A Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis of the Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale

  1. Rubén López-Nicolás 1
  2. María Rubio-Aparicio 2
  3. Carmen López-Ibáñez 1
  4. Julio Sánchez-Meca 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Murcia
    info

    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

  2. 2 Universitat d'Alacant
    info

    Universitat d'Alacant

    Alicante, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05t8bcz72

Revista:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915,  1886-144X

Año de publicación: 2021

Título del ejemplar: Monográfico Mariano Yela

Volumen: 33

Número: 3

Páginas: 481-489

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.7334/PSICOTHEMA2020.455 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Psicothema

Resumen

Antecedentes: la Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (DOCS) (Abramowitz, 2010) es un instrumento para la evaluación del TOC. En este estudio se llevó a cabo un estudio de generalización de la fiabilidad de la DOCS para estimar un coeficiente alfa medio y analizar la heterogeneidad de estos y el influjo de distintas variables moderadores. Método: se realizó una búsqueda bibliográfica de 86 estudios incluibles. Resultados: para la escala total, se estimó un coeficiente alfa medio de .925, así como para sus subescalas: Contaminación .881, Responsabilidad con respecto al daño .905, Pensamientos inaceptables .913 y Simetría .913. Los análisis de moderadores revelaron que la consistencia interna disminuyó significativamente a mayor porcentaje de participantes clínicos o subclínicos en la muestra, así como a mayor puntuación media de la muestra para las puntuaciones totales; para las subescalas la desviación típica y la media de las puntuaciones fueron los moderadores más relevantes. Conclusiones: las puntuaciones de la DOCS muestran una excelente fiabilidad por consistencia interna, tanto para la escala global como para las subescalas, pudiendo usarse tanto para fines clínicos como de investigación

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

This research was funded with a grant from the Spanish Government, Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, and FEDER funds (project n. PSI2016-77676-P).

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abramowitz, J.S., Deacon, B.J., Olatunji, B.O., Wheaton, M.G., Berman, N.C., Losardo, D., Timpano, K.R., McGrath, P.B., Riemann, B.C., Adams, T., Björgvinsson, T., Storch, E.A., & Hale, L.R. (2010). Assessment of obsessive-compulsive symptom dimensions: Development and evaluation of the Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale. Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 180-198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018260
  • Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R.B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A.M., & Rao, S.M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA publications and communications board task force report. American Psychologist, 73, 3-25. https://doi. org/10.1037/amp0000191
  • Bonett, D.G. (2002). Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision. Statistics in Medicine, 21(9), 1331- 1335.
  • Botella, J., Suero, M., & Gambara, H. (2010). Psychometric inferences from a meta-analysis of reliability and internal consistency coefficients. Psychological Methods, 15(4), 386-397. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0019626
  • Charter, R.A. (2003). A breakdown of reliability coefficients by test type and reliability methods, and the clinical implications of low reliability. The Journal of General Psychology, 130, 290-304. https://doi. org/10.1080/00221300309601160
  • Cooper, H., Hedges, L.V., & Valentine, J.C. (2019). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (3rd ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
  • Green, C.E., Chen, C.E., Helms, J.E., & Henze, K.T. (2011). Recent reliability reporting practices in Psychological Assessment: Recognizing the people behind the data. Psychological Assessment, 23, 656-669. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0023089
  • Gu, F., Little, T.D., & Kingston, N.M. (2013). Misestimation of reliability using coefficient alpha and structural equation modeling when assumptions of tau-equivalence and uncorrelated errors are violated. Methodology, 9(1), 30-40. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/ a000052
  • Hartung, J., & Knapp, G. (2001). On tests of the overall treatment effect in the meta-analysis with normally distributed responses. Statistics in Medicine, 20, 1771-1782. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.791
  • Heldref Foundation (1997). Guidelines for contributors. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 95-96.
  • Henson, R.K., & Thompson, B. (2002). Characterizing measurement error in scores across studies: Some recommendations for conducting “reliability generalization” studies. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35, 113-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/07 481756.2002.12069054
  • Higgins, J.P.T., & Thompson, S.G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539-1558. https://doi. org/10.1002/sim.1186
  • Huedo-Medina, T.B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index? Psychological Methods, 11(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082- 989x.11.2.193
  • Knapp, G., & Hartung, J. (2003). Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 2693- 2710. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1482
  • Lenz, A.S., Ho, C.-M., Rocha, L., & Aras, Y. (2020). Reliability generalization of scores on the Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2020.1747940
  • López-López, J.A., Botella, J., Sánchez-Meca, J., & Marín-Martínez, F. (2013). Alternatives for mixed-effects meta-regression models in the reliability generalization approach: A simulation study. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38(5), 443-469. https://doi. org/10.3102/1076998612466142
  • López-Pina, J.A., Sánchez-Meca, J., López-López, J.A., Marín-Martínez, F., Núñez-Núñez, R.M., Rosa-Alcázar, A.I., Gómez-Conesa, A., & Ferrer-Requena, J. (2015). The Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. Assessment, 22(5), 619-628. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114551954
  • Mataix-Cols, D., Rosario-Campos, M.C., & Leckman, J.F. (2005). A multidimensional model of obsessive-compulsive disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(2), 228-238. https://doi. org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.2.228
  • McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coeffi cient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23, 412-412. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
  • Nunnally J.C., & Bernstein I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  • Ñúñez-Ñúñez, R.M., Rubio-Aparicio, M., Marín-Martínez, F., Sánchez-Meca, J., López-Pina, J.A., & López-López, J.A. (2020). A reliability generalization meta-analysis of the Padua Inventory-Revised (PIR-R) [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Meta-Analysis Unit, Department of Basic Psychology and Methodology, University of Murcia.
  • Rodríguez, M.C., & Maeda, Y. (2006). Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha. Psychological Methods, 11, 306-322. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082- 989X.11.3.306
  • Rubio-Aparicio, M., Núñez-Núñez, R.M., Sánchez-Meca, J., López-Pina, J.A., Marín-Martínez, F., & López-López, J.A. (2020). The Padua Inventory–Washington State University Revision of obsessions and compulsions: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 102(1), 113-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/002 23891.2018.1483378
  • Ruscio, A.M., Stein, D.J., Chiu, W.T., & Kessler, R.C. (2010). The epidemiology of obsessive-compulsive disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Molecular Psychiatry, 15, 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2008.94
  • Sánchez-Meca, J., & Marín-Martínez, F. (2008). Confidence intervals for the overall effect size in random-effects meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 13(1), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.13.1.31
  • Sánchez-Meca, J., López-Pina, J.A., López-López, J.A., Marín-Martínez, F., Rosa-Alcázar, A.I., & Gómez-Conesa, A. (2011). The Maudsley Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory: A reliability generalization metaanalysis. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 11(3), 473-493.
  • Sánchez-Meca, J., López-López, J.A., & López-Pina, J.A. (2013). Some recommended statistical analytic practices when reliability generalization studies are conducted. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66(3), 402-425. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02057.x
  • Sánchez-Meca, J., López-Pina, J.A., Rubio-Aparicio, M., Marín-Martínez, F., Núñez-Núñez, R.M., López-García, J.J., & López-López, J.A. (2019, May 27-31). REGEMA: Guidelines for conducting and reporting reliability generalization meta-analyses [Paper presentation]. Research Synthesis, Dubrovnik, Croatia. http://dx.doi.org/10.23668/ psycharchives.2449
  • Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., Núñez-Núñez, R.M., Rubio-Aparicio, M., López-López, J.A., Blázquez-Rincón, D.M., López-Ibáñez, C., López-Nicolás, R., López-Pina, J.A., & López-García, J.J. (2019, July 8-10). Reporting practices of reliability generalization meta-analysis: An assessment with the REGEMA checklist [Paper presentation]. XVI Congress of Methodology of the Social and Health Sciences, Madrid, Spain.
  • Sánchez-Meca, J., Rubio-Aparicio, M., López-Pina, J.A., Núñez-Núñez, R.M., & Marín-Martínez, F. (2015, July). The phenomenon of reliability induction in the social and health sciences [Paper presentation]. XIV Congress of Methodology of Social and Health Sciences, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
  • Sánchez-Meca, J., Rubio-Aparicio, M., Núñez-Núñez, R.M., López-Pina, J.A., Marín-Martínez, F., & López-López, J.A. (2017). A reliability generalization meta-analysis of the Padua Inventory of Obsessions and Compulsions. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 20, 1-15. https://doi. org/10.1017/sjp.2017.65
  • Scherer, R., & Teo, T. (2020). A tutorial on the meta-analytic structural equation modeling of reliability coefficients. Psychological Methods, 25(6), 747-775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/met0000261
  • Shields, A.L., & Caruso, J.C. (2004). A reliability induction and reliability generalization study of the cage questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 254-270. https://doi. org/10.1177/0013164403261814
  • Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107-120. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
  • Streiner, D.L., & Norman, G.R. (2008). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  • Thompson, B. (1994). Guidelines for authors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 837-847.
  • Vacha-Haase, T. (1998). Reliability generalization: Exploring variance in measurement error affecting score reliability across studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 6-20. https://doi. org/10.1177/0013164498058001002
  • Vacha-Haase, T., Kogan, L.R., & Thompson, B. (2000). Sample compositions and variabilities in published studies versus those of test manuals: Validity of score reliability inductions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 509-522. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00131640021970682
  • Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metaphor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1-48. https://doi. org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
  • Viechtbauer, W., López-López, J.A., Sánchez-Meca, J., & Marín-Martínez, F. (2015). A comparison of procedures to test for moderators in mixedeffects meta-regression models. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 360- 374. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000023
  • Watkins, M.W. (2017). The reliability of multidimensional neuropsychological measures: From alpha to omega. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(6-7), 1113-1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/138 54046.2017.1317364
  • Wilkinson, L., & the APA Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604.
  • Yang, Y., & Green, S.B. (2011). Coefficient alpha: A reliability coefficient for the 21st Century? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 377-392. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0734282911406668
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet