The Padua Inventory-Washington State University Revision of Obsessions and Compulsions: A Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis

Maria Rubio-Aparicio, Rosa María Núñez-Núñez, Julio Sánchez-Meca, José López-Pina, Fulgencio Marín-Martínez, Jose A Lopez-Lopez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)
403 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The Padua Inventory–Washington State University Revision (PI–WSUR) is a frequently used test to assess obsessive–compulsive symptoms in screening and clinical contexts. A reliability generalization meta-analysis was carried out to estimate the average reliability of the PI–WSUR scores and its subscales and to search for characteristics of the studies that can explain the heterogeneity among reliability coefficients. A total of 124 independent samples reported some coefficient alpha or test–retest correlation with the data at hand for the PI–WSUR scores. The average internal consistency reliability of the PI–WSUR total scores was .929 (95% CI [.922, .936]), and for the subscales, the means ranged from .792 to .900. The test–retest reliability for PI–WSUR total scores was .767 (95% CI [.700, .820]), with the subscales ranging from .540 to .790. Moderator analyses revealed a positive relationship between the standard deviation of PI–WSUR total scores and alpha coefficients, as well as higher reliability estimates for the original version of the test and for studies from North America. The reliability induction rate for the PI–WSUR was 53.7%. Regarding reliability, the PI–WSUR ranks among the best scales for assessing obsessive–compulsive symptoms. Internal consistency reliability was excellent for the PI–WSUR total score and good for the subscales.
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Personality Assessment
Early online date8 Aug 2018
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 8 Aug 2018

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The Padua Inventory-Washington State University Revision of Obsessions and Compulsions: A Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this