Assessment of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

The team checked if the Maudsley Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory (MOCI) really works. They looked at test-retest scores, internal consistency, and how well it tells OCD apart from other problems.

Adults with anxiety or OCD filled out the short yes-no checklist twice. The study did not test a treatment; it only tested the ruler.

The MOCI scores stayed stable across time and the items hung together nicely. It clearly flagged people with OCD versus those without it, except when depression was in the mix.

The scale is good enough to track change during therapy, but you should add direct counts of target rituals for extra sensitivity.

Scahill et al. (2016) later showed the kid version, CY-BOCS-ASD, catches big drops in repetitive behavior during drug trials. Their work extends the MOCI downward in age and upward in sensitivity.

Gutierrez et al. (1998) found the Motivation Assessment Scale failed on reliability. Together with the MOCI paper, the pair warns us: some checklists work, some do not—always read the psychometric fine print.

Busch et al. (2010) later validated REDSOCS for preschool disruptive behavior using the same playbook: interobserver checks, convergent validity, treatment sensitivity. The two studies mirror each other across different ages and problems.

If you run OCD treatment, keep the MOCI in your toolbox for a quick self-report baseline. Pair it with real-time behavior counts to catch small changes the scale might miss. And remember: a solid ruler in adults does not guarantee a solid ruler in kids—pick the CY-BOCS-ASD for children and always check reliability data before you trust any form.