Validation and Measurement Invariance of the Leuven Obsessional Intrusions Inventory in Two Different Cultures

Fulya Ozcanli; Laurence Claes; Eva Ceulemans; Dirk Hermans; Batja Mesquita

doi:10.5334/pb.537

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Factorial solutions of the LOII (Ozcanli et al., 2019).

Two-factor-solution	Factor 1 (Bad-self)		Factor 2 (Bad-outcome)
	TR	BE	TR	BE
	.99	.97	.98	.97
Six-factor-solution	Factor 1 (Mixed doubts)		Factor 2 (Sexual/religious)		Factor 3 (Contamination)		Factor 4 (Aggressive)		Factor 5 (Illness)		Factor 6 (Religious doubts)
	TR	BE	TR	BE	TR	BE	TR	BE	TR	BE	TR	BE
	.99	.97	.99	.93	.98	.96	.97	.94	.91	.82	.92	.31

[i] Note: Equivalence values based on Tucker coefficients, for the Turkish and Belgian sample. separately. Bold values (Tucker coefficients > .90) represent the dimensions that, in the respective countries, are congruent with dimensions in the pooled sample.

Table 2

Robust fit indexes of the different models according to DWLS estimator.

	Turkey			Belgium
	CFI	RMSEA (90% CI)	χ²	CFI	RMSEA (90% CI)	χ²
Model 1	.822	.070 (.068–.072)	4707.98***	NA	NA	NA
Model 2	.894	.058 (.056–.061)	2773.89***	.924	.057 (.54–.060)	2209.98***
Model 3	.948	.062 (.056–.067)	560.12***	.962	.064 (.057–.071)	476.37***

Standardized parameter estimates for Turkish and Belgian LOII-R factor model (Model3). Numbers in parentheses are Turkish followed by Belgian loading estimates; all parameter estimates are significant at p < .001.

Table 3

Measurement invariance for Model-3.

	X²	ΔX²	Df	CFI	ΔCFI	RMSEA	ΔRMSEA
Configural	521.49		328	.982		.033
Metric	616.64		344	.975		.038
Configural vs metric		95.15			.007		.005
Scalar	796.78		360	.960		.047
Metric vs scalar		180.14			.015		.009

Table 4

Cronbach alpha coefficients of the LOII-R total scale score and its subscales.

	Turkey	Belgium
Total score	.84	.88
Sexual	.84	.84
Aggressive	.79	.81
Contamination	.81	.83
Doubts	.74	.79

Table 5

Zero order correlations between the variables in the Turkish and Belgian samples (upper diagonal represents the correlations in the Turkish sample, the lower diagonal in italics represents the correlations in the Belgian sample).

	LOII-T	LOII-S	LOII-A	LOII-D	LOII-C	PSWQ	PI-T	PI-I	PI-W	PI-C	PI-R	PI-P
LOII-T		.70**	.70**	.68**	.64**	.33**	.71**	.63**	.61**	.65**	.69**	.56**
LOII-S	.80**		.54**	.25**	.14*	.09	.34**	.31**	.31*	.34**	.33**	.32**
LOII-A	.77**	.67**		.31**	.17**	.13*	.49**	.48**	.42**	.46**	.43**	.35**
LOII-D	.74**	.39**	.40**		.33**	.50**	.57**	.48**	.47**	.53**	.54**	.52**
LOII-C	.74**	.46**	.39**	.37**		.18**	.49**	.42**	.47**	.48**	.55**	.34**
PSWQ	.26**	.1	*.08*	.40**	.16*		.47**	.41**	.42**	.47**	.48**	.47**
PI-T	.77**	.63**	.58**	.57**	.59**	.29**		.91**	.93**	.92**	.94**	.88**
PI-I	.63**	.60**	.68**	.31**	.36**	*.11*	.70**		.80**	.81**	.84**	.76**
PI-W	.65**	.48**	.41**	.31**	.74**	.1	.78**	.57**		.84**	.86**	.76**
PI-C	.48**	.37**	.29**	.44**	.35**	.21**	.79**	.31**	.48**		.83**	.79**
PI-R	.69**	.51**	.50**	.69**	.39**	.51**	.83**	.53**	.46**	.58**		.79**
PI-P	.46**	.48**	.36**	.26**	.38**	*.02*	.75**	.49**	.56**	.57**	.43**

[i] Note: LOII = Revised Leuven Obsessional Intrusions Inventory, PSWQ = Penn State Worry Questionnaire, and PI = Padua Inventory-Revised, LOII-T = LOII total scale score, LOII-S = LOII Sexual intrusions, LOII-A = LOII Aggressive intrusions, LOII-D = LOII Doubts, LOII-C = LOII Contamination intrusions, PSWQ = PSWQ total score, PI-R-T = Padua Inventory total score, PI-R-I = Padua Inventory Impulses subscale, PI-R-W = Padua Inventory Washing subscale, PI-R-C = Padua Inventory Checking subscale, PI-R-R = Padua Inventory Rumination subscale, and PI-R-P = Padua Inventory Precision subscale. * p < .05, ** p < .01.