The relevance of dysfunctional reasoning to OCD and its treatment: Further evidence for inferential confusion utilizing a new task-based measure

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Louis-Philippe Baraby , Lysandre Bourguignon , Frederick Aardema
{"title":"The relevance of dysfunctional reasoning to OCD and its treatment: Further evidence for inferential confusion utilizing a new task-based measure","authors":"Louis-Philippe Baraby ,&nbsp;Lysandre Bourguignon ,&nbsp;Frederick Aardema","doi":"10.1016/j.jbtep.2022.101728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><p>Previous research has highlighted the role of dysfunctional reasoning processes (i.e. “inferential confusion”) in the development and maintenance of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Inferential confusion has previously been found to be a unique predictor of OC symptoms and has shown specificity for OCD. However, these findings have primarily relied on a single self-report questionnaire, and only a limited number of experimentations have been conducted to establish the specificity of inferential confusion to OCD with alternate measures. The current paper demonstrates the relationship of inferential confusion with OCD symptoms in clinical samples by using a task-based measure of inferential confusion.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Sixty-four OCD participants, as well as thirty anxious and thirty-four healthy controls completed the recently developed Dysfunctional Reasoning Processes Task (DRPT) and related measures. Thirty-five OCD participants then completed sixteen sessions of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and completed the same measures post-treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>As predicted, dysfunctional reasoning was significantly more elevated for those with OCD relative to control groups. Reduced levels of dysfunctional reasoning during CBT were significantly associated with successful treatment outcome.</p></div><div><h3>Limitations</h3><p>Clinical implications should be interpreted with caution due to the relatively small sample size.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Our findings support the notion that inferential confusion is an important cognitive factor particularly relevant to OCD that needs to be directly addressed as a mechanism of change in CBT.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48198,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","volume":"80 ","pages":"Article 101728"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791622000064","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background and objectives

Previous research has highlighted the role of dysfunctional reasoning processes (i.e. “inferential confusion”) in the development and maintenance of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Inferential confusion has previously been found to be a unique predictor of OC symptoms and has shown specificity for OCD. However, these findings have primarily relied on a single self-report questionnaire, and only a limited number of experimentations have been conducted to establish the specificity of inferential confusion to OCD with alternate measures. The current paper demonstrates the relationship of inferential confusion with OCD symptoms in clinical samples by using a task-based measure of inferential confusion.

Methods

Sixty-four OCD participants, as well as thirty anxious and thirty-four healthy controls completed the recently developed Dysfunctional Reasoning Processes Task (DRPT) and related measures. Thirty-five OCD participants then completed sixteen sessions of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and completed the same measures post-treatment.

Results

As predicted, dysfunctional reasoning was significantly more elevated for those with OCD relative to control groups. Reduced levels of dysfunctional reasoning during CBT were significantly associated with successful treatment outcome.

Limitations

Clinical implications should be interpreted with caution due to the relatively small sample size.

Conclusions

Our findings support the notion that inferential confusion is an important cognitive factor particularly relevant to OCD that needs to be directly addressed as a mechanism of change in CBT.

功能失调推理与强迫症的相关性及其治疗:利用一种新的基于任务的测量方法进行推理困惑的进一步证据
背景和目的以往的研究强调了功能失调的推理过程(即“推理混乱”)在强迫症(OCD)的发展和维持中的作用。推断性混淆先前被发现是强迫症症状的独特预测因素,并显示出强迫症的特异性。然而,这些发现主要依赖于单一的自我报告问卷,并且只有有限数量的实验通过替代措施来确定强迫症的推理困惑的特异性。目前的论文通过使用基于任务的推理困惑测量来证明临床样本中推理困惑与强迫症症状的关系。方法64名强迫症参与者、30名焦虑者和34名健康对照者完成了最近开发的功能障碍推理过程任务(DRPT)和相关措施。35名强迫症参与者随后完成了16次认知行为治疗(CBT),并在治疗后完成了相同的测量。结果正如预测的那样,与对照组相比,强迫症患者的功能失调推理明显更高。CBT期间功能失调推理水平的降低与成功的治疗结果显著相关。限制由于样本量相对较小,应谨慎解释临床影响。结论我们的研究结果支持这样一种观点,即推理混淆是一个重要的认知因素,与强迫症特别相关,需要直接作为CBT的一种变化机制来解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The publication of the book Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition (1958) by the co-founding editor of this Journal, Joseph Wolpe, marked a major change in the understanding and treatment of mental disorders. The book used principles from empirical behavioral science to explain psychopathological phenomena and the resulting explanations were critically tested and used to derive effective treatments. The second half of the 20th century saw this rigorous scientific approach come to fruition. Experimental approaches to psychopathology, in particular those used to test conditioning theories and cognitive theories, have steadily expanded, and experimental analysis of processes characterising and maintaining mental disorders have become an established research area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信