Anxiety Disorders

19 (2005) 893–903

Psychometric properties of the Spanish version

of the Obsessive–Compulsive Inventory—
Revised in a non-clinical sample
Miquel A. Fullanaa,*, Miquel Tortella-Feliub,
Xavier Caserasa, Óscar Andióna, Rafael Torrubiaa,
David Mataix-Colsc
a
Department of Psychiatry, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
b
Department of Psychology, University Research Institute on Health Sciences (IUNICS),
University of the Balearic Islands, Majorca, Spain
c
Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College, London, UK

Received 8 June 2004; received in revised form 30 September 2004; accepted 25 October 2004

Abstract

The psychometric properties of a Spanish version of the Obsessive–Compulsive

Inventory—Revised (OCI-R) were examined in a non-clinical student sample
(n = 381). A confirmatory factor analysis replicated the original six-factor structure.
The total and each of the subscales of the Spanish OCI-R demonstrated moderate to good
internal consistency and test-retest reliability, moderate convergent validity and good
divergent validity. The Spanish version of the OCI-R retains the sound psychometric
properties of the original version.
# 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Obsessive–compulsive disorder; Assessment; Symptom dimensions

1. Introduction

Several self-report measures of obsessive–compulsive symptoms have been

developed over the years (see Taylor, 1998, for a review). New self-report

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 93 581 12 23; fax: + 34 93 581 14 35.

E-mail address: mafr@copc.es (M.A. Fullana).

0887-6185/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.10.004
894 M.A. Fullana et al. / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 893–903

measures have recently been developed to overcome the limitations of their

predecessors, particularly their insufficient coverage of all types of symptoms. These
include the Padua Inventory (Sanavio, 1988) and its subsequent revisions (e.g. the
Padua Inventory—Washington State University Revision, PI-WSUR; Burns, Keortge,
Formea, & Sternberger, 1996); the Vancouver Obsessional Compulsive Inventory
(Thordarson et al., 2004), a revision of the widely used Maudsley Obsesional
Compulsive Inventory (MOCI; Hodgson & Rachman, 1977); and the Obsessive–
Compulsive Inventory (OCI; Foa, Kozak, Salkovskis, Coles, & Amir, 1998).
The OCI consists of 42 items grouped in seven subscales (checking, washing,
obsessing, mental neutralizing, ordering, hoarding, and doubting) measured on
two 5-point Likert scales of symptom frequency and associated distress. The OCI
showed sound psychometric properties in both clinical (Foa et al., 1998) and non-
clinical samples (Simonds, Thorpe, & Elliott, 2000; Wu & Watson, 2003).
However, since frequency and distress scales of the questionnaire seemed
redundant and in order to make the administration easier, a revised and shortened
version was developed, the Obsessive–Compulsive Inventory—Revised (OCI-R;
Foa et al., 2002).
The OCI-R consists of 18 items and provides a total score and scores on six
subscales: washing, checking, ordering, obsessing, hoarding, and neutralizing.
The psychometric properties of the OCI-R were examined in a sample of 215
patients with OCD, 243 patients with other anxiety disorders, and 677 nonanxious
individuals (Foa et al., 2002). The OCI-R had good or excellent internal
consistency, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity. It also showed a good
ability to discriminate between patients with OCD and other anxious groups, with
the exception of its hoarding and ordering subscales.
Recently, Hajcak, Huppert, Simons, and Foa (2004) have presented data of two
studies which examined the psychometric properties of the OCI-R in a college
sample. Their results confirmed the six-factor structure obtained by Foa et al.
(2002) and indicated adequate test-retest reliability for the full scale and subscale
scores, high internal consistency, and good convergent and divergent validity. The
OCI-R seems therefore a promising instrument for the assessment of both clinical
and non-clinical samples. However, its psychometric properties have not been
examined independently by a group of investigators that did not develop the
measure or in other cultural contexts. Although prevalence rates of OCD are
remarkably consistent among different cultures, some variability in symptom
presentations exists, which could be related to cultural factors (Weissman et al.,
1994). The replication of research across different societies requires the use of
instruments that have been standardized in those cultural contexts. Furthermore,
practical reasons such as having usable clinical assessment techniques or the
possibility of usage in multicenter treatment trials foster the cross-cultural
adaptation of assessment instruments (Arrindell, de Vlaming, Eisenhardt, van
Berkum, & Kwee, 2002).
The main goal of this study was to provide the initial Spanish norms for the
OCI-R and to examine its psychometric properties and factor structure in a sample
 M.A. Fullana et al. / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 893–903 895

of college students. We also wished to examine the possible sex differences in

the OCI-R subscales, an issue that was not addressed in the previous reports
(Foa et al., 2002; Hajcak et al., 2004). Although prevalence of OCD is similar in
both genders, according to some clinical data the frequency of particular
obsessive–compulsive symptoms may be different in men and women, with men
showing more symmetry, order, and hoarding symptoms and women displaying
more contamination and washing symptoms (e.g., Lensi, Cassano, Correddu,
Ravagli, & Kunovac, 1996; Noshirvani, Kavsikis, Marks, Tsakiris, & Monteiro,
1991; Samuels et al., 2002). In non-clinical samples, gender differences have
emerged in some studies of the Padua Inventory (Sternberger & Burns, 1990),
although others (Kyrios, Bahr, & Wade, 1996) found no such differences. Finally,
we wished to examine convergent and divergent validity of the OCI-R, especially
of its hoarding subscale, since the validity of this subscale has been questioned
(Foa et al., 2002). For this purpose, we included an additional measure of
hoarding, the Saving Inventory—Revised (SI-R; Frost, Steketee, & Grisham,
2004).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The sample consisted of 381 undergraduate students (291 female, 85 male, 5

unspecified) from two different Spanish universities (University of Balearic
Islands and Autonomous University of Barcelona). Ethical approval was obtained
from the ethical committees of the two universities. Participation was voluntary
and no payment or course credits were offered to the participants. The mean age
was 21.09 years (S.D. = 2.65).

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Obsessive–Compulsive Inventory—Revised (OCI-R)

The OCI-R (Foa et al., 2002) is a 18-item self-administered questionnaire
designed to assess distress associated with obsessive–compulsive symptoms. It
requests a response on a 0–4 scale. The total OCI-R score is the sum of all items
and it ranges from 0 to 72. The original version of the OCI-R was translated to
Spanish by two of us (D.M.C. and M.A.F.) and back-translated by a professional
bilingual translator. The translated version was then reviewed by the authors in
order to verify the accuracy of the translation. The Spanish OCI-R is available
from the first author upon request.

2.2.2. Padua Inventory (PI)

The Spanish version (Mataix-Cols, Sanchez-Turet, & Vallejo, 2002) of the PI
(Sanavio, 1988) is a 60-item questionnaire that assesses the degree of disturbance
896 M.A. Fullana et al. / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 893–903

caused by intrusive thoughts and rituals. Scores range from 0 to 240. Factor
analyses have yielded a four-factor structure (two obsessive and two compulsive
factors), replicated across different studies in non-clinical samples (Macdonald
& de Silva, 1999; Mataix-Cols et al., 2002; Sanavio, 1988; Van Oppen, 1992).
These factors are named: Mental Control, Checking, Impulses, and Washing. Its
Spanish version has high internal consistency, good test-retest reliability, and
acceptable discriminant and convergent validity (Mataix-Cols, Sanchez-Turet, et
al., 2002).

2.2.3. Saving Inventory—Revised (SI-R)

The SI-R (Frost et al., 2004) is a 23-item questionnaire designed to provide
a comprehensive assessment of hoarding behaviors. It requests a response on a
0–4 scale about the extent to which the symptom described in each item is
present. Factor analysis has identified three factors, named difficulty discarding,
excessive clutter, and excessive acquisition. Scores range from 0 to 92. The
Spanish version (Tortella-Feliu et al., submitted) also has a three-factor structure,
good internal consistency and test-retest reliability, and moderate divergent
validity.

2.2.4. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)

The Spanish version (Sanz & Vázquez, 1998) of the BDI (Beck & Steer, 1987)
is a 21-item self-report scale of depressive symptoms. Scores range from 0 to 64.
The Spanish version has demonstrated good reliability and validity estimates in
both non-clinical (Sanz & Vázquez, 1998) and clinical (Vazquez & Sanz, 1999)
samples.

2.2.5. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, trait subscale (STAI-T)

The Spanish version of the STAI-T (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Luschene, 1982)
was used to assess trait anxiety. The STAI-T is a 20-item questionnaire rated on a
0–3 scale. Total scores range from 0 to 60. It is one of the most used trait anxiety
scales both in clinical practice and in experimental research. It has demonstrated
sound psychometric properties.

2.3. Procedure

All participants were administered the questionnaires in a group setting during

a lecture period. A brief description of the purpose of the study was given and
written consent was obtained. Since Hajcak et al. (2004) found significant order
effects for the OCI-R and the MOCI, with lower means when each measure was
presented second, a subset of participants (n = 284) completed the OCI-R first,
followed by the PI and the other measures. The rest of participants (n = 97)
completed the PI first, followed by the OCI-R and the other measures. Sixty-four
individuals completed a second administration of the OCI-R one month later and
constituted the sample for test-retest reliability.
 M.A. Fullana et al. / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 893–903 897

3. Results

3.1. Factor structure of the Spanish OCI-R

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS 5.0 in SPSS version

11.5. We evaluated the fit of our data to the original six-factor structure by Foa et
al. (2002), using the maximum likelihood estimation method. To facilitate
comparability, we considered the same fit indices as Foa et al. (2002) and Hajcak
et al. (2004). The model had a significant x2 [x2 (129) = 331.08, P < .0001], a
Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) of .90, a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of .90, a root-
mean-square residual (RMR) of .05, and a root-mean-square error of
approximation (RMSEA) of .06. Considering criteria by Hu and Bentler
(1999) (adequate fit indices are GFI and CFI of .90 or greater and RMR and
RMSEA values of .06 or lower) our results, except for the chi-square, indicate a
good fit for the six-factor model, with similar values to those presented by Hajcak
et al. (2004). We also tested a one-factor model, and as in Hajcak et al. (2004),
most indices suggested a poor fit (x2 (135) = 952.41, P < .0001; GFI = .773;
CFI = .62; RMR = .09; RMSEA = .12). Standardized parameter estimates are
available from the first author on request.
Based on the above results, we therefore used the original subscales developed
by Foa et al. (2002) in all subsequent analyses.

3.2. Correlations among OCI-R scales

Cohen’s, (1988) criteria were used to evaluate the size of the correlations.
Correlations >.50 will be defined as ‘‘large’’, from .30 to .49 as ‘‘medium’’, and
from .10 to .29 as ‘‘small’’. Correlations between each of the subscales and the
total scale of the OCI-R were large but inter-correlations among the subscales
were only moderate (ranging between .27 and .47), reflecting a relatively small
overlap between them (see Table 1).

3.3. Normative data, internal consistency, and gender differences

Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations and Cronbach’s a coefficients for
the total OCI-R and each of its subscales. For the whole sample, the mean score
for the OCI-R was 15.59 (S.D. = 9.34; range = 1–55), which was slightly lower
than previous studies with similar samples: 18.82 in Foa et al. (2002) study and
18.91 in Hajcak et al. (2004) study. Men tended to score higher than women but
this difference did not reach statistical significance [t (367) = 1.95, P = .051].
Internal consistency for the full scale of the OCI-R was good (a = .86).
Regarding the subscales, internal consistency was good for the obsessing
subscale, acceptable for the checking subscale and moderate for the rest of
subscales. As in previous studies of both the OCI-R (Foa et al., 2002; Hajcak et al.,
2004) and the OCI (Wu & Watson, 2003), the neutralizing subscale had the lowest
898 M.A. Fullana et al. / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 893–903

Table 1
Correlations among OCI-R subscales*
Subscale Obsessing Hoarding Ordering Checking Neutralizing Total
Washing .34 .34 .35 .41 .45 .65
Obsessing .38 .27 .35 .44 .71
Hoarding .42 .40 .43 .73
Ordering .30 .27 .65
Checking .47 .70
Neutralizing .69
*
All P-values <.001.

alpha. Men scored significantly higher than women on the hoarding (M = 4.34,
S.D. = 2.60 vs. M = 3.71, S.D. = 2.39; t (373) = 2.08, P = .038) and checking
(M = 2.74, S.D. = 2.53 vs. M = 2.19, S.D. = 2.17; t (372) = 1.97, P = .049)
subscales.

3.4. Test-retest reliability (one month)

Pearson’s r was calculated to assess the scale’s test-retest reliability. Our

results for the OCI-R total score (.67) were similar to those of Hajcak et al. (2004),
who obtained a test-retest reliability of .70 after the same interval. However, for
the OCI-R subscales, the coefficients were somewhat smaller (washing: r = .45;
obsessing: r = .57; hoarding: r = .56; ordering: r = .66; checking: r = .54;
neutralizing: r = .50).

3.5. Convergent and divergent validity: OCI-R total and subscales

To assess its convergent validity, the total and subscale scores of the OCI-R
were correlated with scores on the PI and the SI-R (a measure of hoarding
symptoms). Results are presented in Table 3.

Table 2
Means, standard deviations and internal consistency (Cronbach’s a) for the OCI-R total scale and
subscales, for the whole sample and by gender
Males Females Total a
M S.D. M S.D. M S.D.
OCI-R 17.30 10.85 15.04 8.75 15.59 9.34 .86
Washing 1.37 2.04 1.17 1.58 1.24 1.77 .63
Obsessing 3.42 3.32 3.24 2.84 3.28 2.95 .82
Hoarding 4.34 2.60 3.71 2.39 3.85 2.44 .69
Ordering 4.16 2.38 4.01 2.57 4.06 2.53 .67
Checking 2.74 2.53 2.19 2.17 2.31 2.27 .77
Neutralizing 1.20 1.79 0.82 1.39 0.91 1.50 .61
 M.A. Fullana et al. / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 893–903 899

Table 3
Convergent validity of the OCI-R*
OCI-R Padua Inventory Saving
scale Washing Checking Impaired mental control Impulses Total Inventory—Revised
Total .52 .55 .54 .37 .62 .49
Washing .60 .42 .36 .30 .49 .30
Obsessing .27 .32 .51 .30 .46 .39
Hoarding .37 .34 .39 .23 .44 .47
Ordering .37 .32 .23 .18 .34 .23
Checking .31 .49 .33 .26 .44 .29
Neutralizing .35 .37 .28 .23 .36 .32
*
All P-values <.001.

The OCI-R total score showed a large correlation with the PI total score
(r = .62) indicating good convergent validity. The washing, checking, and
obsessing subscales of the OCI-R correlated better with the corresponding
washing, checking and impaired mental control scales of the PI, respectively, than
with the other non-corresponding subscales, indicating adequate convergent
validity. This was also true for the hoarding subscale of the OCI-R, which showed
the strongest correlation with the SI-R total score. Not surprisingly, ordering and
neutralizing subscales showed the smallest correlations since these symptoms are
not adequately represented in the other scales.
The correlations between the OCI-R, BDI and STAI-T scores were small to
medium, suggesting adequate discriminant validity of the OCI-R (Table 4). As in
the Hajcak et al. (2004) study, the obsessing subscale showed the highest
correlations with the BDI. Controlling for the STAI-T and BDI, the partial
correlation between the OCI-R and the PI was r = .58 (P < .001), further
indicating its adequate convergent and divergent validity.

3.6. Order effects

The total OCI-R score was not different when it was presented before
(M = 15.45, S.D. = 9.36) of after (M = 16, S.D. = 9.33) the PI [t(372) = 0.50,

Table 4
Divergent validity for the OCI-R
OCI-R scale BDI STAI-T
Total .31 .30
Washing .28 .20
Obsessing .30 .32
Hoarding .16** .18
Ordering .18 .14*
Checking .17** .19
Neutralizing .14* .14*
All P-values <.001, except where indicated with *P < .05 or **
P < .01.
900 M.A. Fullana et al. / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 893–903

P = .61]. However, the total PI score was higher when presented before
(M = 48.72, S.D. = 22.47) than after (M = 39.73, S.D. = 28.72) the OCI-R [t
(216,270) = 3. 12, P = .002].

4. Discussion

We examined the psychometric properties of a Spanish version of the OCI-R in

a non-clinical sample. Overall, they were comparable to those of the original US
version (Foa et al., 2002; Hajcak et al., 2004). For the total OCI-R scale, very
similar estimates were obtained for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and
divergent validity. The slightly lower convergent validity in our study compared
with the study by Hajcak et al. (2004) (.62 vs. .75) may be related to the fact that
these authors used the PI-WSUR (Burns et al., 1996), a revised version of the PI
which may overlap less with worry symptoms.
Concerning the OCI-R subscales, we found similar internal consistency
estimates to previous studies (Foa et al., 2002; Hajcak et al., 2004), except for the
ordering and washing sub-scales, which had somewhat lower alphas. In
agreement with these studies and with Wu and Watson (2003) study on the OCI,
the neutralizing sub-scale had the lowest internal consistency. It seems important
to further study the psychometric properties of this subscale, although it must be
noted that low internal consistency values could be specific for non-clinical
samples, since Foa et al. (2002) found good internal consistency estimates in
several samples of patients with anxiety disorders.
The convergent validity of the Spanish OCI-R subscales was moderate and
their divergent validity was excellent. The washing, checking, and obsessing
subscales had the highest correlations with the corresponding PI sub-scales and all
subscales had small to medium correlations with measures of depression or trait
anxiety. As in previous studies (Hajcak et al., 2004), the highest correlation with
the BDI was obtained for the obsessing subscale, suggesting some overlap
between these constructs. Importantly, dissipating concerns on the validity of the
hoarding subscale (Foa et al., 2002), we found that this scale had the highest
correlations with another measure of hoarding, the SI-R, thus supporting its
convergent validity.
Contrary to Hajcak et al. (2004), who reported order effects on repeated
administrations of the OCI-R, we did not find such effects, which we did indeed
find for the PI. Male students had marginally higher OCI-R total scores than
females but this did not reach statistical significance. However, men did score
higher than women on the hoarding and checking subscales. As noted, no data on
potential sex differences were provided in the previous OCI-R studies. Sex
differences have been previously reported in other self-report instruments, such as
the Padua Inventory or the Maudsley Obsessional Compulsive Inventory both
among patients (Richter, Cox, & Direnfeld, 1994) and normal subjects
(Sternberger & Burns, 1990; Van Oppen, 1992) but no clear picture emerged
 M.A. Fullana et al. / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 893–903 901

from these studies. Checking symptoms may be more frequent among male OCD
patients (Lensi et al., 1996; Noshirvani et al., 1991). At least in one study
(Samuels et al., 2002) hoarding symptoms were twice as prevalent in male than in
female OCD patients, although others (Mataix-Cols, Rauch, Manzo, Jenike, &
Baer, 1999) found no such difference. It must be noted that some studies focused
on the frequency of particular symptoms, while others focused on the severity of
these symptoms. Future research should try to elucidate to what extent differences
in the assessment procedure (symptom checklists versus severity scales) or in the
populations under study (clinical vs. non-clinical) account for these previous
inconsistencies.
Finally, our confirmatory factor analysis suggested a good fit for a six-factor
structure, thus replicating previous results on the OCI-R in both clinical (Foa et
al., 2002) and non-clinical (Hajcak et al., 2004) samples. Overall, this factor
structure is highly comparable to that obtained with other comprehensive
inventories of OC symptoms, such as the Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive
Symptom Checklist (Cavallini, Pasquale, Bellodi, & Smeraldi, 1999; Leckman et
al., 1997; Mataix-Cols, Marks, Greist, Kobak, & Baer, 2002; Summerfeldt,
Richter, Antony, & Swinson, 1999) and the recently developed Vancouver
Obsessional Compulsive Inventory (Thordarson et al., 2004). Despite consider-
able differences between these instruments, at least four symptom dimensions
have been consistently replicated in all studies, namely contamination/washing,
checking, symmetry/ordering and hoarding. These converging results strongly
suggest that OCD may be best conceptualized as a spectrum of potentially
overlapping syndromes rather than a unitary nosological entity (see Mataix-Cols,
Rosario-Campos & Leckman, in press, for a review).
The psychometric properties of the Spanish OCI-R need to be further
examined in clinical samples. It will be important to ascertain its ability to
discriminate OCD from other types of anxiety and from depression. Another thus
far unexplored question is whether the OCI-R is sensitive to treatment effects.
In sum, the Spanish version of the OCI-R seems to retain the sound
psychometric properties of its original version. Although further research is
needed, it seems to be an excellent instrument for the assessment of obsessive–
compulsive phenomena and can be used in other cultural contexts.

References

Arrindell, W. A., de Vlaming, I. H., Eisenhardt, B. M., van Berkum, D. E., & Kwee, M. G. T. (2002).
Cross-cultural validity of the Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. Journal of Behavior
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 33, 159–176.
Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1987). Beck Depression Inventory manual. San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Burns, G., Keortge, S. G., Formea, G. M., & Sternberger, L. G. (1996). Revision of the Padua Inventory
of obsessive compulsive disorder symptoms: distinctions between worry, obsessions, and compul-
sions. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 163–173.
902 M.A. Fullana et al. / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 893–903

Cavallini, M. C., Pasquale, L., Bellodi, L., & Smeraldi, E. (1999). Complex segregation analysis for
obsessive compulsive disorder and related disorders. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 88,
38–43.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Foa, E. B., Huppert, J. D., Leiberg, S., Langner, R., Kichic, R., Hajcak, G. et al. (2002). The
Obsessive–compulsive Inventory: development and validation of a short version. Psychological
Assessment, 14, 485–495.
Foa, E. B., Kozak, M. J., Salkovskis, P. M., Coles, M. E., & Amir, N. (1998). The validation of a new
obsessive–compulsive disorder scale: the Obsessive–Compulsive Inventory. Psychological Assess-
ment, 10, 206–214.
Frost, R. O., Steketee, G., & Grisham, J. (2004). Measurement of compulsive hoarding: Saving
Inventory—Revised. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1163–1182.
Hajcak, G., Huppert, J. D., Simons, R. F., & Foa, E. B. (2004). Psychometric properties of the OCI-R in
a college sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 115–123.
Hodgson, R., & Rachman, S. (1977). Obsessional-compulsive complaints. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 15, 389–395.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1–55.
Kyrios, M., Bahr, S., & Wade, D. (1996). The assesment of obsessive compulsive phenomena:
psychometric and normative data of the Padua Inventory from Australian non-clinical student
sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 85–95.
Leckman, J. F., Grice, D. E., Boardman, J., Zhang, H., Vitale, A., Bondi, C. et al. (1997). Symptoms of
obsessive–compulsive disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 911–917.
Lensi, P., Cassano, G. B., Correddu, G., Ravagli, S., & Kunovac, J. J. (1996). Obsessive–compulsive
disorder familial-developmental history, symptomatology, comorbidity and course with special
reference to gender-related differences. British Journal of Psychiatry, 169, 101–107.
Macdonald, A. M., & de Silva, P. (1999). The assessment of obsessionality using the Padua inventory:
its validity in a British non-clinical sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1027–1046.
Mataix-Cols, D., Marks, I., Greist, J. H., Kobak, K. A., & Baer, L. (2002). Obsessive–compulsive
symptom dimensions as predictors of compliance with and response to behaviour therapy: results
from a controlled trial. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 71, 255–262.
Mataix-Cols, D., Rauch, S. L., Manzo, P. A., Jenike, M. A., & Baer, L. (1999). Use of factor-analyzed
symptom dimensions to predict outcome with serotonin reuptake inhibitors and placebo in the
treatment of obsessive–compulsive disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 1409–1416.
Mataix-Cols, D., Rosario-Campos, M. C., & Leckman, J. F. (in press). A multidimensional model of
obsessive–compulsive disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry.
Mataix-Cols, D., Sanchez-Turet, M., & Vallejo, J. (2002). A Spanish version of the Padua Inventory:
factor structure and psychometric properties. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 30, 25–
36.
Noshirvani, H., Kavsikis, Y., Marks, I., Tsakiris, F., & Monteiro, W. O. (1991). Gender-divergent
aetiological factors in obsessive–compulsive disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 260–263.
Richter, M. A., Cox, B. J., & Direnfeld, D. M. (1994). A comparison of three assessment instruments
for obsessive–compulsive symptoms. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry,
25, 143–147.
Samuels, J., Bienvenu, O., Riddle, M., Cullen, B., Grados, M., Liang, K. et al. (2002). Hoarding in
obsessive compulsive disorder: results from a case-control study. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 40, 517–528.
Sanavio, E. (1988). Obsessions and compulsions: the Padua Inventory. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 26, 169–177.
Sanz, J., & Vázquez, C. (1998). Fiabilidad, validez y datos normativos del Inventario para la depresión
de Beck. Psicothema, 10, 303–318.
 M.A. Fullana et al. / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 893–903 903

Simonds, L. M., Thorpe, S. J., & Elliott, S. A. (2000). The Obsessive–Compulsive Inventory:
psychometric properties in a nonclinical student sample. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychother-
apy, 28, 153–159.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Luschene, R. E. (1982). Cuestionario de Ansiedad Estado-Rasgo.
Madrid: TEA ediciones.
Sternberger, L. G., & Burns, G. (1990). Obsessions and compulsions: psychometric properties of the
Padua Inventory with an American college population. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28, 341–
345.
Summerfeldt, L. J., Richter, M. A., Antony, M. M., & Swinson, R. P. (1999). Symptom structure in
obsessive–compulsive disorder: a confirmatory factor-analytic study. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 37, 297–311.
Taylor, S. (1998). Assessment of obsessive–compulsive disorder. In: M. A. Richter (Ed.), Obsessive–
compulsive disorder. Theory, research, and treatment. New York: Guilford Press.
Thordarson, D., Radomsky, A. S., Rachman, S., Shafran, R., Sawchuk, C. N., & Hakstian, A. R. (2004).
The Vancouver Obsessional Compulsive Inventory (VOCI). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42,
1289–1314.
Tortella-Feliu, M., Fullana, M. A., Caseras, X., Mataix-Cols, D., Andión, O., & Torrubia, R. Spanish
Version of the Saving Inventory—Revised: adaptation, psychometric properties and relationship to
personality variables. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Van Oppen, P. (1992). Obsessions and compulsions: dimensional structure, reliability, convergent and
divergent validity of the Padua Inventory. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 30, 631–637.
Vazquez, C., & Sanz, J. (1999). Reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the Beck Depression
Inventory (1978) in patients with psychological disorders. Clinica y Salud, 10, 59–81.
Weissman, M. M., Bland, R. C., Canino, G. J., Greenwald, S., Hwu, H. G., Lee, C. K. et al. (1994). The
cross national epidemiology of obsessive compulsive disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry,
55(Suppl.), 5–10.
Wu, K. D., & Watson, D. (2003). Further investigation of the Obsessive–Compulsive Inventory:
psychometric analysis in two non-clinical samples. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 17, 305–319.