Cross-cultural validity of the Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale
Abstract
Some psychometric properties of an adaptation of the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale for use in the Netherlands (Y-BOCS-NL) were examined in 65 psychiatric inpatients. The factorial invariance of two-dimensional systems were determined, namely Severity and Disturbance versus Obsessions and Compulsions, with the latter performing substantially better than the former in different respects. All further analyses were therefore focused on the Obsessions and Compulsions prototype. Inter-rater agreement was established in four inpatients by 39 raters at different institutions and found to be excellent. Internal consistency was also excellent. Concurrent and divergent validity were examined and established by correlating the Y-BOCS-NL with the Padua Inventory, the Burns Perfectionism Scale and state and/or trait measures of, among others, hostility, anxiety, depression, irrational fears and assertiveness. The Obsessions and Compulsions dimensions were lowly intercorrelated and showed evidence of clearly different patterns of correlations with external measures (divergent validity).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Y-BOCS has good internal consistency and validity.
“The internal consistency and validity of the Y-BOCS have proven to be good.”
The Y-BOCS is the gold standard to measure OCD severity in clinical practice and scientific research.
“The Y-BOCS is a semi-structured clinical interview which assesses the severity of obsessions and compulsions separately and is the gold standard to measure OCD severity in clinical practice and scientific research.”
The Y-BOCS has been validated in a Dutch clinical population.
“The Y – BOCS has been validated in a Dutch clinical population [30].”
The Y-BOCS is sensitive to change.
“Moreover, the Y-BOCS is sensitive to change.”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 50 · Cited by 65
- Authors
- Arrindell, W. A., de Vlaming, I. H., Eisenhardt, B. M., van Berkum, D. E., & Kwee, M. G. T.
- Affiliations
- University of Groningen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Arrindell, W.A
- ORCID
- Arrindell, W.A
- Venue
- Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 159-176
- ISSN
- 0005-7916 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2025702090
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 2.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale, obsessive-compulsive disorder, cross-cultural adaptation, measurement invariance, interobserver agreement, internal consistency, concurrent validity, discriminant validity, psychiatric inpatients, obsessions and compulsions
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Culture, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Hostility, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
