Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25566357›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2013

A rasch model to test the cross-cultural validity in the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) across six geo-cultural groups.

Anzalee Khan, Christian Yavorsky, Stacy Liechti, Mark Opler, Brian Rothman, Guillermo DiClemente, Luka Lucic, Sofija Jovic, Toshiya Inada, Lawrence Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Thought Suppression in Primary Psychotic Disorders and Substance/Medication Induced Psychotic Disorder.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  10. Staging of Schizophrenia With the Use of PANSS: An International Multi-Center Study.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Anzalee KhanProPhase, LLC, New York, NY United States of America ; Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, NY United States of America ; Manahttan Psychiatric Center, Wards Island, NY United States of America.
Christian YavorskyProPhase, LLC, New York, NY United States of America ; CROnos Clinical Consulting Services, Hamilton, NJ United States of America.
Stacy LiechtiThe PANSS Research Institute, Inc, New York, NY United States of America.
Mark OplerProPhase, LLC, New York, NY United States of America ; New York University, School of Medicine, New York, NY United States of America.
Brian RothmanProPhase, LLC, New York, NY United States of America.
Guillermo DiClementeCROnos Clinical Consulting Services, Hamilton, NJ United States of America.
Luka LucicProPhase, LLC, New York, NY United States of America ; Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, NY United States of America.
Sofija JovicProPhase, LLC, New York, NY United States of America.
Toshiya InadaInstitute of Neuropsychiatry, Seiwa Hospital, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Lawrence YangProPhase, LLC, New York, NY United States of America ; Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, NY United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of this study was to examine the cross-cultural differences of the PANSS across six geo-cultural regions. The specific aims are (1) to examine measurement properties of the PANSS; and (2) to examine how each of the 30 items function across geo-cultural regions.

methodsData was obtained for 1,169 raters from 6 different regions: Eastern Asia (n = 202), India (n = 185), Northern Europe (n = 126), Russia & Ukraine (n = 197), Southern Europe (n = 162), United States (n = 297). A principle components analysis assessed unidimensionality of the subscales. Rasch rating scale analysis examined cross-cultural differences among each item of the PANSS.

resultsLower item values reflects items in which raters often showed less variation in the scores; higher item values reflects items with more variation in the scores. Positive Subscale: Most regions found item P5 (Excitement) to be the most difficult item to score. Items varied in severity from -0.93 [item P6. Suspiciousness/persecution (USA) to 0.69 item P4. Excitement (Eastern Asia)]. Item P3 (Hallucinatory Behavior) was the easiest item to score for all geographical regions. Negative Subscale: The most difficult item to score for all regions is N7 (Stereotyped Thinking) with India showing the most difficulty Δ = 0.69, and Northern Europe and the United States showing the least difficulty Δ = 0.21, each. The second most difficult item for raters to score was N1 (Blunted Affect) for most countries including Southern Europe (Δ = 0.30), Eastern Asia (Δ = 0.28), Russia & Ukraine (Δ = 0.22) and India (Δ = 0.10). General Psychopathology: The most difficult item for raters to score for all regions is G4 (Tension) with difficulty levels ranging from Δ = 1.38 (India) to Δ = 0.72.

conclusionsThere were significant differences in response to a number of items on the PANSS, possibly caused by a lack of equivalence between the original and translated versions, cultural differences among interpretation of items or scoring parameters. Knowing which items are problematic for various cultures can help guide PANSS training and make training specialized for specific geographical regions.

Identifiers

PMID25566357
PMCPMC4270028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.