↓ Skip to main content

Negative Mood and Obsessive-Compulsive Related Clinical Constructs: An Examination of Underlying Factors

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Negative Mood and Obsessive-Compulsive Related Clinical Constructs: An Examination of Underlying Factors
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01570
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gary I. Britton, Graham C. L. Davey

Abstract

Emerging evidence suggests that many of the clinical constructs used to help understand and explain obsessive-compulsive (OC) symptoms, and negative mood, may be causally interrelated. One approach to understanding this interrelatedness is a motivational systems approach. This approach suggests that rather than considering clinical constructs and negative affect as separable entities, they are all features of an integrated threat management system, and as such are highly coordinated and interdependent. The aim of the present study was to examine if clinical constructs related to OC symptoms and negative mood are best treated as separable or, alternatively, if these clinical constructs and negative mood are best seen as indicators of an underlying superordinate variable, as would be predicted by a motivational systems approach. A sample of 370 student participants completed measures of mood and the clinical constructs of inflated responsibility, intolerance of uncertainty, not just right experiences, and checking stop rules. An exploratory factor analysis suggested two plausible factor structures, one where all construct items and negative mood items loaded onto one underlying superordinate variable, and a second structure comprising of five factors, where each item loaded onto a factor representative of what the item was originally intended to measure. A confirmatory factor analysis showed that the five factor model was preferential to the one factor model, suggesting the four constructs and negative mood are best conceptualized as separate variables. Given the predictions of a motivational systems approach were not supported in the current study, other possible explanations for the causal interrelatedness between clinical constructs and negative mood are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 55%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Physics and Astronomy 1 5%
Unknown 7 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 September 2017.
All research outputs
#20,252,232
of 25,754,670 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,701
of 34,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,882
of 324,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#467
of 583 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,754,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,779 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,513 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 583 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.