Impact of COVID-19 on the Self-Report Assessment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent guidelines have had a substantial effect on social norms. This likely affected self-report assessment of psychopathology, namely those that assess obsessive-compulsive tendencies routinely used to screen for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). It was hypothesized that self-report assessment of OCD likely produces inflated, non-discriminating scale scores. Methods Data collection occurred prior to the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim of validating a new psychological test; however, data collection was abruptly halted in March 2020. Data collection was allowed to resume in the latter half of the year. Both groups were racio-ethnically and gender diverse. Results Self-report measures of OCD yielded inflated scores. For instance, the total obsessive-compulsive inventory-revised (OCI-R) average score of all participants went from normative levels prior to COVID-19 (M = 13.69, SD = 10.32) to an average score that was above the clinical cut-off on the OCI-R (M = 32.89; SD = 12.95) during the pandemic (t(135) = 9.66, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.66). Conclusions OCD-related scale scores likely produced false positives in research and practice due to COVID-19 health guidelines put in place to protect against infection that may otherwise be considered contamination fears on OCD measures.

Incremental Contribution of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 3 to Predicting One-Year Postoperative Spinal Cord Surgery/Spinal Cord Stimulation Outcomes.

Pre-surgical psychological assessments are becoming common in the United States and are recommended or required prior to surgical/spinal cord stimulator intervention for chronic back pain. Psychological testing is often recommended for these evaluations and the various versions of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) have demonstrated utility for predicting outcomes in this setting. This investigation sought to extend that literature with the newest version of the MMPI, the MMPI-3. The sample comprised of 909 patients (50.5% men, 49.5% women) who consented to participating in an outcome study and took the MMPI-3 along with other self-report measures of pain, functional disability, and emotional functioning prior to surgery as part of their pre-surgical psychological assessment. Self-report measures of pain, functional disability, and emotional functioning were administered again one-year following the intervention. MMPI-3 scale scores accounted for up to 9% of additional variance in the outcomes after controlling for pre-surgical measures. Measures of emotional/internalizing dysfunction, somatic dysfunction, and, to a lesser extent, behavioral/externalizing dysfunction contributed the most to the prediction of poorer outcomes.

Reevaluating the Binge Eating Scale cut-off using DSM-5 criteria: analysis and replication in preoperative metabolic and bariatric surgery samples.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic and bariatric surgery is effective for sustained weight loss, but binge eating disorder (BED) can be associated with poorer outcomes and lead to weight regain. A common measure used to screen for BED is the Binge Eating Scale (BES). A BES cut-off score of ≥17 previously identified patients who have a high likelihood of meeting criteria for BED. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), lowered the threshold for meeting criteria for BED, and the psychometrics of the BES need to be reevaluated. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current investigation is to evaluate whether alternative cut-scores on the BES result in better classification of BED based on the DSM-5 revision of the the BED diagnostic criteria. SETTING: Academic medical hospital in the Midwestern United States. METHODS: Patients (n =1133) seeking metabolic and bariatric surgery were randomly split into 2 samples for validation and replication. The validation sample consisted of 561 patients (30.1% men, 35% non-White). The replication sample consisted of 572 patients who were demographically similar to the first random split sample (e.g., 25.3% men, 34.4% non-White). RESULTS: Of these patients, 13.5% met DSM-5 criteria for BED in the validation sample and 13.8% met criteria for BED in the replication sample. Lowering the interpretative cut-off to ≥15 on the BES yielded sensitivity values of >.72, specificity values of >.67, and an accurate classification of BED in >.70 of patients across both samples. These classification values were as good as or better than the standard cut-off score of ≥17 in both samples. CONCLUSIONS: The BES is appropriate to screen for BED in patients who are seeking bariatric surgery. A 2-point decrease in the BES score for clinical interpretation is appropriate-lowering it from 17 to 15 given DSM-5 updates to diagnostic criteria.