Supplemental Materials
Validation of the Penn Inventory of Scrupulosity (PIOS) in Scrupulous and Non-scrupulous Patients: Revision of Factor Structure and Psychometrics
by J. D. Huppert & I. Fradkin, 2015, Psychological Assessment
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000203
Appendix
Monte Carlo simulation procedure and elaborated results
Monte Carlo simulation: Sample size was set to 132, and number of samples to 10,000. The random seed was 53487. 15 ordinal indicators were generated with five categories (four thresholds) each. Thresholds were set according to Moshagen & Musch (2014) standard thresholds (-1.534, -0.489, 0, 0.489). Estimation was conducted using WLSMV estimator and Theta parametrization.
Population parameters: Factor variances were set to 1. Factor loadings, residual variances and factors’ correlation were based on Shapiro et al. (2013; Figure 1). These parameters were also similar to those reported by Olatunji et al. (2007) for the PIOS-R (Figure 3).
Theoretical model: The theoretical model tested on the generated samples was the same as the model we used in the reported CFA for the PIOS-R. Namely, by loading 10 indicators on factor 1, and 5 indicators on factor 2, and without constraining or setting start value for any of the parameters.
Results: As we found an inadequate fit of the two-factor model for the PIOS-R, we were interested only in the robustness of the fit indices. Hence, the robustness of factor loadings was not examined. We ran an additional simulation setting thresholds according the empirical thresholds found in our data. Results were similar (see tables below).
Chi-Square / RMSEA / WRMRProportion / Value / Proportion / Value / Proportion / Value
E / O / E / O / E / O / E / O / E / O / E / O
.99 / 1.00 / 60.93 / 68.12 / .99 / 1.00 / -.02 / .00 / .99 / .99 / .39 / .40
.98 / 1.00 / 63.79 / 70.54 / .98 / 1.00 / -.02 / .00 / .98 / .99 / .40 / .41
.95 / .99 / 68.25 / 73.98 / .95 / 1.00 / -.01 / .00 / .95 / .96 / .42 / .42
.90 / .97 / 72.39 / 77.09 / .90 / 1.00 / -.01 / .00 / .90 / .91 / .44 / .44
.80 / .89 / 77.62 / 81.02 / .80 / .52 / .00 / .00 / .80 / .80 / .46 / .46
.70 / .79 / 81.55 / 84.13 / .70 / .50 / .01 / .00 / .70 / .69 / .47 / .47
.50 / .54 / 88.33 / 89.40 / .50 / .43 / .01 / .01 / .50 / .48 / .50 / .50
.30 / .29 / 95.48 / 95.14 / .30 / .32 / .02 / .02 / .30 / .29 / .52 / .52
.20 / .18 / 99.99 / 99.05 / .20 / .24 / .03 / .03 / .20 / .19 / .54 / .54
.10 / .08 / 106.47 / 104.68 / .10 / .14 / .03 / .04 / .10 / .10 / .56 / .56
.05 / .04 / 112.02 / 109.82 / .05 / .08 / .04 / .04 / .05 / .06 / .58 / .58
.02 / .01 / 118.50 / 115.72 / .02 / .03 / .05 / .05 / .02 / .03 / .60 / .60
.01 / .01 / 122.94 / 119.51 / .01 / .01 / .05 / .05 / .01 / .02 / .61 / .62
Proportion / Value / Proportion / Value / Proportion / Value
E / O / E / O / E / O / E / O / E / O / E / O
.99 / 1.00 / 60.93 / 69.58 / .99 / 1.00 / -.02 / .00 / .99 / 1.00 / .39 / .40
.98 / 1.00 / 63.79 / 71.83 / .98 / 1.00 / -.02 / .00 / .98 / .99 / .41 / .41
.95 / 1.00 / 68.25 / 75.00 / .95 / 1.00 / -.01 / .00 / .95 / .96 / .42 / .43
.90 / .98 / 72.39 / 78.04 / .90 / 1.00 / -.01 / .00 / .90 / .91 / .44 / .44
.80 / .91 / 77.62 / 82.00 / .80 / .55 / .00 / .00 / .80 / .80 / .46 / .46
.70 / .81 / 81.55 / 84.92 / .70 / .53 / .01 / .00 / .70 / .69 / .48 / .48
.50 / .57 / 88.33 / 90.19 / .50 / .46 / .01 / .01 / .50 / .48 / .50 / .50
.30 / .32 / 95.48 / 95.98 / .30 / .33 / .02 / .02 / .30 / .29 / .53 / .53
.20 / .19 / 99.99 / 99.67 / .20 / .24 / .03 / .03 / .20 / .19 / .54 / .54
.10 / .09 / 106.47 / 105.37 / .10 / .14 / .04 / .04 / .10 / .11 / .57 / .57
.05 / .04 / 112.02 / 110.20 / .05 / .07 / .04 / .04 / .05 / .06 / .58 / .59
.02 / .01 / 118.50 / 115.76 / .02 / .03 / .05 / .05 / .02 / .03 / .60 / .61
.01 / .01 / 122.94 / 120.14 / .01 / .01 / .05 / .05 / .01 / .02 / .62 / .62
Factor loadings of the PIOS, using a geomin oblimin rotation on a three factor solution.
Factor loadings above 0.3 are highlighted. * P<0.05
Descriptive statistics of the PIOS in OCD patients regarding presence of repugnant obsessions
Harm Obsessions / AD (n=28)PIOS / Primary (n=16) / Present (n=32) / Absent (n=83)
Mean / S.D. / Mean / S.D. / Mean / S.D. / Mean / S.D.
PIOS Total / 29.9ab / 21.4 / 30.2a / 21.9 / 19bc / 18.1 / 9c / 10
Fear of God / 5.8ac / 5.6 / 5.7ab / 5.5 / 4.4ac / 4.9 / 2c / 2.8
Fear of Immorality / 10.6a / 7.7 / 10.8a / 8.2 / 5.4b / 6.8 / 2.3b / 3.5
Sexual Obsessions / AD (n=28)
PIOS / Primary (n=13) / Present (n=26) / Absent (n=92)
Mean / S.D. / Mean / S.D. / Mean / S.D. / Mean / S.D.
PIOS Total / 33.1a / 19.7 / 40.1a / 22.8 / 16.8b / 15.7 / 9b / 10
Fear of God / 5.1a / 4.6 / 8.9b / 6.1 / 3.7a / 4.3 / 2a / 2.8
Fear of Immorality / 14.7a / 6.9 / 13.6a / 7.8 / 4.5b / 5.8 / 2.3b / 3.5
Immorality Obsessions / AD (n=28)
PIOS / Primary & Present (n=39) / Absent (n=92)
Mean / S.D. / Mean / S.D. / Mean / S.D.
PIOS Total / 36.8a / 20.8 / 17.3b / 16.8 / 9b / 10
Fear of God / 7.9a / 5.7 / 3.6b / 4.3 / 2b / 2.8
Fear of Immorality / 11.7a / 7.6 / 5.5b / 6.9 / 2.3b / 3.5
For all tables Means with different superscripts were significantly different from other means, Tukey HSD’s, p<0.05. AD – Anxiety Disorders. Primary and present immorality obsessions groups were combined together because only one patient was in the primary group.
Descriptive statistics of the OCI-R regarding the presence of scrupulous and other repugnant obsessions.
Obsessions type present / AD (n=28)OCI-R Scale / Scrupulous obsessions present (n=46) / Other repugnant obsessions present (n=43) / No repugnant obsessions (n=42)
Mean / S.D. / Mean / S.D. / Mean / S.D. / Mean / S.D.
Obsessing / 7.9a / 4.4 / 8.8a / 4.1 / 4.4b / 4 / 3.7b / 2.7
Washing / 4.8a / 4.2 / 3.6a / 4.5 / 4a / 4.1 / 0.6b / 1.2
Checking / 4.5a / 3.5 / 5a / 3.7 / 4.4a / 3.8 / 1.7b / 1.8
Neutralizing / 3a / 3.7 / 2.8a / 3.3 / 2.6ab / 3.2 / 0.8b / 1.2
Ordering / 3.4a / 2.5 / 3.8ab / 4.1 / 5.8b / 4.1 / 1.7a / 2.2
Hoarding / 3.2a / 2.5 / 3.4a / 4 / 5.8b / 4.2 / 2.1a / 2.1
Total / 26.8a / 12.5 / 27.4a / 14.9 / 27a / 12.6 / 10.6b / 8.2
Means with different superscripts were significantly different from other means, Tukey HSD’s, p<0.05. AD – Anxiety Disorders.
Diagnostic Effectiveness of various cutoffs in different populations – Full Table
Values correspond to a PIOS scores
equal or above the relevant grade.
Empty Cells are due to gaps in scores
within specific population.