Psychological measurement instruments and Open Science

Validation and German Translation of the Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (DOCS)

Assessing the severity of obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) has so far been limited, given the multidimensional nature of the disorder. For example, individuals with multiple symptom types may obtain higher scores on certain questionnaires simply because more items apply to them. Likewise, individuals will score higher when their specific symptom presentations align closely with those described in the items. In addition, several commonly used screening and diagnostic instruments tend to capture OCD in a one-dimensional way (e.g., focusing only on distress). To address these limitations, the Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (DOCS; Abramowitz et al., 2010) was developed as a multidimensional measure of OCD.

Click here for the German version of the DOCS and validation study

Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale - English and German Short Forms (DOCS-SF)

The DOCS-SF is a short-form questionnaire that assesses the presence of obsessive–compulsive symptoms across four dimensions (e.g., contamination) and subsequently measures symptom severity within the most distressing domain (e.g., time spent, avoidance).

The DOCS-SF is available in German and English.

• Kühne, F., Paunov, T., Abramowitz, J.S., Fink-Lamotte, J., Hansen, B., Kvale, G., & Weck, F. (2021). Screening for Obsessive-Compulsive Symptoms: Validation of the Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale - English and German Short Forms. Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders, 29, 100625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2021.100625

Validation and Translation of the Family Accommodation Scale (FAS-Z) for Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder

The patient version of the FAS (Wu, Pinto et al., 2016) is based on the Family Accommodation Scale – Interviewer Rated (FAS-IR; Calvocoressi et al., 1999) and assesses OCD symptoms as well as family accommodation behaviors, both rated by the person with OCD. The first part of the scale uses a checklist of examples to assess currently present OCD symptoms. The second part consists of 19 items measuring the frequency of different accommodation behaviors displayed by a relative or significant other during the past week. Each of the 19 items is rated on a 5-point scale from 0 to 4 (0 = never, 1 = 1 day, 2 = 2–3 days, 3 = 4–6 days, 4 = every day). A total score is calculated by summing all item scores, with higher scores indicating greater levels of accommodation behavior.

Psychometric analyses conducted by the original developers demonstrated good reliability (internal consistency of the FAS-PV total score, Cronbach’s α = .88; test–retest reliability, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = .62) as well as validity (convergent validity indicated by a strong positive correlation between the FAS-PV and the Clinical Global Impression–Severity Scale (CGI-S; National Institute of Mental Health, 1997), r = .53, p < .001).

A validation study of the German-language version of the FAS-Z is currently in progress. 

Click here for the German-language  FAS Patientenversion and FAS Angehörigenversion.

Development of the Family Accommodation Scale for Depression (FAS-D)

To examine accommodation behaviors in the context of depressive disorders, the FAS-SR and FAS-PV were adapted for depression. Items from the original versions that assessed accommodation of OCD-relevant symptoms (obsessions and compulsions) were reformulated to capture accommodation of depressive thoughts, moods, and withdrawal behaviors. In addition, examples provided for clarification in some items were adjusted to depression-specific situations (e.g., Item 4: “My relative did things that allowed me to withdraw due to depressive thoughts or moods. Examples: declining an invitation on my behalf because I needed to withdraw, or calling in sick for me at work.”).

Items 4 and 6 of the original versions were deemed highly specific to OCD and not transferable to depression and were therefore removed from the scale. Thus, the final scales, the Family Accommodation Scale for Depression (FAS-D), consist of 17 items each, available in both a relative and a patient version. The total score of the FAS-D reflects the extent of accommodation behavior.

A validation study of the German version of the FAS-D is currently underway.

Click here for the German version FAS_DEP Patient:innenversion and FAS-DEP Angehörigenversion.

Development and validation of an imagination and video-based Chain of Contagion Task. 

The CCT measures the perception of the degree to which contamination is transferred between previously neutral objects. The task involves subjects estimating the level of contamination of objects sequentially moving away from a contaminated index object. Due to the heterogeneity of contamination fears, subjects are allowed to choose the contaminated object. To do so, they are asked to identify the object in the building that they consider most contaminated (e.g., toilet, trash can) and rate it in terms of contamination level on a scale of 0-100%. The assessment is noted by the person conducting the experiment. In the next step, the person conducting the experiment opens a new box of 12 pencils, takes out one pencil and makes sure that the new pencil is perceived as uncontaminated; then it is systematically rubbed against the contaminated object. The room with the contaminated object is left with the pencils and the subjects rate the level of contamination of pencil #1 on a scale of 0-100%; the contaminated original object is no longer visible. Subsequently, pencil No. 2 is taken from the box and rubbed against pencil No. 1, which had contact with the contaminated object. Now the subject estimates the contamination level of pencil No. 2. This procedure is performed with all 12 pencils in the box, i.e. there are 12 levels of gradual distance from the original contaminated object, for which a contamination rating is asked each time. In this sense, pencil #1 is one level and pencil #12 is 12 levels away from the contaminated index object. To diagnose rigid contamination/disgust experience (Fink-Lamotte, Bieber et al., 2024), we developed an imagination-based version and a video-based version that can be used in experiments and clinical practice:

• Imagination-based contagion chain task as PDF (German) and (englisch)
• All materials for the contagion chain task as audio (imagination-based) and as video file for experimental or therapeutic purposes

Development and Validation of a Scale to Assess State Disgust (MSDQ – Multidimensional State Disgust Questionnaire)

To improve the assessment of state disgust, we developed the MSDQ. In contrast to earlier unidimensional instruments, the MSDQ differentiates between four disgust mechanisms: object-related, self-related, norm-related, and process-related disgust. Across five studies, the scale demonstrated a robust factor structure, high reliability, and good discriminant validity. The MSDQ is available in both German and English and provides a refined measurement tool for clinical diagnostics as well as experimental research.

The current version of the questionnaire and related data can be found here:

https://osf.io/5w8x2/?view_only=f8345d2cebaf492da2412b349f1c4148

Development and Validation of a Disgust-Related Scrambled Sentences Task to assess Interpretation Biases

The Scrambled Sentences Task (SST) is a widely used procedure for measuring interpretation biases (Würtz et al., 2022). We developed a disgust-related version and translated it into English. In this task, participants are presented with sentences consisting of six randomly ordered words (e.g., “she – forearm – her – scrab – scratched – on”) and are instructed to form a grammatically correct five-word sentence as quickly as possible. Depending on word choice, the resulting sentence can be either neutral or disgust-related.

In an ongoing study, the SST, along with two other measures—the Encoding Recognition Task (Charash & McKay, 2009) and the Ambiguous Scenario Task (Wong et al., 2022)—is being validated to identify the most robust instrument for assessing disgust-related interpretation biases in both research and clinical applications.

Open Science in Clinical Psychology

We aim to promote transparency, replicability, and methodological innovation in clinical psychology by developing practical guidance and initiating field-specific projects that bridge open science principles and clinical realities.

One important outcome of this effort is a position paper (Fink-Lamotte et al., 2024), which highlights how transparency, data sharing, and methodological rigor can be evaluated in meaningful ways without neglecting ethical boundaries.

In addition, we examined how the  RESQUE framework  (Research Quality Evaluation Scheme for Psychological Research) can be applied to clinical psychology (Heller et al., in preparation). Our results show that while RESQUE can effectively differentiate levels of Open Science practice, adaptations are needed to account for the specific ethical and legal challenges of clinical research. This points to the importance of developing tailored standards and evaluation tools to ensure that Open Science can be implemented fairly and effectively in clinical psychology.