Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 521

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

DSM-IV field trial: obsessive-compulsive disorder [published erratum appears in Am J Psychiatry 1995 Apr;152(4):654]

·1995·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Three issues relevant to revising the DSM-III-R criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder were examined in a field trial: 1) the requirement that symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder be viewed by the patient as excessive or unreasonable, 2) the presence of mental compulsions in addition to behavioral compulsions, and 3) ICD-10 subcategories. METHOD: The authors studied symptom patterns of obsessive-compulsive disorder as well as strength of obsessive belief among 431 patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder at seven hospital outpatient clinics. Two methods of subject selection were used: consecutive entry of everyone who contacted the clinics for evaluation of obsessive-compulsive disorder and entry of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder who had continuing contact with the clinics since before the field trial and who were still symptomatic. Primary measures were the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale and face-valid questions about fixity of obsessive-compulsive beliefs. RESULTS: The large majority of patients were uncertain about whether their obsessive-compulsive symptoms were unreasonable or excessive, and most had both mental and behavioral compulsions. Results on the ICD-10 subcategories were equivocal. CONCLUSIONS: The present results converge with previous findings to indicate a broad range of insight among patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. The DSM-III-R requirement for insight should be de-emphasized in DSM-IV, and mental rituals should be included in the definition of compulsions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/ajp.152.1.90

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Janet P, 1908, Les obsessions et al psychasthenie
  2. 10.1007/BF01814173 · DOI
  3. Lewis A, Proc R Soc Med I 935; 29:325-336
  4. 10.1017/S0033291700008382 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/0887-6185(88)90026-6 · DOI
  6. 10.1176/ajp.143.12.1527 · DOI · Paper page
  7. World Health Organization, 1988, Mental, Behavioral, and Developmental Disorders: Clinical Descriptives and Diagnostic Guidelines (ICD-10)
  8. 10.1001/archpsyc.1989.01810110054008 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.3928/0048-5713-19890201-11 · DOI
  10. Spitzer RL, 1989, Gibbon M: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID)

Cited by

Metadata

Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
1995-01-01
Volume
152
Issue
1
Pages
90-96
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W125575579
Cited by
521
References
2
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.