Translation and Validation of the German 12-Item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory (OCI-12) in Clinical and Non-Clinical Samples Research Articles Translation and Validation of the German 12-Item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory (OCI-12) in Clinical and Non-Clinical Samples Celina L. Müller 1,2 , Jakob Fink-Lamotte 3,4 , Lena Jelinek 5 , Luzie Lohse 5 , Thomas Ehring 1 , Michael Noll-Hussong 6 , Götz Berberich 7 , Andreas Wahl-Kordon 8 , Jens Borgelt 8 , Dean McKay 9 , Jonathan S. Abramowitz 10 , Amitai Abramovitch 11 , Barbara Cludius 1,12 [1] Department of Psychology, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. [2] Department of Psychology, Julius-Maximilians- Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. [3] Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. [4] Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany. [5] Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. [6] Oberberg Day Clinic Munich-Westend, Munich, Germany. [7] Oberberg Hospital Windach, Windach, Germany. [8] Oberberg Hospital Schwarzwald, Hornberg, Germany. [9] Department of Psychology, Fordham University, New York, NY, USA. [10] Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. [11] Department of Psychology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA. [12] Department of Psychology, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany. Clinical Psychology in Europe, 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165, https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 Received: 2024-11-20 • Accepted: 2025-04-15 • Published (VoR): 2025-11-28 Handling Editor: Winfried Rief, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany Corresponding Author: Celina L. Müller, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Department of Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Marcusstraße 9-11, 97070 Würzburg, Germany. Phone: +49 931 31-84124. E- mail: celina.mueller@uni-wuerzburg.de Supplementary Materials: Code, Data, Materials [see Index of Supplementary Materials] Abstract Background: The Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory-Revised (OCI-R) is widely used to assess symptoms of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Despite its consistent factor structure, criticism on its syndromal validity has been raised. With the recent update of the commonly used diagnostic manuals, hoarding symptoms are now better captured by the diagnosis “pathological hoarding”. Furthermore, the neutralising scale suffers from relatively low psychometric properties. Consequently, a 12-item version of the scale (OCI-12), excluding hoarding and neutralising items This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original work is properly cited. https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.32872/cpe.16165&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2025-11-28 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1639-8864 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4384-4903 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5292-350X https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1480-8145 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9502-6868 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9734-0161 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8300-9294 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1045-1994 https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8560-6614 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1158-5043 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1721-8060 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9640-0970 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4814-1497 https://www.psychopen.eu/ https://cpe.psychopen.eu/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ was recently developed in English. The current study examined the psychometric properties of the German version of the OCI-12. Method: The psychometric properties of the translated German version of the OCI-12 were investigated in a German-speaking sample, consisting of 102 participants with OCD, 69 participants with an anxiety-related disorder, and 248 non-clinical controls. Results: The German version of the OCI-12 replicated the four-factor structure of the original English version, with a higher order factor of general OCD symptoms. In addition, similar to the original version, the German OCI-12 showed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability, moderate-to-good construct validity, and good-to-excellent diagnostic accuracy. Conclusion: The German version of the OCI-12 represents a syndromally valid and reliable inventory for assessing OCD symptoms. Psychometric properties are good-to-excellent and comparable to the original English version. The diagnostic sensitivity is good-to-excellent and further supports using the OCI-12 in clinical and research settings. Keywords Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory, OCI-12, validation, diagnostic accuracy Highlights • The German version of OCI-12 possesses good-to-excellent psychometric properties. • The OCI-12 presents a syndromally valid measure to assess OCD symptoms in German. • Integrating the OCI-12 into routine clinical practice may improve OCD symptom assessment. Over the last two decades, the most common questionnaire for the assessment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) symptoms has been the Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory Revised (OCI-R; Foa et al., 2002) and the German version of the OCI-R (Gönner et al., 2007). Consisting of 18 items, the OCI-R assesses OCD symptoms on six dimen­ sions (washing, checking, ordering, obsessing, neutralising, and hoarding). Yet despite its consistent factor structure demonstrated across various languages (e.g., Simos et al., 2019; Solem et al., 2010; Souza et al., 2011) and its frequent use, criticism on its syndromal validity has been raised. Particularly, although hoarding symptoms can still contribute to an OCD diagnosis when driven by obsessions (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 241), hoarding is no longer considered a core symptom of OCD and is now classified as separate disorder (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013; ICD-11; World Health Organization, 2019). Moreover, the subscale “neutralising” is limited to phenomena involving numeric content and suffers from low psychometric properties compared to other OCI-R subscales (Abramovitch et al., 2021; Abramowitz & Deacon, 2006; Hajcak et al., 2004). Validation German Version OCI-12 2 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.psychopen.eu/ With the aim to improve the syndromal validity of the OCI-R and adjust it to the current changes in the DSM-5 and ICD-11, Abramovitch et al. (2021) developed a 12-item English version of the OCI-R, called the OCI-12. The OCI-12 possesses good-to-excellent psychometric properties which were comparable to the original version of the OCI-R. The factor analysis evidenced that the four factors of checking, ordering, washing, and obsessing could explain the data well, with a general factor of OCD being beneficial to account for the covariances between the factors. Furthermore, the OCI-12 was able to differentiate between individuals with OCD and those with an anxiety-related disorder (ARD) or non-clinical (NCC) controls. In summary, the English version of the OCI-12 represents a valuable update of the OCI-R with a syndromally valid assessment of obsessive-compulsive symptoms and symptom dimensions. The current study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the German version of the OCI-12 to evaluate its utility in routine care and clinical research. We transla­ ted the OCI-12 into German and examined its factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, diagnostic accuracy, cut-off criteria, and severity benchmarks. Method Translation Procedure The translation process of the OCI-12 followed the translation-back-translation proce­ dure as described by Cripps (2017) and added aspects of Beaton et al. (2000). The process is described in Supplement A. Study Procedure Three groups of participants were assessed: OCD, ARD, NCC. Individuals in the clinical samples (OCD and ARD) were assessed at a single timepoint (T1). For test-retest reliabili­ ty, the NCC sample was assessed at two timepoints (T1 and T2), with email invitations sent 14 days apart. At T1, all questionnaires were administered, whereas only the OCI-12 was administered at T2. All questionnaires were administered online via the survey software REDCap (Harris et al., 2009). The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Psy­ chology and Educational Sciences of the LMU Munich (03_Mueller_b). All participants provided informed E-consent for data collection. Participants For determining the target sample size, we followed the suggestions for minimum sample sizes of MacCallum et al. (1999) and Hair et al. (2019) to ensure that the factor analyses of the OCI-12 could be conducted in the total sample and the subsample of participants Müller, Fink-Lamotte, Jelinek et al. 3 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.psychopen.eu/ with OCD. We also referred to previous studies that conducted analyses with similar clinical and non-clinical samples (e.g., OCD: n = 44, clinical control: n = 44, non-clinical: n = 287; Aydin et al., 2014; OCD: n = 107, anxiety disorder: n = 30, depression: n = 40; Fink-Lamotte et al., 2021). Therefore, we predefined samples sizes of 100 participants in the OCD group, 50 participants in the ARD group, and 250 participants in the NCC group. The observed communalities (h 2 = .77 for the total sample; h 2 = .73 for the OCD sample) are on average larger than h 2 = .60, confirming that our sample sizes are adequate for conducting factor analyses in both the OCD and total samples (according to Hair et al., 2019). Participants were recruited between April 2022 and July 2024. General inclusion criteria were: minimum age of 18 years, no history of mania or psychotic disorders, and no acute suicidality. Further group-specific inclusion criteria are described below. In- and exclusion criteria were checked with dedicated questions and questionnaires in the survey’s start. Clinical Samples Participants with a primary OCD/ARD diagnosis within the previous six months, based on DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) or ICD-10 (World Health Organization, 1992) criteria, or those undergoing treatment due to OCD/ARD during this period, were recruited from collaborating clinics in Germany and another research project at the LMU Munich (https://osf.io/8gkjc). The diagnosis of OCD/ARD was given by healthcare providers (for participants recruited through cooperating clinics) or with a structured interview (Mini-DIPS, for participants recruited through another project; Margraf & Cwik, 2017). For OCD participants, inclusion required a Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS; Hand & Büttner-Westphal, 1991) total score > 12 or a subscale score ≥ 8 for obsessions or compulsions as an indicator for clinically relevant OCD symptoms (see also Külz et al., 2014, 2019). The Y-BOCS was administered as self-rating (Y-BOCS-SR; Baer, 1993) for participants recruited through cooperating clinics (n = 64) and as interview version (Hand & Büttner-Westphal, 1991) for participants recruited through another project (n = 38). The final sample comprised 102 participants with OCD with Y-BOCS scores indicating moderate symptoms (M = 22.14, SD = 6.08; MObsessionSubscale = 11.25, SDObsessionSubscale = 3.39, MCompulsionSubscale = 10.88, SDCompulsionSubscale = 3.89). ARD participants were excluded if they had a lifetime diagnosis of OCD. In total 69 participants with ARD fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed the assessment. The diagnoses were as follows: 28.99% social anxiety disorder, 13.04% generalised anxiety disorder, 31.88% panic disorder, 5.8% agoraphobia, 10.14% post-traumatic stress disorder, 42.03% specific phobia1. 1) As multiple anxiety disorders could be present at the same time, the percentages exceed 100%. Validation German Version OCI-12 4 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://osf.io/8gkjc https://www.psychopen.eu/ Non-Clinical Sample Non-clinical participants were recruited via the German online panel PsyWeb (Universität Münster, 2025). Participants were screened for major psychological disorders with the simple version of the Web Screening Questionnaire (WSQ; Donker et al., 2009) and excluded if they exceeded any cut-off. Of 906 participants that gave informed con­ sent to participate in the study and publication of their data, 383 filled out the screening questions and fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of those, a total of 248 participants comple­ ted the first assessment, with 163 eligible for test-retest analyses after completing both assessments. In summary, the final sample consisted of N = 419 participants, including n = 102 in the OCD group, n = 69 in the ARD group, and n = 248 in the NCC group. Sample characteristics are presented in Supplement B. The dataset had also been used in a prior publication (Müller et al., 2025), which in­ vestigated the psychometric properties of the four-item ultra-brief Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory (OCI-4) by extracting the items from the OCI-12. Measures The reliabilities of the questionnaires used in this study are provided in Supplement C. The psychometric properties of the OCI-12 will be elaborated below. 12-Item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory (OCI-12) The OCI-12 is a 12-item self-report questionnaire measuring OCD symptoms and associ­ ated distress on a five-point Likert scale [ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely)]. Each scale is assessed by three items, such as “I get upset if objects are not arranged properly.” for the ordering subscale, “I repeatedly check doors, windows, drawers, etc.” for the checking subscale, “I sometimes have to wash or clean myself simply because I feel contaminated.” for the washing subscale, and “I frequently get nasty thoughts and have difficulty in getting rid of them.” for the obsessing subscale. The German wording of each item and the associated subscales are displayed in Supplement D. Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) The Y-BOCS was assessed as a 10-item interview (Hand & Büttner-Westphal, 1991) for participants recruited through another project and as a 10-item self-report measure (Y- BOCS-SR; Baer, 1993) for participants recruited through cooperating clinics. The Y-BOCS assesses the severity of obsessions and compulsions over the past week. Each item is rated on a five-point scale (0 to 4), with higher scores indicating higher symptom severity. While previous studies proposed that the two versions can be used interchange­ ably (Steketee et al., 1996), more recent investigations showed slightly higher scores in the clinician administered version (Federici et al., 2010; Hauschildt et al., 2019). In Müller, Fink-Lamotte, Jelinek et al. 5 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.psychopen.eu/ the current study, the Y-BOCS total scores did not differ significantly between the two administration modalities: Y-BOCS: M = 22.29, SD = 6.44 (completed by 38 participants recruited through another project); Y-BOCS-SR: M = 22.05, SD = 5.91 (completed by 64 participants recruited through cooperating clinics); t(71.61) = -0.19, p = .85. Dimensional Obsessive–Compulsive Scale (DOCS) The DOCS (Fink-Lamotte et al., 2021) assesses OCD symptom severity over the past month across four dimensions (i.e., contamination, responsibility for harm and mistakes, symmetry, and unacceptable/taboo thoughts). Each dimension incorporates five items rated on a five-point scale (0 to 4), with higher scores representing higher symptom severity. Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3 (ASI-3) The ASI-3 (Kemper et al., 2011) assesses anxiety sensitivity with 18 items rated on a five-point Likert scale [0 (very little) to 4 (very much)], with higher scores representing higher anxiety sensitivity. Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ) The PSWQ (Glöckner-Rist & Rist, 2014) assesses excessive and unrealistic worry using 16-items that are rated on a five-point Likert scale [1 (not at all typical of me) to 5 (very typical of me)], with higher scores indicating higher worry. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) The PHQ-9 (Löwe et al., 2002) assesses the severity of depressive symptoms throughout the past two weeks with nine items rated on a four-point scale [0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day)]. Higher scores indicate more severe depressive symptoms. Web Screening Questionnaire (WSQ) The adapted simple version of the WSQ (Donker et al., 2009) contains 13 questions that screen for the most common psychological disorders and acute suicidality. The original version of the WSQ has been validated and deemed as an appropriate screening tool (Donker et al., 2009; Meuldijk et al., 2017). Analytic Plan The statistical analyses were performed in R Statistics (version 4.4.1; R Core Team, 2024), with significance set at p < .05. The R-code is available at OSF (Müller & Cludius, 2024S). Validation German Version OCI-12 6 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Confirmatory Factor Analysis The factor structure of the OCI-12 was investigated by confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) using the lavaan package (version 0.6-19; Houben et al., 2015). Both, the four- factor structure (washing, checking, ordering, obsessing) and the four-factor structure including a higher-order factor of general OCD symptoms were investigated. We eval­ uated goodness of fit using the standardised root-mean-square residual (SRMR), root- mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI). The following criteria as indicator for good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Schmitt, 2011): RMSEA ≤ 0.06; SRMR ≤ 0.08; CFI ≥ 0.95; TLI ≥ 0.95. As the multivariate normality assumption was violated (for mean and variance), we decided to use the “Maximum Likelihood with Robust Standard Errors and Mean-Variance Adjusted Test” in our CFAs. Therefore, all fit indices reported are robust fit indices. We further investigated in separate linear regression models whether each factor of the OCI-12 could predict the corresponding subscale of the DOCS. Construct Validity To examine construct validity, correlation analyses were conducted between OCI-12, Y-BOCS, and DOCS (convergent validity) and between OCI-12, ASI-3, PSWQ, and PHQ-9 (discriminant validity). Pearson’s correlation coefficients were interpreted according to Cohen (1988). Reliability For internal consistency, both Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω were calculated (Dunn, 2014; McDonald, 1999) and interpreted according to Hair (2009). The test-retest reliabili­ ty of the OCI-12 was investigated with correlation analyses (interpreted according to Cohen, 1988), paired t-tests, and the two-way mixed effect intraclass correlation coeffi­ cient (ICC; interpreted according to Koo & Li, 2016) between T1 and T2 in the NCC sample. Diagnostic Accuracy We investigated group differences in the OCI-12 total and subscale scores by means of univariate (ANOVA) and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Furthermore, we conduced post-hoc Tukey Honest Significant Difference (Tukey HSD). We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the total score and each subscale with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. The area under the curve (AUC) was in­ terpreted according to the criteria by Carter et al. (2016). Cut-off scores were established with the Youden Index (J; Youden, 1950). Müller, Fink-Lamotte, Jelinek et al. 7 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Results Confirmatory Factor Analysis Confirmatory Factor Analysis in the OCD Sample Figure 1A displays the CFA examining the four-factor solution. The Chi-square test, χ2(48, N = 102) = 70.985, p = .017, rejected the hypothesis of a perfect fit. Furthermore, the TLI (0.945) did not support a good model fit while the RMSEA indicated a marginal mod­ el fit (0.081; MacCallum et al., 1996). The remaining goodness-of-fit indices supported a good fit of the four-factor model: SRMR = 0.059; CFI = 0.960. The four-factor model including a higher-order factor of general OCD symptoms is shown in Figure 1B. Aside from the Chi-square test, χ2(50, N = 102) = 71.181, p = .026, and the RMSEA (0.076; reasonable fit; MacCallum et al., 1996), all fit indices support a good model fit: SRMR = 0.058; CFI = 0.963; TLI = 0.951. The first-order factors loaded weakly to strongly on the higher-order factor of general OCD symptoms. The higher-order fac­ tor accounted for a significant proportion of variance in the first-order factors checking, ordering, and washing (RChecking 2 = .791, ROrdering 2 = .286, RWashing 2 = .148), but not obsessing (RObsessing 2 = .023). Confirmatory Factor Analysis in the Total Sample The path model of the four-factor solution in the total sample is displayed in Figure 2A. As in the OCD sample, the Chi-square test was significant, χ2(48, N = 419) = 80.558, p = .002) and the RMSEA showed only a reasonable fit (0.065; MacCallum et al., 1996). The remaining goodness-of-fit indices supported a good fit of the data: SRMR = 0.043; CFI = 0.979; TLI = 0.972. Figure 2B presents the path model including the general OCD factor. Except the Chi-square test, χ2(50, N = 419) = 84.168, p = .002, and the RMSEA (0.065; reasonable fit; MacCallum et al., 1996), all fit indices support a good model fit: SRMR = 0.046; CFI = 0.979; TLI = 0.972. In the total sample, the first-order factors loaded strongly on the higher-order factor of general OCD symptoms. The higher-order factor accounted for a significant proportion of variance in all first-order factors (RChecking 2 = .796, ROrdering 2 = .433, RWashing 2 = .588, RObsessing 2 = .557). Correspondence of OCI-12 Subscales to DOCS Factors The linear regression models of the four OCI-12 factors predicting each DOCS subscale are presented in Supplement E. Each DOCS subscale significantly and strongly predicted by the corresponding OCI-12 subscale (βs ranging from β = 0.44 for checking and ordering to β = 0.84 for washing). Validation German Version OCI-12 8 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Figure 1 Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the OCI-12 in the OCD Sample (n = 102) Note. A. Path diagram of the structural equation model in the OCD sample depicting the four-factor model. B. Path diagram of the structural equation model in the OCD sample depicting the four-factor model including a higher order factor of general OCD symptoms. The factor loadings are presented between the lines, with thicker lines being indicative of higher factor loadings. Residual variances are presented next to the observed items and factors. The shading corresponds to the strength of relationships. Darker paths and values indicate stronger loadings or correlations. OCI-12 = 12-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory; CHE = checking subscale; ORD = ordering subscale; WAS = washing subscale; OBS = obsessing subscale; OCD = Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Müller, Fink-Lamotte, Jelinek et al. 9 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Figure 2 Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the OCI-12 in the Total Sample (N = 419) Note. A. Path diagram of the structural equation model in the total sample depicting the four-factor model. B. Path diagram of the structural equation model in the total sample depicting the four-factor model including a higher order factor of general OCD symptoms. The factor loadings are presented between the lines, with thicker lines being indicative of higher factor loadings. Residual variances are presented next to the observed items and factors. The shading corresponds to the strength of relationships. Darker paths and values indicate stronger loadings or correlations. OCI-12 = 12-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory; CHE = checking subscale; ORD = ordering subscale; WAS = washing subscale; OBS = obsessing subscale; OCD = Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Validation German Version OCI-12 10 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Reliability Internal Consistency The internal consistency for the OCI-12 subscales in the OCD group ranged from good (obsessing) to excellent (washing; see Table 1). The OCI-12 total showed good internal consistency. In the ARD subgroup, the internal consistency ranged from acceptable (washing) to good (ordering), while the OCI-12 total demonstrated good internal consis­ tency. The NCC group showed the lowest internal consistency, ranging from not satis­ factory (checking) to acceptable (obsessing), with the OCI-12 total showing acceptable internal consistency. Table 1 Internal Consistency of OCI-12 Subscales per Group OCI-12 OCD n = 102 ARD n = 69 NCC n = 248 α ω α ω α ω Checking .85 .86 .78 .83 .40 .44 Ordering .92 .92 .87 .87 .79 .70 Washing .93 .93 .76 .76 .60 .61 Obsessing .82 .84 .85 .85 .77 .77 Total .82 .74 .84 .84 .72 .71 Note. OCI-12 = 12-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory; OCD = Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; ARD = Anxiety-Related Disorders; NCC = Non-Clinical Controls. Test-Retest Reliability The test-retest reliability of the OCI-12 was assessed over an interval of M = 13.42 (SD = 3.64) days in the NCC group. Results are displayed in Table 2. Results of t-tests indicated no significant changes over the test-retest interval for OCI-12 total and all subscales except for washing, which significantly increased from T1 to T2. A strong positive correlation between T1 and T2 was shown for the OCI-12 total and a moderate (checking) to strong (ordering, washing, obsessing) positive correlation for the OCI-12 subscales. The two-way mixed effect ICC demonstrated moderate (checking) to good (ordering, washing, obsessing) reliability for the subscales and good reliability for the OCI-12 total score. Construct Validity As shown in Table 3, the OCI-12 correlated moderately with the Y-BOCS in the OCD sample and strongly with the DOCS in all groups. The correlations with depressive symptoms, anxiety, and worry were moderate. Müller, Fink-Lamotte, Jelinek et al. 11 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Table 3 Correlations Between OCI-12 and Measures of OCD Symptoms, Depression, Anxiety, and Worry per Group Measure OCD ARD NCC n r n r n r OCD Symptoms (Convergent Validity) Y-BOCSTotal 102 .45 – – – – DOCSTotal 102 .74 69 .63 248 .50 Other Symptoms (Divergent Validity) PHQ-9 102 .48 69 .29 248 .44 ASI-3 102 .47 69 .37 248 .39 PSWQa 101 .48 65 .30 237 .46 aMissing values in the dataset. Note. OCD = Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; ARD = Anxiety-Related Disorders; NCC = Non-Clinical Controls; OCI-12 = 12-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory; Y-BOCS = Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory; DOCS = Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale; PHQ-9 = Patient-Health Questionnaire-9; ASI-3 = Anxiety- Sensitivity Index-3; PSWQ = Penn-State Worry Questionnaire. Diagnostic Accuracy Group Differences Descriptives and group differences on the OCI-12 are presented in Table 4. The total scores of the OCI-12 significantly differed between groups, F(2, 416) = 373.1, p < .001, as indicated by a main effect of group in the ANOVA. Participants with OCD had significantly higher OCI-12 scores than participants with ARD and NCC, which showed Table 2 Descriptives and Test-Retest Measures of the OCI-12 OCI-12 T1 T2 t-Test Pearson’s Correlation Consistency M SD M SD t p r p F ICC Checking 0.80 0.99 0.72 0.96 -1.151 .251 .52 < .001 3.2 .69 Ordering 2.09 1.84 2.24 1.88 1.214 .227 .65 < .001 4.8 .79 Washing 0.33 0.75 0.47 0.96 2.506 .013 .67 < .001 4.7 .79 Obsessing 1.09 1.56 1.18 1.58 0.991 .323 .71 < .001 6.0 .83 Total 4.32 3.42 4.61 3.57 1.323 .188 .67 < .001 5.1 .80 Note. OCI-12 = 12-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory; ICC = two-way mixed effect intraclass correlation coefficient. These measures were obtained in the sample of Non-Clinical Controls (n = 163) only. Validation German Version OCI-12 12 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.psychopen.eu/ significantly higher OCI-12 scores than the NCC group (all p’s < .001 in Tukey’s HSD tests). Table 4 Descriptives and Group Differences of the OCI-12 OCI-12 OCD n = 102 ARD n = 69 NCC n = 248 M SD Mdn IQR M SD Mdn IQR M SD Mdn IQR Checking 5.26 3.32 5 6 2.06 2.32 1 3 0.79 0.95 1 1 Ordering 4.90 3.52 4 5.75 3.78 3.14 3 5 1.96 1.74 2 2 Washing 5.83 4.41 6 8.75 1.59 2.16 1 3 0.34 0.85 0 0 Obsessing 7.22 3.06 8 4 3.57 2.74 3 5 1.02 1.43 1 2 Total 23.22 9.19 23 12 11.00 7.34 10 10 4.10 3.23 3 4 Note. The values for each subscale can range from 0 – 12. The possible range for the total score is 0 – 48. OCI-12 = 12-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory; OCD = Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; ARD = Anxiety- Related Disorders; NCC = Non-Clinical Controls; Mdn = Median; IQR = Interquartile Range. When considering the OCI-12 subscales, the MANOVA showed a significant main effect of group across the subscales, Pillai’s Trace = 0.733, F(8, 828) = 59.837, p < .001. As for the OCI-12 total score, separate ANOVAs with post-hoc Tukey HSD tests revealed that participants with OCD had significantly higher scores on each subscale than participants with ARD, which showed significantly higher scores than the NCC group (all p’s < .001). Diagnostic Accuracy The diagnostic accuracy of the OCI-12 to discriminate participants with OCD from participants with ARD was good (AUC = .85, 95% CI [.795, .909]; see Figure 3A). The diagnostic accuracy for each subscale ranged from AUC = .59 (ordering) to AUC = .81 (obsessing; see Figure 4A). Considering the diagnostic accuracy of the OCI-12 for distinguishing individuals with OCD from NCC’s, the OCI-12 total score evidenced excellent accuracy (AUC = .99, 95% CI [.976, .997]; see Figure 3B). The diagnostic accuracy of the subscales ranged from AUC = .75 (ordering) to AUC = .96 (obsessing). Overall, the OCI-12 total score evidenced the best diagnostic accuracy for discriminating OCD participants from both, ARD and NCC (see Figure 4B). Müller, Fink-Lamotte, Jelinek et al. 13 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Figure 3 Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves for the OCI-12 Total Note. A. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve discriminating participants with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (n = 102) from participants with Anxiety-Related Disorders (n = 69). B. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve discriminating participants with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (n = 102) from Non-Clinical Controls (n = 248). Optimal Cut-Off Table 5 summarises the Youden Indices, sensitivities, and specificities of the OCI-12 total and each subscale for discriminating participants with OCD from ARD and NCC partici­ pants. An OCI-12 total score ≥ 17 was considered optimal to discriminate participants with OCD from participants with ARD. When discriminating participants with OCD from NCC’s, a score of ≥ 11 was considered optimal. Out of the subscales, the washing subscale could best discriminate OCD from ARD participants, while the obsessing sub­ scale best discriminated OCD from NCC participants. The ordering subscale was suited worst to discriminate participants with OCD from ARD and NCC participants. Severity Benchmarks OCI-12 severity benchmarks were investigated in severity-groups based on Y-BOCS cut-offs (Storch et al., 2015; see Supplement F for OCI-12 descriptives per severity group). The OCI-12 total score fairly discriminated mild from moderate cases (AUC = .73, 95% CI [.557, .900]), but only poorly distinguished moderate from moderate-severe cases (AUC = .69, 95% CI [.576, .807]) and moderate-to-severe from severe cases (AUC = .52, 95% CI [.059, .983]). Validation German Version OCI-12 14 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Figure 4 Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves for the OCI-12 Subscales Note. A. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the OCI-12 subscales discriminating participants with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (n = 102) from participants with Anxiety-Related Disorders (n = 69). B. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the OCI-12 subscales discriminating participants with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (n = 102) from Non-Clinical Controls (n = 248). Table 5 Optimal Cut-Offs for OCI-12 Subscales OCI-12 Subscale OCD vs. ARD OCD vs. NCC Cut-Off J Sensitivity Specificity Cut-Off J Sensitivity Specificity Checking 4 .47 65.69% 81.16% 3 .67 73.53% 93.55% Ordering 9 .14 22.55% 91.30% 5 .42 49.02% 93.15% Washing 5 .55 61.76% 92.75% 2 .63 70.59% 92.34% Obsessing 5 .51 81.37% 69.57% 4 .81 85.29% 95.97% Total 17 .52 76.47% 75.36% 11 .89 92.16% 97.18% Note. OCI-12 = 12-Item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory; OCD = Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; ARD = Anxiety-Related Disorders; NCC = Non-Clinical Controls; J = Youden Index; Sensitivity = correct classification of OCD participants; Specificity = correct classification of non-OCD participants. Given that the severe group included only three individuals, moderate-to-severe and severe cases were combined, but discrimination from moderate cases remained poor (AUC = .69; 95% CI [.577, .801]). An optimal cut-off ≥ 12 was suggested for mild vs. Müller, Fink-Lamotte, Jelinek et al. 15 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.psychopen.eu/ moderate cases (J = .38), and a cut-off ≥ 24 for moderate vs. moderate-severe cases (J = .38). Due to small sample sizes and limited discrimination, further research with a larger sample is needed to establish OCI-12 severity benchmarks. Discussion To utilise the OCI-12 in German-speaking populations, we translated the original Eng­ lish version (Abramovitch et al., 2021) into German and investigated its psychometric properties. We replicated the original four-factor structure with a higher-order factor of general OCD symptoms. Furthermore, our results on the reliability, validity, and diagnostic accuracy of the OCI-12 are good-to-excellent and comparable to the original English version. More specifically, the four-factor model (washing, checking, ordering, and obsessing) including the higher-order factor of general OCD symptoms showed a good fit to the data according to the CFAs. The higher-order factor also explained significant variance in the OCI-12 subscales. Of note, the chi-square test and the RMSEA did not support a good model fit. However, both indices are criticised for being sensitive to the sample size (Bollen, 2014; Hu & Bentler, 1999) and the degrees of freedom (Kenny et al., 2015), respectively. As most of the approximate fit indices (i.e., SRMR, CFA, TLI) supported a good fit of the data, we conclude that the four-factor structure with a higher-order factor of general OCD symptoms is also evident in the German-speaking sample. Moreover, each of the OCI-12 subscale significantly and most strongly predicted the corresponding subscale of the well-established DOCS, providing further evidence for the four factors. The OCI-12 total score’s internal consistency and test-retest reliability was good. In terms of construct validity, the current correlation analyses showed only a moderate cor­ relation between OCI-12 scores and the Y-BOCS. This relatively low correlation has also been shown in previous studies (see Abramovitch et al., 2021; Aspvall et al., 2020) and may be related to idiographic nature of the Y-BOCS in measuring OCD symptom severity of individually assessed obsessions and compulsions as compared to the nomothetic approach of the OCI-12. Moreover, the format of administration seems to contribute to the relatively low correlation, hinting towards the common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Indeed, an exploratory correlation analysis showed that the correlation between the two self-reports, OCI-12 and Y-BOCS-SR, was higher (r = .56, p < .001) than the correlation between the OCI-12 and the Y-BOCS interview (r = .28, p = .090). However, in support of convergent validity, the correlation between the OCI-12 and the DOCS is strong. Therefore, we consider the comparably weak correlation with the Y-BOCS rather as a methodological/conceptual artefact. Correlations between the OCI-12 and measures of depression, anxiety, and worry have been moderate, highlighting that the OCI-12 possesses discriminant validity but is not completely independent of these Validation German Version OCI-12 16 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.psychopen.eu/ symptom measures. Given that the clinical samples present with comorbid diagnoses (e.g., depression), these results are, however, not surprising. When comparing the OCI-12 scores between the three groups, the group of par­ ticipants with OCD showed significantly higher scores than both, participants with ARD and NCC. The OCI-12 can discriminate well between participants with OCD and ARD when a cut-off of ≥ 17 is considered and can discriminate excellently between participants with OCD and NCC’s when a cut-off of ≥ 11 is used. Of note, the OCI-12 should not be considered as isolated diagnostic tool (i.e., the cut-off criteria should not replace a diagnostic interview). Analyses of the severity benchmarks showed that the OCI-12 could fairly discriminate mild from moderate cases, but only poorly discriminate between cases of mild or severe symptom severity. However, due to the small sample sizes within the severity groups, future research is needed to establish conclusive bench­ marks. Limitations This study has some limitations. Although participants were recruited within cooperat­ ing clinics, structured diagnostic interviews were not always possible, risking less precise diagnoses, particularly for comorbid disorders. Likewise, the absence of structured inter­ views for the NCC population may have allowed the inclusion of participants with undiagnosed psychological disorders, not captured by dedicated questions or the WSQ. Furthermore, 63% of participants with OCD filled out the Y-BOCS as self-rating, whereas 37% completed the Y-BOCS interview. While both formats show strong correla­ tions and good reliability and may be used interchangeably (Baer et al., 1993; Rosenfeld et al., 1992; Steketee et al., 1996), the weak correlation between the interview version and the OCI-12 hints towards a common method bias, which should be taken into consid­ eration when interpreting the convergent validity. As the correlation between the OCI-12 and the Y-BOCS is affected by the assessment modality, it may be worthwhile in future studies to investigate the correlation between the OCI-12 and other interview-based measures. Additionally, participants in the clinical samples presented with comorbid disorders. Although this increases the ecological validity of the current validation, comorbid infor­ mation is not integrated into the psychometric analyses. Therefore, comorbid symptoms may attenuate some of the reported measures (e.g., internal validity, discriminant validi­ ty). Lastly, the sample size of the OCD group should be increased in future studies. While the average item communalities (h 2 = .73) indicate that a sample size of n = 100 is adequate for conducting the CFA according to rules of thumb (Hair et al., 2019), a larger OCD sample may enhance the robustness of findings. The total sample size (N = 419), however, is adequate for conducting the CFA on the OCI-12 which supports the four-fac­ tor structure, including the higher-order factor representing general OCD symptoms. A Müller, Fink-Lamotte, Jelinek et al. 17 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.psychopen.eu/ valuable next step would be recruiting a large, representative sample, which would allow the development of norms for the OCI-12. Conclusion The German version of the OCI-12 presents a syndromally valid self-report measure to assess OCD symptoms which can be used in research and clinical settings. The original four-factor structure with a higher-order factor of general OCD symptoms could be replicated and the OCI-12 possesses good-to-excellent psychometric properties in terms of internal and test-retest reliability and construct validity. Furthermore, the OCI-12 possesses good-to excellent-diagnostic accuracy for its established clinical cut-off values. To enable a wide use of the OCI-12, the German versions of this questionnaire, including the item numbering and scoring guidelines, can be found in Supplement G and in Müller and Cludius, 2024S. As a next step, conducting a study with larger sample sizes would be valuable to establish norms, enabling an even more meaningful and precise interpretation of scores on the OCI-12. Validation German Version OCI-12 18 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Funding: This study was supported by the German Research Foundation (Project-ID: 461724773). Acknowledgments: The authors want to thank Andreas Kustermann, Christiane Treutler, Sandra Emmerich, Katharina Seifermann, Katharina Scharfstein, Marena Siegesleitner, and Larissa Wolkenstein for their on-site support in the recruitment of the clinical samples. The authors further want to thank Lena Ranftl and Franziska Ammer for their support throughout the data collection. Lastly, the authors want to thank Tonya Frommelt, Xenia Schmalz, Zoe Ilona Spock, and Milena Aleksić for their support in translating the items of the OCI-12. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Author Contributions: Celina L. Müller: Conceptualisation, methodology, programming, validation, formal analysis, investigation, writing – original draft, project administration; Jakob Fink-Lamotte: Conceptualisation, validation, investigation, writing – review & editing; Lena Jelinek: Conceptualisation, validation, investigation, writing – review & editing; Luzie Lohse: Conceptualisation, validation, investigation, writing – review & editing; Thomas Ehring: Conceptualisation, validation, investigation, writing – review & editing; Michael Noll-Hussong: Investigation, writing – review & editing; Götz Berberich: Investigation, writing – review & editing; Jens Borgelt: Investigation, writing – review & editing; Andreas Wahl-Kordon: Investigation, writing – review & editing; Dean McKay: Resources, writing – review & editing; Jonathan S. Abramowitz: Resources, writing – review & editing; Amitai Abramovitch: Validation, resources, writing – review & editing; Barbara Cludius: Conceptualisation, methodology, validation, investigation, writing – review & editing, supervision, funding acquisition Ethics Statement: The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of the LMU Munich. Author Note: The present manuscript details the psychometric properties of the German version of the OCI-12. In a separate publication (Müller et al., 2025), we conducted a first investigation of the German four-item ultra-brief Obsessive–Compulsive Inventory (OCI-4), which was derived from the dataset used in this study by selecting four items from the OCI-12. Social Media Accounts: Celina Müller: LinkedIn, Bluesky Preregistration: Analyses were not preregistered. Data Availability: The research data, codebook, and code are provided at the Open Science Framework (Müller & Cludius, 2024S). Supplementary Materials The Supplementary Materials contain the following items: • Research data, codebook, and code (Müller & Cludius, 2024S) • Additional information (Müller et al., 2025S): ◦ Supplement A: Translation Procedure Müller, Fink-Lamotte, Jelinek et al. 19 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://www.linkedin.com/in/celinamüller/ https://bsky.app/profile/celinalianemueller.bsky.social https://www.psychopen.eu/ ◦ Supplement B: Sample Characteristics ◦ Supplement C: Internal Consistencies of Questionnaires ◦ Supplement D: Formulation of OCI-12 Items ◦ Supplement E: OCI-12 Subscales Predicting DOCS Factors ◦ Supplement F: Severity Benchmarks ◦ Supplement G: 12-Item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory (OCI-12) Index of Supplementary Materials Müller, C. L., & Cludius, B. (2024S). German Version OCI-12 [Reseach data, codebook, and code]. OSF. https://osf.io/4m9x6/ Müller, C. L., Fink-Lamotte, J., Jelinek, L., Lohse, L., Ehring, T., Noll-Hussong, M., Berberich, G., Wahl-Kordon, A., Borgelt, J., McKay, D., Abramowitz, J. S., Abramovitch, A., & Cludius, B. (2025S). Supplementary materials to "Translation and validation of the German 12-item Obsessive- Compulsive Inventory (OCI-12) in clinical and non-clinical samples" [Additional information]. PsychOpen GOLD. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.21291 References Abramovitch, A., Abramowitz, J. S., & McKay, D. (2021). The OCI-12: A syndromally valid modification of the Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory–Revised. Psychiatry Research, 298, Article 113808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113808 Abramowitz, J. S., & Deacon, B. J. (2006). Psychometric properties and construct validity of the Obsessive–Compulsive Inventory—Revised: Replication and extension with a clinical sample. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20(8), 1016–1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.001 American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association. Aspvall, K., Cervin, M., Andrén, P., Perrin, S., Mataix-Cols, D., & Andersson, E. (2020). Validity and clinical utility of the Obsessive Compulsive Inventory – Child Version: Further evaluation in clinical samples. BMC Psychiatry, 20, Article 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-2450-7 Aydin, A., Boysan, M., Kalafat, T., Selvi, Y., Beşiroğlu, L., & Kagan, M. (2014). Validation of the Turkish version of the Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory–Revised (OCI–R) in clinical and non- clinical samples. Nöro Psikiyatri Arşivi, 51(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.4274/npa.y6451 Baer, L. (1993). Alles unter Kontrolle – Zwangsgedanken und Zwangshandlungen überwinden [Everything under control – A guide to overcoming OCD symptoms]. Hans Huber. Baer, L., Brown-Beasley, M. W., Sorce, J., & Henriques, A. I. (1993). Computer-assisted telephone administration of a structured interview for obsessive-compulsive disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 150(11), 1737–1738. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.150.11.1737 Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 Validation German Version OCI-12 20 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://osf.io/4m9x6/ https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.21291 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113808 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.001 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-2450-7 https://doi.org/10.4274/npa.y6451 https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.150.11.1737 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Bollen, K. A. (2014). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons. Carter, J. V., Pan, J., Rai, S. N., & Galandiuk, S. (2016). ROC-ing along: Evaluation and interpretation of receiver operating characteristic curves. Surgery, 159(6), 1638–1645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.12.029 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587 Cripps, B. (2017). Psychometric testing: Critical perspectives. John Wiley & Sons. Donker, T., van Straten, A., Marks, I., & Cuijpers, P. (2009). A brief web-based screening questionnaire for common mental disorders: Development and validation. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(3), Article e19. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1134 Dunn, T. J. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046 Federici, A., Summerfeldt, L. J., Harrington, J. L., McCabe, R. E., Purdon, C. L., Rowa, K., & Antony, M. M. (2010). Consistency between self-report and clinician-administered versions of the Yale- Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24(7), 729–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.05.005 Fink-Lamotte, J., Jahn, I., Stierle, C., Kühne, F., Lincoln, T., Stengler, K., & Exner, C. (2021). Die Validierung der Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (DOCS) an einer deutschsprachigen Stichprobe [The validation of the Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (DOCS) in a German-speaking sample]. Verhaltenstherapie, 31(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1159/000510093 Foa, E. B., Huppert, J. D., Leiberg, S., Langner, R., Kichic, R., Hajcak, G., & Salkovskis, P. M. (2002). The Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory: Development and validation of a short version. Psychological Assessment, 14(4), 485–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.14.4.485 Glöckner-Rist, A., & Rist, F. (2014). Deutsche Version des Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ- d) [German Version of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ-d)]. Zusammenstellung Sozialwissenschaftlicher Items Und Skalen (ZIS). https://doi.org/10.6102/zis219 Gönner, S., Leonhart, R., & Ecker, W. (2007). Das Zwangsinventar OCI-R – Die deutsche Version des Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory–Revised [The OCI-R – German Version of the Obsessive- Compulsive Inventory – Revised]. PPmP – Psychotherapie · Psychosomatik · Medizinische Psychologie, 57(9–10), 395–404. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-970894 Hair, J. F. (2009). Multivariate Data Analysis (Kennesaw State University Faculty Articles). https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/facpubs/2925 Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage India. Hajcak, G., Huppert, J. D., Simons, R. F., & Foa, E. B. (2004). Psychometric properties of the OCI-R in a college sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42(1), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2003.08.002 Hand, I., & Büttner-Westphal, H. (1991). Die Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS): Ein halbstrukturiertes Interview zur Beurteilung des Schweregrades von Denk- und Müller, Fink-Lamotte, Jelinek et al. 21 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.12.029 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587 https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1134 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.05.005 https://doi.org/10.1159/000510093 https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.14.4.485 https://doi.org/10.6102/zis219 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-970894 https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/facpubs/2925 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2003.08.002 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Handlungszwängen [Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS): A semi-structured interview to assess the severity of obsessions and compulsions]. Verhaltenstherapie, 1(3), 223– 225. https://doi.org/10.1159/000257972 Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde, J. G. (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(2), 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 Hauschildt, M., Dar, R., Schröder, J., & Moritz, S. (2019). Congruence and discrepancy between self- rated and clinician-rated symptom severity on the Yale–Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y- BOCS) before and after a low-intensity intervention. Psychiatry Research, 273, 595–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.01.092 Houben, M., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Kuppens, P. (2015). The relation between short-term emotion dynamics and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 901–930. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038822 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Kemper, C. J., Ziegler, M., & Taylor, S. (2011). ASI-3 – Angstsensitivitätsindex-3 [ASI-3 – Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3]. In Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID) (Ed.), Open Test Archive. Trier, Germany: ZPID. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.403 Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236 Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 Külz, A. K., Landmann, S., Cludius, B., Hottenrott, B., Rose, N., Heidenreich, T., Hertenstein, E., Voderholzer, U., & Moritz, S. (2014). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in obsessive- compulsive disorder: Protocol of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry, 14(1), Article 314. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-014-0314-8 Külz, A. K., Landmann, S., Cludius, B., Rose, N., Heidenreich, T., Jelinek, L., Alsleben, H., Wahl, K., Philipsen, A., Voderholzer, U., Maier, J. G., & Moritz, S. (2019). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) and residual symptoms after cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT): A randomized controlled trial. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 269(2), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-018-0957-4 Löwe, B., Spitzer, R. L., Zipfel, S., & Herzog, W. (2002). PHQ-D Gesundheitsfragebogen für Patienten [German Version of the Patient Health Questionnaire]. Pfizer. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130 Validation German Version OCI-12 22 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://doi.org/10.1159/000257972 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.01.092 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038822 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.403 https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-014-0314-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-018-0957-4 https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130 https://www.psychopen.eu/ MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84 Margraf, J., & Cwik, J. C. (2017). Mini-DIPS Open Access: Diagnostisches Kurzinterview bei psychischen Störungen [Mini-DIPS Open Access: Brief Diagnostic Interview for Mental Disorders]. Bochum, Germany: Forschungs- und Behandlungszentrum für Psychische Gesundheit, Ruhr-Universität Bochum. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601087 Meuldijk, D., Giltay, E. J., Carlier, I. V., van Vliet, I. M., van Hemert, A. M., & Zitman, F. G. (2017). A validation study of the Web Screening Questionnaire (WSQ) compared with the Mini- International Neuropsychiatric Interview–Plus (MINI–Plus). JMIR Mental Health, 4(3), Article e35. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.5453 Müller, C. L., Jelinek, L., Fink-Lamotte, J., Scheunemann, J., McKay, D., Abramowitz, J. S., Abramovitch, A., & Cludius, B. (2025). Four questions for clarity: A first investigation of the German version of the OCI-4 as an ultra-brief screening tool for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders, 45, Article 100953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2025.100953 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 R Core Team. (2024). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (Version R 4.4.1) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org Rosenfeld, R., Dar, R., Anderson, D., Kobak, K., & Greist, J. (1992). A computer-administered version of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale. Psychological Assessment, 4(3), 329–332. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.3.329 Schmitt, T. A. (2011). Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406653 Simos, G., Zikopoulou, O., Nisyraiou, A., & Zafiropoulos, K. (2019). Psychometric properties of the Greek version of the Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory–Revised in a non-clinical young adult sample. Psychology, 10(16), 2247–2265. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2019.1016142 Solem, S., Hjemdal, O., Vogel, P. A., & Stiles, T. C. (2010). A Norwegian version of the Obsessive- Compulsive Inventory–Revised: Psychometric properties. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51(6), 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00798.x Souza, F. P., Foa, E. B., Meyer, E., Niederauer, K. G., & Cordioli, A. V. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory: Revised (OCI–R). Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 33, 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-44462011005000002 Müller, Fink-Lamotte, Jelinek et al. 23 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601087 https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.5453 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2025.100953 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 https://www.R-project.org https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.3.329 https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406653 https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2019.1016142 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00798.x https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-44462011005000002 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Steketee, G., Frost, R., & Bogart, K. (1996). The Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale: Interview versus self-report. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34(8), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(96)00036-8 Storch, E. A., De Nadai, A. S., Conceição do Rosário, M., Shavitt, R. G., Torres, A. R., Ferrão, Y. A., Miguel, E. C., Lewin, A. B., & Fontenelle, L. F. (2015). Defining clinical severity in adults with obsessive–compulsive disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 63, 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2015.08.007 Universität Münster. (2025). PsyWeb. https://psyweb.uni-muenster.de World Health Organization. (1992). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. World Health Organization. World Health Organization. (2019). International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision (ICD-11). https://icd.who.int Youden, W. J. (1950). Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer, 3(1), 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3 Clinical Psychology in Europe (CPE) is the official journal of the European Association of Clinical Psychology and Psychological Treatment (EACLIPT). PsychOpen GOLD is a publishing service provided by the Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Germany. Validation German Version OCI-12 24 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2025, Vol. 7(4), Article e16165 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16165 https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(96)00036-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2015.08.007 https://psyweb.uni-muenster.de https://icd.who.int https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Validation German Version OCI-12 (Introduction) Method Translation Procedure Study Procedure Participants Measures Analytic Plan Results Confirmatory Factor Analysis Reliability Construct Validity Diagnostic Accuracy Discussion Limitations Conclusion (Additional Information) Funding Acknowledgments Competing Interests Author Contributions Ethics Statement Author Note Social Media Accounts Preregistration Data Availability Supplementary Materials References