A Psychometric Examination of the Pathological Obsessive Compulsive Personality Scale (POPS): Initial Study in an Undergraduate Sample

Abstract

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) has been subject to numerous definition and classification changes, which has contributed to difficulties in reliable measurement of the disorder. Consequently, OCPD measures have yielded poor validity and inconsistent prevalence estimates. Reliable and valid measures of OCPD are needed. The aim of the current study was to examine the factor structure and psychometric properties of the Pathological Obsessive Compulsive Personality Scale (POPS). Participants (N = 571 undergraduates) completed a series of self-report measures online, including the POPS. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare the fit of unidimensional, five factor, and bifactor models of the POPS. Convergent and divergent validity were assessed in relation to other personality dimensions. A bifactor model provided the best fit to the data, indicating that the total POPS scale and four subscales can be scored to obtain reliable indicators of OCPD. The POPS was most strongly associated with a disorder-specific measure of OCPD, however there were also positive associations with theoretically disparate constructs, thus further research is needed to clarify validity of the scale.

Intolerance of uncertainty and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.

“…A bifactor structure has been identified for the POPS, consisting of five specific trait factors (Rigidity, Emotional Overcontrol, Maladaptive Perfectionism, Reluctance to Delegate, and Difficulty with Change) and an overall factor (based on the total score) that represents obsessive–compulsive personality pathology on a continuum of increasing severity and dysfunction. The POPS has demonstrated excellent internal consistency reliability as well as convergent and discriminant validity (Sadri, McEvoy, Pinto, Anderson, & Egan, 2019; Wheaton & Pinto, 2017). The POPS has previously been found to differentiate between individuals meeting diagnostic criteria for OCPD (established via semistructured clinical interview) from healthy controls, indicating known-groups validity (Pinto, Ansell, & Wright, 2011).…”

Case reports: Using Good Psychiatric Management (GPM) conceptualizations in the dimensional assessment and treatment of personality disorders

“…Considering her self-critical nature, the team also administered the Pathological Obsessive-compulsive Personality Scale (POPS). She had a higher mean total score (and higher mean emotional overcontrol, maladaptive perfectionism, reluctance to delegate and difficulty with change sub scores) than undergraduate students from the study validation sample (19). Finally, using ICD-11 criteria, she was also clinically assessed as severe personality disorder, with a core trait of anankastia and concomitant significant levels of negative affectivity and detachment.…”