Overview
The Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire–Child Version (OBQ-CV) is a 44-item self-report questionnaire designed to assess dysfunctional beliefs associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents. Adapted from the adult OBQ-44, it assesses beliefs relating to Responsibility/Threat Estimation, Perfectionism/Certainty, and Importance/Control of Thoughts. The measure was developed to provide a standardised, developmentally appropriate assessment of cognitive processes proposed to contribute to the development and maintenance of paediatric OCD.Scoring & Interpretation
The OBQ-CV contains 44 items. For the original English version, each statement is rated on a five-point agreement scale: 1 = Disagree very much; 2 = Disagree a little; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree a little; 5 = Agree very much. Respondents are instructed to indicate what they think or believe most of the time. All items are scored in the same direction; higher scores indicate stronger endorsement of OCD-related dysfunctional beliefs. The 44 items can be summed to produce an overall OBQ-CV score, with higher scores representing greater endorsement of obsessive beliefs. Scores can also be calculated for the three subscales: Responsibility/Threat Estimation; Perfectionism/Certainty; Importance/Control of Thoughts. The theoretical total score range is 44–220.Psychometric Properties
Internal Consistency
The original North American clinical sample demonstrated excellent internal consistency: Total score: α = .96; Responsibility/Threat Estimation: α = .91; Perfectionism/Certainty: α = .94; Importance/Control of Thoughts: α = .91.
Test-Retest Reliability
In the North American sample, 17 participants completed the OBQ-CV twice over an interval of 2–7 weeks: Total: r = .88; Responsibility/Threat Estimation: r = .84; Perfectionism/Certainty: r = .81; Importance/Control of Thoughts: r = .85.
Factor Structure
The original OBQ-CV (Cole et al., 2010) adopted the adult OBQ-44's theoretically derived three-domain structure: Responsibility/Threat Estimation; Perfectionism/Certainty; Importance/Control of Thoughts. However, did not empirically test this factor structure because its clinical samples were too small.
A substantially larger Dutch validation (Wolters et al., 2011) subsequently conducted confirmatory factor analysis in 547 community participants and 67 young people with OCD. The best-fitting solution contained four first-order factors:
1. Perfectionism/Certainty
2. Importance/Control of Thoughts
3. Responsibility
4. Threat
These loaded onto a higher-order general obsessive-beliefs factor. However, a later Danish validation supported the three-factor structure of Responsibility/Threat Estimation, Perfectionism/Uncertainty and Importance/Control of Thoughts (Schulz et al., 2018) and a Spanish community validation likewise supported three first-order factors plus a higher-order factor (Nogueira Arjona et al., 2012). Overall, the factor-structure literature is broadly supportive of the intended belief domains, but not entirely consistent regarding whether Responsibility and Threat are best represented as one combined factor or two separate factors.
Validity
The original study provided preliminary evidence of convergent validity. In the North American clinical sample, total OBQ-CV scores correlated with: Leyton Obsessional Inventory-Child Version (LOI-CV) symptom severity: r = .43, LOI-CV OCD interference: r = .48 and Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED-R) symptoms: r = .37.
Cole et al., (2010) also provided preliminary evidence of divergent validity: OBQ-CV total and subscale scores were not significantly associated with self-reported social-anxiety symptoms.
Measurement Invariance
Not established.
Access
The complete 44-item English-language OBQ-CV is reproduced in Appendix A of Coles et al. (2010).
The article was published by Wiley-Liss and is copyright protected.Users should therefore check current copyright/permission requirements before reproducing the full questionnaire outside permitted research or educational use.
http://Coles et al. (2010) – Wiley Online Library