Background: The Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (DOCS) is a well-established tool for assessing obsessive-compulsive symptomatology. A reliability generalization meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the average reliability of DOCS scores and how reliability estimates vary according to the composition and variability of samples, to identify study characteristics that can explain its variability, and to estimate the reliability induction rate.
Method: A literature search produced 86 studies that met the inclusion criteria.
Results: For the DOCS total scores, an average alpha coefficient of .925 was found (95% CI [.920,.931]), as well as mean alphas of .881, .905, .913, and .914 for Contamination, Responsibility, Unacceptable Thoughts, and Symmetry subscales, respectively. Moderator analysis showed that internal consistency fell significantly the more clinical and subclinical participants there were in the sample, and the larger the mean score in the sample for the total scores. The most important moderator variables for the subscales were the standard deviation and the mean of the scores.
Conclusions: The DOCS scores exhibited excellent internal consistency reliability for both total score and subscale scores and DOCS is suitable both for research and clinical purposes.