Validation of the Cognitive Assessment Instrument for Obsessions and Compulsions (CAIOC-13) in an Indian Sample

IF 1.9 Q3 PSYCHIATRY Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine Pub Date : 2024-05-11 DOI:10.1177/02537176241245330
Mahashweta Bhattacharya, Himani Kashyap, Srinivas Balachander, Y. C. Janardhan Reddy
{"title":"Validation of the Cognitive Assessment Instrument for Obsessions and Compulsions (CAIOC-13) in an Indian Sample","authors":"Mahashweta Bhattacharya, Himani Kashyap, Srinivas Balachander, Y. C. Janardhan Reddy","doi":"10.1177/02537176241245330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:Brief self-report measures of cognition are advantageous for flagging significant cognitive dysfunction without extensive neuropsychological assessments. The Cognitive Assessment Instrument for Obsessions and Compulsions (CAIOC-13) is a recently developed self-report that assesses everyday cognitive dysfunction in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), for example, difficulties with reading, slowness, and decision-making. This study was undertaken to validate the CAIOC-13 in an Indian sample of OCD.Material and Methods:75 subjects with OCD and 81 non-clinical controls completed CAIOC-13, Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ), and Dysfunctional Attitude Scale-Short Form (DAS-SF1). Convergent and divergent validity with PDQ and DAS-SF1 were established with Pearson’s correlation; the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze discriminant validity; and factorial structure was evaluated using the principal component analysis (PCA).Results:CAIOC-13 scores showed a strong significant correlation ( r = 0.56; p < .001) with PDQ and a moderate correlation with DAS-SF1 scores ( r = 0.33; p = .003). CAIOC-13 could accurately discriminate between OCD and controls (area under curve = 0.92). PCA revealed strong loading on a single component.Conclusion:CAIOC-13 is a valid tool for briefly assessing OCD-related cognitive dysfunction in Indian samples. Future studies may examine the correlation of CAIOC-13 with standardized neuropsychological assessments.","PeriodicalId":13476,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176241245330","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:Brief self-report measures of cognition are advantageous for flagging significant cognitive dysfunction without extensive neuropsychological assessments. The Cognitive Assessment Instrument for Obsessions and Compulsions (CAIOC-13) is a recently developed self-report that assesses everyday cognitive dysfunction in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), for example, difficulties with reading, slowness, and decision-making. This study was undertaken to validate the CAIOC-13 in an Indian sample of OCD.Material and Methods:75 subjects with OCD and 81 non-clinical controls completed CAIOC-13, Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ), and Dysfunctional Attitude Scale-Short Form (DAS-SF1). Convergent and divergent validity with PDQ and DAS-SF1 were established with Pearson’s correlation; the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze discriminant validity; and factorial structure was evaluated using the principal component analysis (PCA).Results:CAIOC-13 scores showed a strong significant correlation ( r = 0.56; p < .001) with PDQ and a moderate correlation with DAS-SF1 scores ( r = 0.33; p = .003). CAIOC-13 could accurately discriminate between OCD and controls (area under curve = 0.92). PCA revealed strong loading on a single component.Conclusion:CAIOC-13 is a valid tool for briefly assessing OCD-related cognitive dysfunction in Indian samples. Future studies may examine the correlation of CAIOC-13 with standardized neuropsychological assessments.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在印度样本中验证强迫症认知评估工具(CAIOC-13)
背景:简短的认知自我报告测量有利于在不进行大量神经心理学评估的情况下发现明显的认知功能障碍。强迫症认知评估工具(CAIOC-13)是最近开发的一种自我报告工具,用于评估强迫症(OCD)患者的日常认知功能障碍,例如阅读困难、反应迟钝和决策困难。材料与方法:75 名强迫症受试者和 81 名非临床对照者填写了 CAIOC-13、感知缺陷问卷(PDQ)和功能障碍态度量表-简表(DAS-SF1)。结果:CAIOC-13的得分与PDQ呈强相关(r = 0.56; p <.001),与DAS-SF1得分呈中度相关(r = 0.33; p = .003)。CAIOC-13 能准确区分强迫症和对照组(曲线下面积 = 0.92)。结论:CAIOC-13 是简要评估印度样本中强迫症相关认知功能障碍的有效工具。未来的研究可能会检验 CAIOC-13 与标准化神经心理学评估的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
116
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine (ISSN 0253-7176) was started in 1978 as the official publication of the Indian Psychiatric Society South Zonal Branch. The journal allows free access (Open Access) and is published Bimonthly. The Journal includes but is not limited to review articles, original research, opinions, and letters. The Editor and publisher accept no legal responsibility for any opinions, omissions or errors by the authors, nor do they approve of any product advertised within the journal.
期刊最新文献
Perceived Learning and Feedback of Students Following the Competency-based Clinical Rotation in Psychiatry: A Retrospective Review From Tertiary-care Teaching Institute in Central India Narratives of Psychiatric Illnesses A Case-report of Olanzapine-induced Urticaria Striving Through Adversities of Professional Life to Provide Better Care: A Content Analysis of News Articles and Online Blogs on Deteriorating Mental Health of Medicos Validation of a Malayalam Version of the Apathy Evaluation Scale
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1