paunov, Tatjana, Weck, Florian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8436546/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34511062
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03458-x
_version_ 1783752014784626688
author Kühne, Franziska
Paunov, Tatjana
Weck, Florian
author_facet Kühne, Franziska
Paunov, Tatjana
Weck, Florian
author_sort Kühne, Franziska
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite the prevalence of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), its precise identification remains challenging. With the Zohar-Fineberg Obsessive-Compulsive Screen (ZF-OCS; 5 or 6 items), a brief instrument is widely available mainly in English. As there is a lack of empirical studies on the ZF-OCS, the aim of the present study was to translate the items into German and investigate the instrument in a nonclinical sample. METHODS: In two consecutive online surveys, n = 304 and n = 51 students participated. Besides the ZF-OCS, they answered established measures on OCD, depression, health anxiety, general anxiety and health-related well-being. RESULTS: Whereas internal consistency was low (α = .53–.72; ω = .55–.69), retest reliability (r(t1,t2) = .89) at two weeks was high. As expected, we found high correlations with other OCD instruments (r > .61; convergent validity), and significantly weaker correlations with measures of depression (r = .39), health anxiety (r = .29), and health-related well-being (r = −.28, divergent validity). Nonetheless, the correlations with general anxiety were somewhere in between (r = .52). CONCLUSIONS: Due to heterogeneous OCD subtypes, the ZF-OCS asks diverse questions which probably resulted in the present internal consistency. Nevertheless, the results on retest reliability and validity were promising. As for other OCD instruments, divergent validity regarding general anxiety seems problematic to establish. Even so, the ZF-OCS seems valuable for screening purposes, as it is short and easy to administer, and may facilitate initiating subsequent clinical assessment. Further studies should determine the instrument’s diagnostic accuracy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-021-03458-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8436546
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84365462021-09-13 Recognizing obsessive-compulsive disorder: how suitable is the German Zohar-Fineberg obsessive-compulsive screen? Kühne, Franziska Paunov, Tatjana Weck, Florian BMC Psychiatry Research BACKGROUND: Despite the prevalence of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), its precise identification remains challenging. With the Zohar-Fineberg Obsessive-Compulsive Screen (ZF-OCS; 5 or 6 items), a brief instrument is widely available mainly in English. As there is a lack of empirical studies on the ZF-OCS, the aim of the present study was to translate the items into German and investigate the instrument in a nonclinical sample. METHODS: In two consecutive online surveys, n = 304 and n = 51 students participated. Besides the ZF-OCS, they answered established measures on OCD, depression, health anxiety, general anxiety and health-related well-being. RESULTS: Whereas internal consistency was low (α = .53–.72; ω = .55–.69), retest reliability (r(t1,t2) = .89) at two weeks was high. As expected, we found high correlations with other OCD instruments (r > .61; convergent validity), and significantly weaker correlations with measures of depression (r = .39), health anxiety (r = .29), and health-related well-being (r = −.28, divergent validity). Nonetheless, the correlations with general anxiety were somewhere in between (r = .52). CONCLUSIONS: Due to heterogeneous OCD subtypes, the ZF-OCS asks diverse questions which probably resulted in the present internal consistency. Nevertheless, the results on retest reliability and validity were promising. As for other OCD instruments, divergent validity regarding general anxiety seems problematic to establish. Even so, the ZF-OCS seems valuable for screening purposes, as it is short and easy to administer, and may facilitate initiating subsequent clinical assessment. Further studies should determine the instrument’s diagnostic accuracy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-021-03458-x. BioMed Central 2021-09-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8436546/ /pubmed/34511062 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03458-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Kühne, Franziska
Paunov, Tatjana
Weck, Florian
Recognizing obsessive-compulsive disorder: how suitable is the German Zohar-Fineberg obsessive-compulsive screen?
title Recognizing obsessive-compulsive disorder: how suitable is the German Zohar-Fineberg obsessive-compulsive screen?
title_full Recognizing obsessive-compulsive disorder: how suitable is the German Zohar-Fineberg obsessive-compulsive screen?
title_fullStr Recognizing obsessive-compulsive disorder: how suitable is the German Zohar-Fineberg obsessive-compulsive screen?
title_full_unstemmed Recognizing obsessive-compulsive disorder: how suitable is the German Zohar-Fineberg obsessive-compulsive screen?
title_short Recognizing obsessive-compulsive disorder: how suitable is the German Zohar-Fineberg obsessive-compulsive screen?
title_sort recognizing obsessive-compulsive disorder: how suitable is the german zohar-fineberg obsessive-compulsive screen?
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8436546/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34511062
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03458-x
work_keys_str_mv AT kuhnefranziska recognizingobsessivecompulsivedisorderhowsuitableisthegermanzoharfinebergobsessivecompulsivescreen
AT paunovtatjana recognizingobsessivecompulsivedisorderhowsuitableisthegermanzoharfinebergobsessivecompulsivescreen
AT weckflorian recognizingobsessivecompulsivedisorderhowsuitableisthegermanzoharfinebergobsessivecompulsivescreen