4.7 Article

Further development of YBOCS dimensions in the OCD Collaborative Genetics Study: Symptoms vs. categories

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
卷 160, 期 1, 页码 83-93

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2007.07.010

关键词

obsessive compulsive disorder; symptoms; factors; familial; genetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite progress in identifying homogeneous subphenotypes of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) through factor analysis of the Yale Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale Symptom Checklist (YBOCS-SC), prior solutions have been limited by a reliance on presupposed symptom categories rather than discrete symptoms. Furthermore, there have been few attempts to evaluate the familiality of OCD symptom dimensions. The purpose of this study was to extend prior work by this collaborative group in category-based dimensions by conducting the first-ever exploratory dichotomous factor analysis using individual OCD symptoms, comparing these results to a refined category-level solution, and testing the familiality of derived factors. Participants were 485 adults in the six-site OCD Collaborative Genetics Study, diagnosed with lifetime OCD using semi-structured interviews. YBOCS-SC data were factor analyzed at both the individual item and symptom category levels. Factor score intraclass correlations were calculated using a subsample of 145 independent affected sib pairs. The item- and category-level factor analyses yielded nearly identical 5-factor solutions. While significant sib-sib associations were found for four of the five factors, Hoarding and Taboo Thoughts were the most robustly familial (r(ICC) >= 0.2). This report presents considerable converging evidence for a five-factor structural model of OCD symptoms, including separate factor analyses employing individual symptoms and symptom categories, as well as sibling concordance. The results support investigation of this multidimensional model in OCD genetic linkage studies. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据