ArticlePsychology research and behavior management2026
Measuring Cognitive Flexibility in Chinese Individuals with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Psychometric Validation and Factor Structure of the Chinese Version of the Flexibility in Daily Life Scale.
Article in Psychology research and behavior management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Impaired cognitive flexibility is a core feature of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and may contribute to symptom persistence and variabe therapeutic outcomes. However, traditional measures may adequately capture how cognitive flexibility manifests in daily life. The Flexibility in Daily Life scale (FIDL) is a novel developed self-report instrument assessing multidimensional facets of cognitive flexibility. The present study sought to determine the psychometric structure of the Chinese version of the FIDL and its suitability for individuals within an OCD population. Patients and Methods: The 37-item FIDL underwent forward-back translation and cross-cultural adaptation. The baseline comprised 157 participants (76 individuals with OCD and 81 healthy controls), with an OCD subsample(N=54) completing a one-month retest. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) initially evaluated the established 21-item five-factor model in the full sample. Alternative structures (one-, two-, and correlated three-factor models) were also examined. Given suboptimal model fit indices, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was subsequently performed in the OCD sample (N=76) to derive a structure more representative of clinical characteristics. Finally, Bayesian exploratory factor analysis (BEFA) was applied to ascertain factor stability. Results: The established 21-item five-factor model demonstrated suboptimal fit in the Chinese OCD sample (N=157; CFI=0.791, TLI=0.822, RMSEA=0.087, SRMR=0.082). EFA identified a revised 25-item three-factor structure, labeled Contextual Adaptability, Cognitive-Behavioral Rigidity, and Routine/Control, which was corroborated by BEFA. The revised scale exhibited satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.699-0.838; McDonald's ω=0.721-0.846) and acceptable test-retest reliability (r=0.777-0.844). The three-factor model failed to demonstrate adequate fit (χ Conclusion: The findings provide preliminary evidence that the Chinese FIDL may capture clinically relevant aspects of daily-life cognitive flexibility in OCD populations. The revised three-factor structure offers a potential framework for assessing specific inflexibility profiles and identifying potential intervention targets, including contextual adjustment difficulties, rigid cognitive-behavioral responding, and over-reliance on routine/control. These findings underscore the importance of considering clinical and cultural context when evaluating cognitive flexibility constructs. However, given the exploratory design, limited sample size, and excessive inter-factor overlap, further validation in larger, independent cohorts is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.