Talk:Scrupulosity/GA1
Latest comment: 2 days ago by ThaesOfereode in topic GA review
GA review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: ThaesOfereode (talk · contribs) 01:56, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: ShillAwayAsSeenOnTV (talk · contribs) 16:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
I have experience editing and advising edits on psych pages, so I am a good fit to review this article. ShillAwayAsSeenOnTV (talk)
- @ShillAwayAsSeenOnTV: Wonderful! I look forward to reading your comments soon. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- @ThaesOfereode I am interested in how the literature covers the distinction between Scrupulosity and OCD. I personally could not find any factor analyses placing Scrupulosity into a family of disorders, like how Roysamb or Keyes have done this.
- Particularly, what about the neuropsychology of Scrupulosity and OCD? Perhaps this would aid comparison and contrast between the disorders. Here are a few abstracts to consider:
- Neural Correlates of Moral Sensitivity in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/1211981
- Subtle Threats to Moral Self-Perceptions Trigger Obsessive–Compulsive Related Cognitions: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10608-013-9568-6
- Symptom Dimensions in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder as Predictors of Neurobiology and Treatment Response: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40501-018-0142-4 ShillAwayAsSeenOnTV (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Scrupulosity is widely considered a subtype of OCD. There were some concerns in the 90s and 00s that some substantive differences between scrupulosity and other forms of OCD (helpfully adumbrated in Abramowitz & Jacoby [2014], § 2.8) may have warranted a differentiated diagnosis. More recent literature overwhelmingly rejects these differences as substantive enough. The only factor analysis I found useful for scrupulosity is the one cited by Miller & Hodges (2008). Happy to integrate those articles for neuropsychological discussion though; standby as I work on doing so. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- @ShillAwayAsSeenOnTV: I've integrated parts of the Thorsen et al. (2018) source. In general, I think the Harrison et al. (2012) and Abramovitch et al. (2013) are more reporting experimental results, which, while important, are dispreferred over clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses for medicine-related articles. Still, I've added them to the "Further reading" section because I think they are of high quality and will be useful to the more invested reader. I look forward to the rest of the review. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- @ThaesOfereode yeah you're right to cite WP:MEDASSESS, sometimes I forget to switch gears from writing manuscripts. I appreciate your effort to nonetheless find a way to incorporate the sources.
- More feedback to come. ShillAwayAsSeenOnTV (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Thaes,
- I'm sorry this is taking so long. A lot is going on right now:
- - I had a review re-open for a math article.
- - Someone was disruptively editing the Mania page.
- I need a week to get sorted over here for these and other reasons. Anyway, technically, we are still waiting for an assistant reviewer on this article.
- Thank you for your patience, ShillAwayAsSeenOnTV (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Not a problem at all; take your time. I don't know if you saw, but I left a note at the Good Article talk page in the hopes of finding you an assistant reviewer, since your request was probably lost in the ether after the GAN drive ended.
ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Not a problem at all; take your time. I don't know if you saw, but I left a note at the Good Article talk page in the hopes of finding you an assistant reviewer, since your request was probably lost in the ether after the GAN drive ended.
- @ShillAwayAsSeenOnTV: I've integrated parts of the Thorsen et al. (2018) source. In general, I think the Harrison et al. (2012) and Abramovitch et al. (2013) are more reporting experimental results, which, while important, are dispreferred over clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses for medicine-related articles. Still, I've added them to the "Further reading" section because I think they are of high quality and will be useful to the more invested reader. I look forward to the rest of the review. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- Scrupulosity is widely considered a subtype of OCD. There were some concerns in the 90s and 00s that some substantive differences between scrupulosity and other forms of OCD (helpfully adumbrated in Abramowitz & Jacoby [2014], § 2.8) may have warranted a differentiated diagnosis. More recent literature overwhelmingly rejects these differences as substantive enough. The only factor analysis I found useful for scrupulosity is the one cited by Miller & Hodges (2008). Happy to integrate those articles for neuropsychological discussion though; standby as I work on doing so. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)